he Christian Coalition has begun a concerted effort to promote its Religious Freedom Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, formally introduced earlier this month into the House by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.). Last week, the group a series of press conferences and Religious Freedom Celebration events, and presented "victims" to the news media of what was claimed to be official intolerance of religious belief in schools and other public venues. Among the victims was a school girl from Tennessee who reported received a failing grade on a research paper about Jesus Christ, a Michigan student who ostensibly had a videotape of a song sung at a local church banned from the classroom, and the operator of a "faith-based" drug rehabilitation center.

-- Rep. Ernest Istook

"Unfortunately, the Religious Freedom Amendment must be considered a master stroke by Rep. Istook, Reed, and other religious-political interests who haggled over its precise wording. It is deceptively simple..."

A press release to the news media claimed that all were "victims of religious discrimination," adding that several would be joining Coalition director Ralph Reed on a barnstorming trip across the nation to promote the RFA.

Along with a concerted effort to override President Clinton's anticipated veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, passage of the Amendment has now become the major legislative objective of the Coalition. The RFA is the latest effort to circumvent a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions which have banned orchestrated prayer from public schools, and set limits on the involvement of government in promoting or assisting religious organizations, including "faith-based" charities and other outreaches. Supporters of RFA insist that those decisions represent "judicial activism," and foster a climate of official hostility toward religion. But critics point out that the Amendment is unnecessary, and that court decisions merely reflect the intention of the First Amendment in promoting state-church separation.

In promoting the Religious Freedom Amendment, Christian Coalition has advanced two themes that now echo throughout the religious right effort to enact this controversial legislation.

One is the claim that government has become actively "hostile" toward the expression of religious belief in the public square by not orchestrating or allowing prayer and other rituals in classrooms and other government institutions. Along with high court decisions which banned prayer (MURRAY v. CURLETT, ABINGTON TOWNSHIP v. SCHEMPP), more recent decisions about "student led" prayer or prayer at graduation ceremonies (LEE v. WEISMAN, 1992) have come under attack as well. Courts have noted that praying in such a setting involves a "captive audience" of students, and that those not wishing to pray in that venue often end up being coerced, isolated, even physically abused by prayer bullies. In addition, as noted in a recent 3rd. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling, disingenuous schemes such as having students hold a majority-rule vote on the practice still does not negate the unconstitutional nature of the practice. "The student referendum does not erase the state's imprint from this graduation prayer." The court added that the circumstances and content of the prayer were not subjects of a class vote, rather the "business of the individual, not the state nor the public schools it maintains."

The second claim -- and one replete in the new Christian Coalition roads how on behalf of the RFA -- is that this legislation is necessary to address the growing number of "victims" who supposedly are being denied their religious liberties. Mr. Reed has told CC members that the legislation "would mean an end to the daily stories in the newspapers about kids being punished for standing up for God. And while it is sad, but true that these events really happen... they, and thousands of other stories just like them, underscore the fundamental need for the Religious Freedom Amendment."

The Coalition has been supporting a constitutional amendment to institute some form of school prayer and other religious expression in public venues as a centerpiece in its 1994 "Contract With the American Family." At that time, the legislation was referred to as the Religious Equality Amendment. The "Contract" made the claim that "With each passing year, people of faith grow increasingly distressed by the hostility of public institutions toward religious expression... Examples of hostility toward religious values and those who hold them abound..." It added that "This hostility toward faith is the result of 30 years of confusing and often quixotic jurisprudence in establishment clause cases..."

Upon close scrutiny, however, those examples of "hostility" reflect a mixture of clear violations of the Establishment Clause (such as providing public funds for religion-based programs -- a practice frowned upon or considered suspect even by many religious groups), and half-truth. In unveiling the "Contract," the Coalition cited examples of where school authorities observed the law and avoided practices which appeared "to promote or give approval to religious matters..." Other cases involved prohibiting Christian nativity creches from federal post office lobbies, a clear violation of the First Amendment. Rather than reflecting "hostility" in the public square, those prohibitions instead present a posture of "official neutrality" by government toward the institutions of religion.

The organization's frantic effort to now promote the Religious Freedom Amendment, however, now consists of rallies, press releases and public appearances showcasing the alleged "victims" of government hostility. As with previous claims made by the Coalition, we should be suspect of these stories.

A new study of the circumstances behind these "horror stories" was released late last week by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It found that the Coalition, and its Director Ralph Reed were playing fast and loose with facts, making unsubstantiated or misleading claims about victimization in order to promote the agenda of rushing the Religious Freedom Amendment through Congress.

One alleged "victim" being presented by the CC is identified as Kelly DeNooyer of Michigan. The Coalition's May 16, 1997 Media Advisory notes next to her name: "videotape of song sung at church banned," followed by a statement referring to Ms. DeNooyer and others identified as "Victims of Religious discrimination who have been heroes in the fight for religious freedom." The AU study, however, shows that the DeNooyers sued their local elementary school in Livonia, Michigan after the teacher refused to permit Kelly -- then in the second grade -- to show her class a tape of her singing a religious hymn. She had been selected "VIP of the Week" as part of a school program to boost self-esteem; each student could then make a verbal presentation about themselves.

"The teacher rejected the tape for several reasons," notes the Americans United study. A verbal presentation was permitted as an exercise in giving students a familiarity with making speeches. The teacher also noted that the school had a policy requiring that all tapes shown in the classroom must be reviewed. "Lastly, she felt its religious content was inappropriate."

If the coalition is attempting to justify passage of a Religious Freedom Amendment on the grounds that current laws about state-church separation do not permit religious activities like that outlined in the DeNooyer case, they've got a point. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court ruled that classroom teaching assignments and activities were the proper role of certified teachers, not parents. In April, 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of that decision.

Another "victim" being spot lighted in Christian Coalition press releases is Brittany Settle Gossett of Tennessee. The May 16 advisory identifies her as a "school girl who received an 'F' on a research paper simply because her topic was Jesus Christ." But once again, the Coalition is presenting only a smidgen of facts. Americans United noted that the teacher "had assigned each student in her ninth-grade class to write a research paper on an unfamiliar topic based on four outside sources..." Ms. Settle reportedly first informed her instructor that she would write a piece about drama, but later changed her mind and made Christ the topic. The teacher rejected the subject matter, though, saying that it was too familiar to the student.

Like the DeNooyer case (DeNooyer v. Merinelli), this situation also ended up in the judicial system. The 6th Court of Appeals noted that Settle could not "do something other than (the teacher's) assignment and receive credit for it." And in November, 1995, the Supreme Court refused to hear Settle v. Dickson County School Board, thus letting stand the Appeals court ruling.

Another case cited by the Coalition media release is only incidentally related to religion; it is more appropriately a general free-speech case, since it involves wider issues and applications. Audrey Pearson of Woodbridge, Va. is identified as a "girl banned from reading her bible (sic) on a school bus." That indeed did happen, and Americans United notes: "The principal had not understood that students are permitted to bring religious material to school for their personal use and her decision was quickly reversed once contacted by the (Rutherford) Institute," a legal group. AU adds that "The matter never went to court, and the incident is now eight years old..."

But one must wonder how consistent the Coalition would be in defending the right of a student to read, politically unpopular tracts or publications while riding a school bus. Even more significant is that this practice, along with prayer or other voluntary religious activity is cited as an example of what students MAY do -- since it is on their own time, and not part of the "official" course business of the school day.

The most blatant example of disingenuous Christian Coalition propaganda, though, thus far involves the case of Brad Hicks, a former police officer from North Carolina. He is identified on the May 16 Media Advisory sent out by the CC as a "police officer who was fired for using the word God." Despite the publicity for the May 22 "Religious Freedom Ride Celebration" kickoff at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. where Hicks was to appear, Americans United later noted that "apparently the facts (of the case) were so indefensible, even Reed couldn't put them forward."

Hicks was dismissed from his job as a police officer in Newton, N.C. after he violated orders from the police chief to stop distributing religious pamphlets on duty. A woman complained that after being pulled over for speeding, Hicks attempted to give her a tract; he was warned and placed on suspension, but refused to stop proselytizing on the job.

The Chief of Police who had warned officer Hicks later justified his action on dismissing the policeman. "You cannot stop someone on the road as a police officer and proceed to give them a church sermon."

The Hicks case -- and the face that Reed and the Coalition went as far as to include it as an example of "the fight for religious freedom" is especially disturbing in light of the activities of groups like "Cops for Christ" (a group which evangelizes inside of police departments throughout the country) and other violations by police. In Jacksonville, North Carolina, for instance, the Onslow County Sheriff's Office adopted the official slogan of "Serving God and Onslow County," and the reference to a law enforcement officer as a "messenger of Christ."

Still another example cited in the Coalition advisory is that of Teen Challenge of Maryland, a "faith based drug rehabilitation rehab center" that cannot qualify for government funding. The inclusion of this "faith based" social program is significant, and shows that the agenda of the Religious Freedom Amendment goes far beyond the narrow issue of prayer in schools, to wider questions about public funding for religious groups. The Establishment Clause and the "three pronged test" of LEMON v. KURTZMAN has not prevented religious groups from cashing-in on welfare reform, or establishing social service outreaches which, increasingly, rely on government funds. Indeed, over 60% of the funding for groups like National Catholic Charities are now provided by the public treasury through a variety of mechanisms like Community Development Block Grants and other programs. But in theory, at least, those activities which receive public monies must have a secular purpose, and not involve religious proselytization. (The "Lemon" test states that a government action must be: primarily secular in purpose; may not advance religion, or favor one religion over another; and may result in "excessive entanglement" between church and state.)

Annihilating, or substantially gutting the criteria found in LEMON and other First Amendment guidelines is a major, and dangerous objective included in the phraseology of the proposed Religious Freedom Amendment. The amendment, as introduced recently by Rep. Istook reads:

"To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. The government shall not require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, initiate or designate school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

Like the Christian Coalition press releases about alleged "victims" of government repression, the Amendment is a masterpiece of oversimplification and evasion. Only one word -- "benefit" -- is used in a phrase which would essentially be used to undermine all Establishment Clause protections which currently exist preventing public funding of churches and "faith-based" outreaches, charities and other missions.

The RFA also strikes a new double standard in describing the relationship of government and organized religion. The current amendment gratuitously states that the government "shall not require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, initiate or designate school prayers..." But the Coalition's "Contract With the American Family" and other statements clearly blame a wide range of social ills on crucial Supreme Court rulings which abolished the very practice of compulsory or coercive prayer in schools. Many court findings underscored the fact that students in a public school classroom constitute a "captive audience."

Recent judicial decisions have also agreed with these standards. Last year, a U.S. District Judge ruled that school officials in Pontotoc County, Mississippi were acting improperly when they allowed prayers and Bible verse to be read over the school's public address system. While the case focused on the use of public funds in the use of religious proselytizing, Judge Neal Biggers also observed that Bible instruction classes were "part of a concerted effort" to indoctrinate students "into the belief and moral code of fundamentalist Christianity." The children of the woman bringing the original complaint -- Lisa Herdahl -- were ostracized by school mates and harassed. While students were permitted to opt out of the Bible instruction, those who did so were subject to opprobrium, and in one case a teacher denied the request saying that children who believed in a god would remain for the class, and those who did not would go to hell.

The Coalition has already earmarked $2,000,000 to be spent in 100 key legislative districts across the nation to defeat President Clinton's promise veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, passed last week by the Senate. Reed's group will be launching a comparable effort to promote the Religious Freedom Amendment, and last Thursday told reporters that "Our goal is to secure the first vote in Congress on school prayer and religious freedom in 13 years, and to do so before the '98 elections." The threat against Senators and Congressmen who choose to not support the RFA is tangible; the voting record will be included in another round of "voter's guides" which the Coalition distributes prior to elections. During the 1996 contest, 45,000,000 copies of the guide flooded the nation through the Coalition's network of 125,000 participating churches and congregations. Critics charge that the "voter's guides" do not adequately reflect a candidate's stand on issues, or tell why they voted for or against a specific piece of legislation. There have also been accusations that the guides are distributed late in the campaign, so that those who are depicted as being "anti-family" or lacking on other issues do not have appropriate time to respond.

The latest version of the Religious Freedom Amendment represents the third effort the Coalition and its allies have made to bring such legislation to the floor of Congress for action. Its predecessor -- the so-called Religious Equality Amendment -- actually existed in two different versions with slightly different wording. Some groups maintain that the current RFA, as introduced by Rep. Istook, is not adequate; but the measure enjoys unprecedented support on Capitol Hill, and the approval of key members of the powerful House Judiciary Committee.

Ironically, the fate of the RFA could reside not only on Capitol Hill, but in the hands of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Currently, the high court is deliberating the constitutionality of more direct government aid to religious schools in the case of AGUILAR v. FELTON, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The latter case may decide how far government may go in regulating religious organizations; the case, known as BOERNE v. FLORES involves efforts by a Roman Catholic diocese to be exempted from local zoning rules which apply to businesses and private individuals. Unfavorable court rulings in these cases could be used to build support for the Religious Freedom Amendment.

Unfortunately, the Amendment must be considered a masterstroke by Rep. Istook, Reed, and other religious-political interests who haggled over its precise wording. It is deceptively simple; rather than call for government funding of religious groups, for instance, it merely states that such groups shall not be denied a "benefit." It does not adequately address the coercive nature of prayer, whether initiated or led by students, in a public school setting. And while paying gratuitous lip service to not requiring persons "to join in prayer or other religious activity," it nevertheless permits direct and indirect public funding or facilitation of religious display which otherwise is confined to the voluntary venue of churches, temples and private homes.

[text only]