Separation of Church, State Targeted

defending the First Amendment against the Christian right ...

... because if Jews don't speak out, they'll think we don't mind

Web JewsOnFirst

Optional Member Code

Please email us
(click here)
catcher@JewsOnFirst.org

And "bookmark" us at
JewsOnFirst.org

Jews on First
P.O. Box 2283
Rockville MD 20847

310-910-9153

Separation of Church, State Targeted

Constitutional Change Would Restore School Prayer, Religious Displays

By Laurie Goodstein and John E. Yang, Washington Post, March 25 1997

A Republican congressman, backed by a coalition of conservative Christian groups, yesterday unveiled new language for a proposed constitutional amendment that would knock down what he said is the needlessly high wall of separation between church and state.

The Religious Freedom Amendment proposed by Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.) would, if adopted, permit states and municipalities to fund private religious schools, to allow prayer in public school classrooms and graduations and to place religious symbols on government property.

"This is to restore the protection of our precious religious freedoms and liberties which have been eroded by a steady onslaught of court decisions," Istook said. "Courts have gone far beyond outlawing prayer in many public school settings. They have aided a systematic campaign to strip religious symbols, references and heritage from the public stage. . . . This is our peaceful answer to that assault."

Congressional conservatives and religious groups who agree on the need for some kind of amendment on religious freedom have been feuding among themselves for more than two years about its wording.

Though Istook sought yesterday to paint a picture of harmony, at least one conservative House member and influential groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Christian Legal Society said they would still be unable to support Istook's version because it does not protect religious minorities.

The Christian Coalition intends to spend between $1 million and $2 million on advertising and a grass-roots campaign supporting the amendment, executive director Ralph Reed pledged at a news conference yesterday. "There is no issue and there will be no legislation that will take a higher priority," he said.

Istook's proposed 52-word amendment says, "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God: The right to pray or acknowledge religious belief, heritage or tradition on public property, including public schools, shall not be infringed. The government shall not compel joining in prayer, initiate or compose school prayers, discriminate against or deny a benefit on account of religion."

Even those sympathetic to a religious freedom amendment say they are troubled by the wording because by omitting whose "right" it is to "acknowledge religious belief," it could be interpreted as "the government's right."

Will Dodson, general counsel of the Southern Baptist Convention, said: "The Baptist faith and message says that the church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. We think that's bad for the church and bad for religion because it creates resentment against the majority."

Steven McFarland, general counsel of the Christian Legal Society, a national network of evangelical Christian lawyers, said in Salt Lake City the city council could erect a statue to Brigham Young, and in Seattle, the Earth Goddess. "We could potentially balkanize America," he said. "In each community, whoever can wrestle political power over city hall can get their faith `acknowledged,' i.e., preferred."

The drive to pass a religious freedom amendment bogged down in the last Congress when Republicans could not agree on a single approach. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) and Rep. Charles T. Canady (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, opposed Istook's language, saying it did not protect religious minorities. House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) tried, but failed, to break the logjam by introducing language of his own -- which tracked Hyde's.

A spokesman for Hyde said he does not intend to reintroduce his amendment because he believes "there has to be a single legislative vehicle to move this debate forward." Armey released a statement saying he also would support Istook's amendment, which Istook plans to introduce after Congress returns from recess April 7.

But Canady said, "This is not a done deal as far as I'm concerned, and I will do everything in my power to make certain that the Republican leadership does not just try to railroad this through." A coalition backed by a lengthy list of religious groups, including the National Council of Churches, opposes any religious freedom amendment as "unnecessary, meddlesome and potentially harmful."

Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.