c. 1996 Religion News Service
WASHINGTON _ Depending on their point of view, people regard the idea of amending the Constitution to promote and protect religious freedom as either absolutely necessary or utter nonsense; a saving grace for a godless nation or a constitutional nightmare.
But in the House of Representatives, the sudden reappearance of the”religious freedom”amendment and its legislative”fast track”status is more about politics than piety.
The measure languished in legislative limbo for more than seven months, stalled by intra-mural bickering among legislators over the wording of the amendment and by the jockeying of conservative religious groups favoring one legislator’s version over another. But House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) finally brought forward his own version of how to improve the Constitution to ensure”religious freedom.” A hearing on the measure was held Tuesday (July 23) by the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution .
For the first time in the nation’s history, it would put the word”God”in the Constitution, and, its supporters say,”clarify”the First Amendment and prohibit government agencies _ especially the public schools _ from distorting”the true meaning of religious freedom.” And, in the language crafted by Armey, it would also bar the United States from denying”equal access to a benefit, or otherwise discriminate against any person, on account of religious belief, expression, or exercise.” That means, for example, that if government money goes to public schools, then it must also go to religious schools. It is something that supporters of vouchers to pay tuition at religious schools have been wanting for years.
It would also make religious groups that provide social services eligible for public money even if they want to give out religious tracts along with the soup they dispense from their kitchens. They could also restrict employment opportunities to members of their own faith. Neither of these practices are allowed under current law.
Not surprisingly, the proposed amendment has already deeply divided the religious community.
It renews a battle that has been waged off-and-on since the Founders first argued over whether to ban religious tests for office. The battle over religious expression was renewed in the early decades of the 19th century over Sunday mail deliveries and the long but unsuccessful campaigns _ most recently in 1954 _ to add to the Constitution the words:”This nation divinely recognizes the authority and law of Jesus Christ, Savior and Ruler of Nations, through whom are bestowed the blessings of Almighty God.” But the cleft over religion in public spaces has deepened and widened since the 1962 and 1963 Supreme Court rulings banning state-sponsored prayer and Bible readings in the public schools.
Supporters of the latest proposal, however, argue that conflicting Supreme Court rulings since the 1960s and increasing influence of secular culture make necessary a constitutional clarification of the First Amendment clause that spells out church-state relations.”The need for a religious freedom amendment is abundantly clear,”said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, the public-interest law firm founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson. “The free speech rights of people of faith are in jeopardy in the classroom and in the workplace,”he added.”There continues to be a pattern of hostility aimed at religious speech and people of faith in this country.” Opponents, however, argue the proposal is, in the words of Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State,”needless”and”tremendously hazardous.” And Joel Levy, co-chair of the American Jewish Congress’ Commission on Law and Social Action, called the proposed amendment”nonsense.” For the nation’s public schools _ ground zero in the public square battle over religion _ the amendment”would be a nightmare,”according to Anne L. Bryant, executive director of the National School Boards Association, a group that represents 95,000 elected and appointed school board members.”It would embroil parents, teachers and school officials in the school prayer issue yet again, and force schools in every state in this country to spend scarce resources on lawsuits instead of textbooks,”she said.
While the claims and counter-claims jangled against each other at Tuesday’s hearing, both sides privately acknowledged the exercise was more for the record than for real. The amendment will go no further that an early September vote in the House.
Senate leaders have said they have no plans to address the issue this term. It is even uncertain that the proposal could gain the two-thirds vote in the House necessary to pass as a constitutional amendment.
Yet a roll-call vote could be used in the upcoming election season as a referendum on God.
Ralph Reed, executive director of the Christian Coalition, which has made the amendment a centerpiece of its legislative agenda, said a House vote by early September would allow the group to include the vote in the 45 million voter guides it plans to distribute before November’s election.
A vote also could give GOP presidential contender Bob Dole a seemingly less Republican-roiling issue than abortion to use against President Clinton. The president has said he does not believe an amendment is necessary, while Dole told the Christian Coalition last March that,”I’ve been for voluntary prayer in schools since 1967.” The driving force behind this amendment is not an absence of opportunity for religious expression, but rather the upcoming political campaign season.
Armey and his cohorts want an opportunity to go on record with an easy but dangerous vote for God. It may look good to some constituents; it may sound good. But in the end, it could sow seeds of discord among the nation’s many faiths. It could also complicate rather than clarify the problems it seeks to solve.
MJP END ANDERSON
