Mr. GOODLATTE. There is the practical problem of how much money is available, no question about that. And it obviously would create some but do you think we should purge all funding of student-initiated activities like that, or do you think that we should find a fair way to treat them all?

Mr. ALLEY. I think the fair way to treat them all was not to fund any of them.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well what message does that say about the free expression when they also provide funding to political organizations, to organizations that have all other manner of free speechwhat does that say about Government attitude toward religion when it makes that distinction between religious and nonreligious activities?

Mr. ALLEY. I think you and I have probably a basic difference here, but

[Laughter.]

Mr. ALLEY [continuing]. It strikes me that what the Government is saying is that we are so absolutely committed to freedom of religion in all ways, that we are prepared to see the first amendment operate as it has for 200 years over. This Nation is the most religious nation on the globe, and I genuinely believe that is the result of that gem in the first amendment which provides the context where every one of the people in this room can be proud of their religious traditions and grow and prosper without any interference whatsoever. It is a remarkable example, and I say to you if you look over to what is going on in other countries, Dick Howard at the University of Virginia has consulted with a great number of people about new constitutions, and one of the things they always point to is that first amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Oh, listen, I point to it too, but I think we have a different interpretation of it when we suggest that we are promoting freedom of religion by purging it from public places.

Let me ask you to take that to a further extreme. Why is it different to provide money than to provide the permission for those students to use a room or a building on the campus for that purpose? That also costs money, although it is indirect. Where do we take this too? Do we take it to the limit of all expression? If you say something on the campus, you have been provided with a government facility in which to do that. Where do you draw that line? Mr. ALLEY. Every student at the University of Virginia or at the high school or elementary level has a perfect right to express whatever views he or she wishes and to do that openly and with great protection.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Including with government support because they are doing it on a government-run facility that is paid for at taxpayers' expense?

Mr. ALLEY. If the university provides access to all groups other than religious, then it must provide to religious as well. The Court has already ruled that.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, why would that not include the student activity funds.

Mr. ALLEY. The funding is of a somewhat different nature and character because you are talking here about funding a publication

that is publishing views that are narrowly of its own persuasion. [Laughter.]

My point is that you should not do that with anyone. If the Moslems are doing it, the Jews are doing it, they should not be funded either. I think that funding of groups automatically ties you into entanglements, a very dangerous road to embark upon, and I think we have been wise to avoid that.

Mr. GOODLATTE. What about an organization that promotes antireligious views?

Mr. ALLEY. Well, according to Mr. Fuller, you cannot have that because atheists are religious in his view, and I tend to think that religion is the conscience and that the protection we have is against any organization becoming fundable. Now if you have atheism being promoted as a way of life, then the Government has no business funding that either. And I do not think it is. And I would suggest to you that the teachers in our public schools are probably as Christian as you are.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would agree with that-I would agree with that. Obviously there are exceptions. But the message that is sent to those students is that there is a distinction to be made between religious ideas and nonreligious ideas, and that somehow the nonreligious ideas cannot be discussed if there is any taint of the State involvement, even if the involvement is simply allowing the free exercise. And I think there is where you and I disagree because I think that we are weakening the second clause of the first amendment when we try to place what I think is a very long stretch of what establishment means of religion.

Thank you.

Mr. ALLEY. Well, let me suggest to you that taking the position that you take, which is clearly not the one I am taking, that even so, is it not possible that within the public school system—and that is really what we are focusing upon here that we could, rather than generate the notion that morality has gone down the drain because of the Engle decision, which is now supported by most people who were making that argument sometime back, argue that we are considering as a nation the precious character of religion to be so important that we give it a special standing that gives it the freedom that is clearly defined there, and we will not meddle with it, we will not have anything to do that will promote it and corrupt it. That I think is what the minister from Waynesboro was suggesting to you. And I think that is a message we can get out of our past and our history. Defunding or failure to fund in no way suggests antagonism toward religion. It may if people try to use it that way, but it is not necessary.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I respect that opinion, but I do not think that is the interpretation that a majority of people, including a majority of students, take from it. And I do think it is a contributing problem.

Thank you.

[Applause.]

Mr. CANADY. Professor, thank you.

Our next witness will be Jason Nauman, former student council president of Spotswood High School. He was initially denied the

right to pray at his high school graduation ceremony. Mr. Nauman, we appreciate you being with us today.

[Applause.]

STATEMENT OF JASON C. NAUMAN, FORMER STUDENT

COUNCIL PRESIDENT, SPOTSWOOD HIGH SCHOOL

Mr. NAUMAN. Thank you. Chairman Canady, Congressman Goodlatte, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today and I am grateful to be able to speak in favor of a religious equality and religious liberty constitutional amendment.

Some would argue that it is not necessary, that we already enjoy that protection, but I would disagree. The truth is that religious equality and the free speech rights of private citizens and the protection of religion is diminishing in public life. The myth of separation of church and state is dominating the discussion of religious rights. The theory of separation of church and state was an idea conceived by Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and by no means was it meant to be incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. Our Founding Fathers carefully drafted the Constitution to protect religion in American culture. Since the establishment of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, numerous court decisions have created confusion concerning the influence of religion in public life.

An example of these misinterpretations is the debate over prayer at commencement exercises. In February 1993, my senior class at Spotswood High School voted to have the student council president and the senior class president deliver the keynote commencement addresses. As student council president, I was called into a meeting with the principal and the senior class president to outline the regulations governing graduation speeches. During this meeting, the principal stated that a copy of our speeches would have to be reviewed and approved prior to commencement exercises. I asked if a prayer and/or references to God and Christianity were acceptable. And based on advice from the school board's attorney, the principal stated that anyone submitting a speech with such contents would be removed from the graduation program.

The attorneys based their advice to the school board on a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court ruling in Lee v. Weisman. In the decision, the Supreme Court held only that it violates the establishment clause for the school officials to invite clergy to give prayers at commencement. Justice Kennedy, speaking for the majority, made it clear that the Court's decision was limited to the particular facts before the Court. The decision was not intended to interfere with student-initiated prayer at graduation exercises.

I contacted the American Center for Law and Justice because I was surprised at this attempt to censor my free speech rights simply because I was a student. An outside speaker, one not including religious expressions, would not have been subject to this type of censorship. Eventually the school board's attorney revised their understanding of Lee v. Weisman and I was informed that it was "no longer the policy of Rockingham County public schools to remove a speaker from the graduation program based on the contents of their speech."

This was after the entire second semester of my senior year was sacrificed to a battle which was unnecessary and could have been prevented with a religious equality constitutional amendment. My academic time was constantly interrupted for meetings with the principal and the school board, and I was encouraged not to rock the boat. With a constitutional amendment providing for religious equality, there would not have been a boat to rock or a battle to fight.

An amendment would prevent this type of confusion and misinterpretations of ambiguous court decisions. It would also prevent organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union from trampling my rights in pursuit of someone else's.

[Applause.]

Mr. NAUMAN. Abraham Lincoln warned us all, "I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court. *** At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made * the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having * * * resigned their Government into the hands of the eminent tribunal."

[Applause.]

Mr. NAUMAN. Mr. Lincoln continues, "Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulties."

[Applause.]

Mr. NAUMAN. I encourage you to support an amendment which would prevent judicial tyranny, ensure religious equality and protect the free speech rights of student like myself.

[Applause.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nauman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JASON C. NAUMAN, FORMER STUDENT COUNCIL
PRESIDENT, SPOTSWOOD HIGH SCHOOL

Members of Congress. Ladies and Gentlemen:

I was invited to speak here today in favor of the proposed Religious Equality Amendment. Religious equality, private citizens' free speech rights, and protection of religion is diminishing in public life. The myth of separation of church and state is dominating the discussion of religious rights. The theory of separation of church and state was an idea conceived by Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. By no means was it meant to be incorporated into the United States Constitution. Our founding fathers carefully drafted the constitution to protect religion in American culture. Since the establishment of judicial review in Marbury versus Madison, numerous court decisions have created confusion concerning the influence of religion in public life.

An example of these misinterpretations is the debate over prayer at graduation ceremonies. In February of 1993, my senior class at Spotswood High School voted to have the Student Council President and the Senior Class President deliver the keynote commencement addresses. As Student Council President, I was called into a meeting with the Senior Class President and the principal to outline the regulations governing graduation speeches. During this meeting, the principal stated that a copy of our speeches would have to be reviewed and approved prior to commencement exercises. I asked if a prayer and references to God and/or Christianity were acceptable. Based on advice from the School Board's attorneys, the principal stated that anyone submitting a speech with such contents would be removed from the graduation program. The Attorneys based their advice to the School Board on a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court ruling Lee versus Weisman. In the decision, the Supreme Court held only that it violates the Establishment Clause for school officials to invite clergy to give prayers at commencement. Justice Kennedy, speaking for the majority, made it clear that the court's decision was limited to the particular facts before the court. The decision was not intended to interfere with student initiated prayer at graduation exercises.

I contacted the American Center for Law and Justice because I was surprised at this attempt to sensor my free speech rights simply because I was a student. An outside speaker would not have been subject to this type of censorship. Eventually, the School Board's attorneys revised their understanding of Lee versus Weisman and I was informed that it was "no longer the policy of Rockingham County Public Schools to remove a speaker from the graduation program based on the contents of their speech." This was after the entire second semester of my Senior year was sacrificed to a battle which was unnecessary and could have been prevented with a Religious Equality Constitutional Amendment. My academic time was constantly interrupted for meetings with the principal and the school board. I was encouraged not to "rock the boat". With a constitutional amendment providing for religious equality, there would not have been a boat to rock or a battle to fight.