NEWS STORY: House rejects school prayer amendment

c. 1998 Religion News Service WASHINGTON _ After some five hours of debate, the House of Representatives on Thursday (June 4) failed to approve by the required margin a controversial constitutional amendment strongly backed by Christian conservatives that would have allowed organized prayer in public schools. The vote was 224 to 203 in favor of […]

c. 1998 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ After some five hours of debate, the House of Representatives on Thursday (June 4) failed to approve by the required margin a controversial constitutional amendment strongly backed by Christian conservatives that would have allowed organized prayer in public schools.

The vote was 224 to 203 in favor of the measure, 61 votes shy of the two-thirds vote necessary for passage of a constitutional amendment. Twenty-seven Democrats and 197 Republicans voted in favor.


While there was little doubt the measure would not gain the two-thirds margin, the first House vote on a prayer-related constitutional amendment since 1971 provided a larger margin of defeat than even its most ardent opponents had hoped for.”This was a real surprise,”said Joseph Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington-based church-state watchdog group.”This was a tremendous defeat for the religious right. We were thinking that anything over 175 would be good. It was a remarkable victory.” Jess Hordes, Washington director of the Anti-Defamation League, another opponent of the measure, said the margin was large enough”to insure this issue won’t be back in Congress in the near future.” But Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., the amendment’s author, insisted that just gaining a simple majority constituted victory.”Many people have decided that political correctness is more important than freedom of speech or freedom of religion,”he said.

The measure _ formally known as the Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment _ was a priority of Christian conservatives and the House Republican leadership. They argued passage was needed to reverse three decades of Supreme Court decisions they say have weakened the nation’s religious freedoms, including the outlawing of state-sponsored organized prayer in public school settings.

They also pointed out that the 87-word amendment specifically enjoined government from establishing”any official religion”and did not”require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity.” However, moderate religious organizations and civil libertarians opposed the measure. They maintained the amendment would breach the constitutional wall separating church and state and inevitably lead to the imposition of majority religious views on members of religious minorities.

They also said the amendment was unnecessary because students already may pray individually in school, read religious texts during study hall or other free-time periods and may assemble in groups for religious activities before or after regular school hours while still in public school buildings.

Istook rejected those arguments.”I’m tired of seeing what the Supreme Court has done to change the First Amendment,”the constitutional passage that guarantees religious freedom.”It’s senseless to say that everyone must be censored and silenced because one persons is intolerant,”he said.

Rep. James A. Traficant Jr., D-Ohio, another supporter, argued that”the founding fathers never intended to separate the people from their faith”but only sought to prevent the establishment of a state religion.

House members, he said, were”a bunch of hypocrites”to vote against allowing organized school prayer since Congress itself begins each session with a public prayer.


In addition to protecting organized school prayer, the amendment also would have allowed the display of religious articles on public property _ including the Ten Commandments.

It also said that”neither the United States nor any state shall … discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.”Opponents said that last clause would have opened the door to school vouchers and other forms of public support of religious education.

Despite that, the House debate Thursday centered on the school prayer issue.

Rep. Robert I. Wexler, D-Fla., criticized the amendment for offering a”one-size-fits-all prayer”that would subject children of minority religions to”humiliation and scorn”and”in the most extreme cases, being beat up.” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said passage of the amendment would have”dangerously politicized religion”by injecting government into its practice in the public arena.

Supporters countered by saying the nation’s schools were in decline, as evidenced by rising violence and teen pregnancies, and prayer was needed to restore their moral foundation.

Opponents also criticized the Christian Coalition and other conservative Christian groups for equating those against the measure with being anti-religion.

Prior to the final vote, Rep. Sanford Bishop, R-Ga., sought to neutralize some opposition to the measure by offering an amendment that would have removed the reference to God and the clause authorizing the government to provide benefits to religious institutions from Istook’s wording.


However, his amendment to the amendment was soundly defeated.

DEA END IRA

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!