he Religious Freedom Amendment is a major constitutional assault on state-church separation, the rights of those who profess a minority religious view, and the tens of millions of Americans who identify themselves as atheists or non-believers of some kind. It is not about "freedom" but the orchestrating religious ritual in government and public institutions. It is a response to a pseudo-problem based on questionable "horror stories" of alleged abuse involving religious practitioners. Ironically, while RFA supporters give lip service to notions like freedom and free expression, they support invasive legislation in other areas of life.

¶     RFA WOULD 'GUT' THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION...

   The act would essentially overturn decades of judicial and constitutional protection on behalf of the separation of state and church. In particular, the RFA targets the "Lemon" test (LEMON v. KURTZMAN) which says that government may engage in no practice the purpose of which is not secular, may not favor one religion over another (or religion over non-religion), and may engage in no conduct which results in the "excessive entanglement" between state and church. In addition, decisions which have protected children and others from invasive forms of ritualized prayer -- MURRAY v. CURLETT, for instance -- would be cast aside.

¶     RFA WOULD VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF MINORITY RELIGIOUS AND NON-BELIEVERS ALIKE...

   Any form of prayer in the public schools or halls of government results, in practice, in violating the rights of members of minority faiths, and certainly the rights of millions of Americans who profess no religion. Shabby attempts to craft a "non-denominational" prayer which would supposedly reach the various deities of all faiths still violate the rights of atheists. Disingenuous schemes like "the moment of silence" do the same thing.

    The RFA would legitimize so-called "student initiated' prayer; the Act is thus "sold" to the public, presumably on the technicality that it is students, not school officials who are conducting and orchestrating the event. But courts have noted that this is simply an "end run" around state-church separation, and does not address the more basic questions of whether the prayer should take place in the first place, or whether students who choose not to pray have any better remedy under this system than they would where the prayer was led by teachers, school administrators or others. Student led prayer in the classroom is still unconstitutional; it still serves to marginalize non-participants, including atheists, and divides students.

    In practice, religious rights -- and the rights of atheists and non-believers -- are best protected in a political arrangement emphasizing the separation of state and church, and free expression and general civil liberties for all. RFA jeopardizes that; and remember, those promoting the RFA have a wider, anti-civil liberties agenda too.

¶     DO STUDENTS NEED TO PRAY?

    The RFA is proposed at a time of organized cultural religious resurgence, when mystical incantations, rituals and beliefs are being peddled in a widely diverse "belief bazaar." This comes at a time when schools, for instance, are cutting back on science program. The rationalist world view is under assault, from both religious fundamentalist and new age, pseudoscience hucksters. Government endorsed or sponsored religious ritual is part of this wider problem, and needs to be questioned and opposed. American Atheists suggests that content-rich programs, particularly in the sciences, are needed now, more than ever, in our public schools -- not more prayer. The schools, in particular, can be a venue for imparting progressive and humane values as part of a wider, Enlightenment agenda which emphasizes the positive, creative and liberatory character of science and technology.

¶     THE RFA IS NOT NECESSARY, EVEN FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS...

   There are over 350,000 churches, mosques, temples, chapels and other places in the United States where "people of faith" may practice their religious beliefs, on their own time and at their own expense. This figure, in fact, may be low since it does not include tens of thousands of "weekend congregations" which rent facilities like hotel meeting rooms, or gather in community buildings (often for free, or a ridiculously low rent...), or in members homes. Religious persons may also pray, chant, sing and perform rituals in their houses and apartments, alone or with others.

    In public schools, religious students may pray on their own time, alone or in groups. They are free to form clubs, or pray in the hallways or cafeteria. They may pray on the school bus. What they are not and should not be "free" to do, however, is to make a public display of their religious beliefs in a controlled situation like the classroom where students are gathered as part of the "official" school day.

    Silence, leaving the class room or other remedies which the Act would give non-participants, are not legitimate options. If non-believers are permitted to leave a room during a prayer ritual, why not ask that those praying leave the room instead?

¶     RFA IS THE 'WEDGE' OF A WIDER, RELIGIOUS AGENDA WHICH EMPHASIZES RELIGION OVER NON-RELIGION...

    After gutting the Establishment Clause, proponents of RFA will be well on their way in their efforts to create a society besotted with religiosity. We would truly be "one nation under (somebody's) 'god'"; and in such a climate, with the protections of the First Amendment seriously vitiated, what would be the fate of non-believers? RFA ultimately emphasizes religion over non-religion. Proponents on Capitol Hill state that their legislation would protect minority faiths, and even include representatives of these beliefs -- say, Muslims or Hindus -- in the public prayer process. That may be the case, and Islamist children may indeed be leading their classes in prayer on a particular day of the week. But where is the line to be drawn? Would Scientologists be included? What about Wiccans? Satanists? And even if ALL of these groups are permitted "equal access" under the RFA, it is atheists and other non-believers who remain at the ultimate target.

   "Equal access" is not what state-church separation is about.

¶     THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AMENDMENT IS A ''RAIDING PARTY'' ON THE PUBLIC PURSE AND THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER...

    Under the "denial of a benefit" portion of the Act, religious groups would be given equal access to public monies and appropriations. "Faith based" groups and social outreaches would be permitted -- which means that atheists (and everyone else) would end up footing the bill for religion-based social programs. Already, religious groups have reaped a fortune in the administration of social services which under the law are required to retain the veneer of secularism. Catholic Charities, for instance, now receives over 60% of its funding through direct and indirect government grants; and it tacks on another 10-12% for "administration" costs. RFA would abolish those few remaining constraints. Passage of the act would be a financial windfall for religious groups, programs -- and hucksters operating in the "faith" business.

[text only]