Among the many bills awaiting congressional action is a proposal to allow churches and other houses of worship endorse and mobilize support for political candidates.

embers of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives return from a late-summer recess next Tuesday for action on a host of "religion friendly" and "pro-family" bills.

   Waiting in the legislative hopper are measures to prohibit human cloning, ban so-call "partial birth abortions," and -- just in time for the November elections -- a scheme to allow churches and other houses of worship to engage in open political activity, including raising funds and endorsing partisan candidates.

   Other proposed measures include a "Ten Commandments Defense Act," and (so far) five different bills which would try to guarantee the inclusion of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court panel ruled last June that the pledge as presently written violated the constitutional separation of church and state by supporting a monotheistic religion. in addition, the Senate will grapple with S. 2572, the "Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2002" which would require private businesses to provide "reasonable accommodation" for employee's religious exercise.

   Sources on Capitol Hill tell AANEWS that the "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act," HR 2357 introduced by North Carolina Rep. Walter B. Jones will receive special "fast track" attention from pressure groups and House leadership. It would seriously alter the already-precarious relationship between religious groups and government by changing the tax code and permit houses of worship to make direct political contributions, endorse candidates, and mobilize congregants and even personnel and resources for partisan campaigns.

   Under current federal law, non-profit organizations like churches must speak to "issues," and refrain from supporting, financing or endorsing specific candidates. Many religious groups ignore this prohibition, or simply establish parallel political action committees. Critics of the Jones bill, however, say that this would simply accelerate the dangerous trend of using collection plate contributions on behalf of political hopefuls and their parties.

   A similar measure, the Bright Line Act of 2001 (HR 2931) would allow houses of worship to spend up to 20% of annual declared, gross revenues for political lobbying. Sponsored by Rep. Philip M. Crane (R-Ill.), the Bright-Line Act is in the House Ways and Means Committee, and has 20 cosponsors including Speaker Dick Armey and Whip Tom DeLay. HR 2931 is also a crucial agenda item for the House "Values Action Team" headed by Pennsylvania Congressman Joseph R. Pitts, a group established by Congressional Republicans to cater to religious right organizations.

   Passage of either "Bright Line" or the "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" could free up vast reservoirs of money, political precinct workers and other key resources in time for the November election, and certainly the presidential race in 2004. Going in to the November, 2002 races, all 435 House of Representatives seats and 34 of the 100 Senate spots are being contested. Both wings of Capitol Hill have set October 4 as their deadline for adjournment so that officials can return to their home districts for campaigning.

   "Enacting either of these bills and allowing and allowing churches, mosques and temples to engage in overt political campaigning would just legitimize what is now a widespread and abusive practice," said Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists. "While we oppose both measures, the fact is that violations of election laws have become almost commonplace at election time. Churches and other houses of worship already endorse candidates and provide votes and campaign workers."

   Johnson added, "All that remains now is form them to just blatantly announce that they will be taking parishioners' money and using it to buy political favors."

   Some religious groups, though, still worry that turning worship services into campaign rallies might harm their public image and special status as being "above the fray" when it comes to political theatrics.

   The American Jewish Committee, Baptist Joint Committee, United Methodist Church, National Council of Churches, Unitarians, Presbyterian Church and even some Buddhist sects have announced that they oppose both HR 2931 and HR 2557.

   "We want both of these bills defeated," said Johnson, "but the basic problem remains; churches and other houses of worship are simply ignoring the law by openly endorsing candidates, and there is only token oversight by agencies like the Federal Election Commission."

   Also included on the solons' to-do list are five different bills which would keep the words "under God" in the current Pledge of Allegiance.

   In June, a panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court ruled in a case brought by Atheist Michael Newdow that the phrase endorsed a monotheistic religious belief, and thus violated the separation of church and state. The original pledge, composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892, did not include the "under God" portion. That changed in 1954, after the Catholic Knights of Columbus, the American Legion and other groups began a campaign to use religious slogans as an ideological shield against "godless Communism."

   President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation incorporating "under God" into the pledge. He declared: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future."

   Other changes were also made disrupting the state-church separation balance. Federal judges were soon required to swear a religious oath upon taking office, and the words "In God We Trust" became the official national motto, replacing the secular "E Pluribus Unum" or "Out of Many, One."

   Ruling in the Newdow suit, Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin declared:

"The profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no God,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."

   The decision caused a firestorm of clerical and political indignation. The House has already passed a resolution supporting the use of "under God" in the pledge, and Attorney General John Ashcroft has promised a full-court legal press for an appeal of the decision. Capitol Hill lawmakers, close to election day, are certain to introduce a slew of additional bills and pass some kind of measure defending the unconstitutional wording.

   Another action item for religious right groups and their Washington allies is passage of the Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2002, sponsored by Alabama Congressman Robert Aderholt. Similar measures have been introduced and enacted by the House only to meet their demise in the Senate.

   Aderholt's latest attempt to "defend" unconstitutional display of the Commandments in public school classrooms, courtrooms, and other inappropriate public venues is HR 3895. Section 2 of the measures declares, "The organic laws of the United States Code and the constitutions of every State, using various expressions, recognize God as the source of the blessings of liberty." Other provisions cite the Tenth Amendment and reserve to the States "The power to display the Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions thereof..."

   Curious about the TCDA is that it goes beyond previous attempts to legitimize display of the Commandments by essentially ordering federal, state and local courts to render decisions that such presentations are constitutional. It is doubtful that this provision of the act can be enforced, or would not be declared an illegal extension of congressional authority. Aderholt's measure commands: "The courts constituted, ordained and established by the Congress shall exercise the judicial power in a manner consistent with the foregoing declarations."

   Also on the congressional agenda are a number of "pro-family" bills aimed at everything from salacious material on the internet to abortion rights and teen sexuality. Many use deceptive language, employing phrases such as "parental rights" or citing the goal of "protecting children" as rationales for censorship and other extension of government power.

   ¶       The Schoolchildren's Health Protection Act, introduced by Pennsylvania Republican Melissa Hart would block the use of any federal money for public schools which distribute a "morning-after" pill to students. The bill, HR 3805, has 59 cosponsors, many of them from the Values Action Team, and is now in the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee.

   ¶       Bills dubbed the Abortion Non-discrimination Act, HR 4691 and S. 2008, would allow medical students receiving public scholarship assistance to refuse classes on abortion and birth control technologies. It would also permit hospitals which accept public money to refuse offering patients abortion and birth control services.

   ¶       A version of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act is likely to expire in the Senate. The House rendition of S. 1899 was approved last year by a 100 vote margin.

   ¶       Once again, expect some attempt to enact a ban on so-called "Partial birth abortion." In July, the House approved a prohibition by 274-151.

   Updates on crucial legislative initiative can be found at http://www.atheists.org/action, along with contacts and resources for writing to your elected officials.

[text only]