Congress soon to vote on Religious Freedom Amendment

The Religious Freedom Amendment

"To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any state shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity. prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

In the first week of June, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on the Religious Freedom Amendment (RFA), also known as House Joint Resolution (HJ Res) 78. It will be the first time in nearly 28 years that the House has held a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment dealing with voluntary school prayer and religious freedom.

It will correct 36 years of Supreme Court decisions that have warped the original plain and simple meaning of our religious rights under the 1 st Amendment to the Constitution. Here is what it will do:

* For the first time, our Constitution will mention America's belief in God. Every one of our 50 states has an express reference to God within their state Constitutions. The Religious Freedom Amendment does so for the federal Constitution; it echoes the words in the Declaration of Independence, where our Founding Fathers wrote that our unalienable rights come not from government, but are an endowment from our Creator.

* Student-initiated and voluntary prayers could be voiced in public schools, whether in classrooms, school assemblies, graduations, sporting events, or other occasions. Court decisions restrict almost all school prayers; the minor exceptions are usually limited to clubs that gather before or after the school day, and even then only with special controls. The RFA does not permit teachers or any other agent of government to proselytize, or to dictate that any person must join in prayer, or to prescribe what prayer should be said.

* The Ten Commandments could again be posted in public schools and other public buildings. The Supreme Court banned the Ten Commandments from school buildings in 1980, but the RFA directs that the people's religious beliefs, heritage and traditions may again be recognized on public property, including schools. (However, the RFA expressly maintains the prohibition on any official religion for America!)

* Holiday displays such as Nativity scenes and menorahs, and the singing of Christmas carols, would be protected on public property. The Supreme Court has made it difficult or impossible to recognize special occasions, and the threat of lawsuits has intimidated schools to go even farther than the court has dictated. The RFA fixes this.

* Government programs could not use religion as an excuse to deny a benefit. There could be no direct government subsidy to any religion or church, but when government creates a program that furthers other purposes, it could not exclude any group because of their religious affiliation. For example, any government aid to nonpublic schools would have to include families who send their child to a church-affiliated school. As another example, if private drug treatment programs are funded, faith-based drug treatment programs could not be excluded.

Over 150 members of Congress have joined to co-sponsor the Religious Freedom Amendment. Opponents on the left typically resort to smear tactics against it and use hackneyed catch-phrases to try to control the issue and to limit debate. They attempt to mold the issue by getting the media to use terms such as "state-sponsored prayer," "official prayer," "religious coercion," "mandatory prayer," and the everpopular (but extremely misunderstood) "separation of church and state."

And a small number on the right claim that if we amend the Constitution, we are agreeing that the Supreme Court possessed the power to make the rulings that the RFA will correct.

In typical fashion, the mass media cover the myths about the RFA rather than explore the issue. We who love the Founding Father's concept of religious freedom must respond to these myths with the truth about how our courts have attacked that concept.

Myth #1: Amendment Isn't Really Needed

"We don't need another constitutional amendment because freedom of religion is fully protected under the lst Amendment, and we have the highest degree of religious liberty anywhere in the world. Students already can pray, and even meet in thousands of school Bible clubs. This new proposal violates the constitutional principle of separation of church and state."

The issue is not how much religious liberty remains, but instead is how much has been lost. The record shows the Supreme Court has misused the Ist Amendment to attack and limit religion rather than to protect it as the Ist Amendment intended. Prayer and religious speech are being restricted when other speech is not, supposedly as required by this very 1st Amendment!

* In 1962, the court struck down not only mandatory and government-composed prayers, but also prayers overlapping with a school activity, even, they said "when observance on the part of the students is voluntary" (Engel v. Vitale).

* In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public school (Stone v. Graham), reasoning that otherwise the students might "revere . . . and obey them."

* In 1985 (Wallace v. Jaffree) the court voided a moment of silence law, saying it was unconstitutional because it would have permitted silent prayer.

* A 1992 ruling (Lee v. Weisman) said a graduation prayer was unconstitutional, because students shouldn't be asked to respect religious expression.

What we have left is not neutral toward religion. School Bible clubs may exist, to be sure, but they are under restrictions that don't apply to other school clubs. (They cannot meet during school hours, or have an advisor, etc.)

The phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't come from the Constitution. The 1st Amendment was meant simply to affirm that America never should make any faith an official or required religion. "Separation of church and state" has been pushed as a substitute, sponsored by those who are intolerant of religion and those who believe in big government. Under their approach, as government expands into more aspects of life, religion must be pushed aside, to assure that "separation." It conveniently also pushes aside the values that religion brings to our lives-values often at odds with big government.

The Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, pinpointed the problem. Writing in his dissent in Wallace v. Ja.,free, Rehnquist wrote that this wrongful use of the term "separation of church and state" has caused a "mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights.... The `wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

Myth #2: Government Will Declare an Official Faith

"This allows government to favor majority religions at the expense of others-to declare an official faith, such as designating us a `Christian Nation.' "

The RFA explicitly says otherwise; it does not permit any faith to be given "official" status. Moreover, it does not repeal the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'), but simply corrects its faulty interpretation by the courts.

Some seek to pervert the intent of the Bill of Rights by claiming that it's intended to protect only minorities; the true intent is to protect all of us, minority and majority. But the courts are wrongfully using it to suppress the majority who believe prayer and religious expression are proper in public places.

The Supreme Court has ruled the Constitution does not permit symbols of hate to be banned, such as a Nazi swastika. Yet they say it does require the banning of symbols of love and hope, such as a cross, or a Nativity scene on public property. Government agencies have also banned religious items and symbols from workers' desks, including Christian and non-Christian items, and "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Hannukah" banners in post offices.

Myth #3: Won't Work In Diverse Society

"School prayer can't work in today's diverse society. There's no way to decide who would pray, or who would compose the prayer. And it makes a captive audience of students who don't want to hear a prayer."

This myth is really a way of attacking free speech itself. If nobody can speak unless everyone agrees, then we have censorship, not freedom. It's dangerous to impose silence simply because someone else disagrees. We don't ask "How could free speech work?" because we know that neither the courts nor our government should make that decision for us. The same is true with prayer and other religious speech-individuals and groups can work together however they see fit, so long as they don't compel anyone else to take part. Didn't we all learn in kindergarten about taking turns?

Contrary to what the "political correctness" movement seeks, there is no constitutional protection from hearing something we don't like. In schools and public settings, we learn to be tolerant by respecting differing views.

The best model to follow is how we conduct the Pledge of Allegiance. Most students recite it, but some sit silently, and a few even leave the room. The Supreme Court ruled that no student can be compelled to say the Pledge, but those who object are not permitted to silence those who wish to say it.

This is the best model for voluntary school prayer. Students who wish could rotate and take turns just as they do on everything else. It is something simple, just as it was in America's schools for almost 200 years, except that government would not be permitted to select a prayer for students, nor require joining in any prayer.

Myth#4: Here Come the Witches

"Aren't we just inviting cults, witches and Satanists to come into public schools and influence our children?"

This is a scare tactic, because there's no real threat of this type. It never surfaced when school prayer was common, and any such efforts would remain exceedingly rare. Would we silence millions of prayers from fear that the privilege would be abused on extremely rare occasions-if even then?

Just as free speech does not give a student the right to interrupt and change topics in class, the RFA does not permit disruptions. It would not require schools to bring in outside groups. Students who belong to highly unpopular groups might indeed want an equal chance to offer a prayer on extremely rare occasions at some school, but this is no reason to censor all prayers across America. It is extremely rare that we hear a truly offensive prayer; it would remain that way.

Those who object strongly may always leave rather than listen to somebody's free speech, but equal treatment does not permit us to silence someone simply because we disagree, even in a public place. We only need to apply normal rules of orderly behavior, just as free speech does not allow someone to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Those standards would remain in constitutional law.

Far-fetched versions of this argument claim the amendment would protect animal sacrifice and other hideous practices, which it absolutely would not do. The Ist Amendment yields when necessary to avoid, as the courts express it, "substantial threat to public safety, peace and order." The courts maintain that free exercise of religion is not a license to disregard general laws on behavior, such as those against advocating the violent overthrow of the government, polygamy, the use of illegal drugs, and prostitution. Those types of protections would continue under the Religious Freedom Amendment.

Myth #5: Religion Belongs Only in the Home

"Children should be taught religion at home and church, not at school. They have plenty of time and opportunity to pray in other places; they don't need to do so at school"

The RFA is not about teaching religious doctrine, but about permitting people to keep their faith as a normal part of everyday life. If we have freedom of religion only when we are at home or at church, we do not have true freedom of religion. We would never give up the right to free speech except at home, church, or some other limited places.

This notion also ignores the rights of the majority, who are required to be in school (for the biggest part of their day), yet are forced to leave their normal religious expressions behind while they are there. As Justice Potter Stewart noted in his dissent in Abington v. Schemp (1963), "a compulsory state educational-system so structures a child's life that if religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage. Viewed in this light, permission for such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion." The real "captive audience" is the majority whose right to pray together is being suppressed!

Myth #6: This Is About Money

"This is about money, not about prayer or religion. The federal treasury should not be funding churches and religious groups, or vouchers for church schools."

The amendment does not permit public funding of actual religious activity. We have a long history, however, of cooperative efforts for the common good, and religious groups have a solid established role, which is now being attacked. Students attending church colleges and universities already qualify for GI Bill benefits and student loans, and they should. The Congressional Research Service reported last year on 51 federal statutes and regulations that disqualify religious organizations or adherents from neutral participation in generalized government programs!

This discrimination needs correction, especially since faith-based charities have a better record of success than most in helping people recover from poverty, drug or alcohol abuse, or other problems.

When the Murrah Federal Building was bombed in Oklahoma City in April 1995, churches suffered some of the heaviest damage. Attorneys for the federal government were ready to deny them the same disaster assistance every other building received. It took congressional action to assure equal and fair treatment for church buildings.

Myth #7: Real Problem But Wrong Solution

"The problem is real, but the solution is wrong. Let's tell the Supreme Court we don't recognize its authority to make these horrible rulings."

We are challenged to be an orderly society that believes in honoring the law. Some question whether we took a wrong turn two hundred years ago, when the Supreme Court became the de facto arbiter of interpreting the Constitution. It's a practical impossibility now to persuade the country otherwise. Yet the people are ready to support a constitutional amendment on school prayer; 36 years of public opinion polls show support from 75% and more of the public.

If we teach our children to ignore what the courts say, then we are not teaching respect for the law; we would be teaching anarchy, whether we thought so or not. Everyone could ignore whatever court rulings they found inconvenient, whether on religion, crime, drugs, or any other issue.

We've tried every other approach, and are left with a constitutional amendment as the only legitimate remedy. Our Founding Fathers foresaw possible problems, and so created a mechanism for amending the Constitution. It was used for an anti-slavery amendment after the Dred Scott decision, and it's the mechanism being followed by the Religious Freedom Amendment.

Some suggest that Article III should be used, and that Congress can and should altogether remove federal court jurisdiction over selected topics. This is not just mistaken; it's dangerous. If Congress can bar the Supreme Court from taking cases on the freedom of religion, they can also be barred from ruling on other issues found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: There would be no way to halt an act of Congress that restricted free speech, or freedom to assemble, or the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to be compensated if government takes our property, or the right to a jury trial, or any other constitutional right. Congress would be enabled to amend and attack our constitutional rights, and we would have no remedy for it. We already have a problem because courts are usurping authority; this supposed 'remedy' would enable Congress ot usurp authority.

The Religious Freedom Amendment took nearly three years to draft, building widespread support among people of many faiths, both Christian and non-Christian. It is the product of painstaking and prayerful work. Now it's being assailed by demagogues who prey upon those who aren't informed about what the courts have done, or about how the Religious Freedom Amendment can repair that damage.

One quick way to inform yourself, and your friends, is through the Religious Freedom Amendment website, at religious freedom.house.gov. There, you can find both simple and detailed information, and download handouts to share with others.

Armed with facts and with prayer, supporters of religious freedom can successfully uphold their principles, and build more support for the RFA. It's vital that each and every member of Congress be overwhelmed by citizens' calls and letters, and that newspapers, talk radio and other media be swamped as well.

The American people have never accepted the Supreme Court's extra burdens levied against voluntary school prayer and against religious freedom during the past 36 years. For the first time, an amendment to remedy this has passed a House subcommittee and committee to come to the floor (the 1971 vote occurred only because of a petition by a majority of members of the House).

We have the opportunity of a lifetime, and we must be informed and ready to protect our religious freedom, and to reverse the attacks that threaten it.

Mr. Istook (R-Okla.) is a member of the House Appropriations Committee and is co-chairman of the Conservative Action Team.

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. May 15, 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved