That's because tax money is now support the Religious Freedom Amendment world wide web site operating out of the Washington office of Congressman Ernest Istook (R-OK) who crafted the original bill. The site, "Coming Together...Supporting the Religious Freedom Amendment" (http://religiousfreedom.house.gov) provides testimony, a list of congressional and religious supporters, and other information.

The Capitol Hill web site promoting the Religious Freedom Amendment is supported by taxpayer monies. Is this advocacy site an abuse of congressional discretion? The "religiousfreedom.house.gov" web site identifies a list of 30 groups, many of them overtly religious, as supporters.

   The proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution underwent slight revision recently when it was debated in the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution. It now 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, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

   Critics charge that the proposed amendment would viscerate the establishment clause of the Constitution by allowing a greater, coercive role for government symbols, indoctrination and ritual in government and especially in public schools. A considerable amount of state-church separation law and judicial decisions would be overturned by the Religious Freedom Amendment. Churches and other groups would be permitted to display symbols on public property, and numerous forms of "student led" prayer and religious proselytizing would be permitted in public school classrooms. In addition, the amendment would allow government funding and other financial assistance to church "faith-based" social programs which use sectarian doctrine as part of their outreach.

LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK! Is the Capitol Hill "Coming Together -- Supporting the Religious Freedom Amendment" web site an abuse of Congressional advocacy at public expense? Yes No

   Ron Barrier, National Media Coordinator for American Atheists, has charged that passage the Religious Freedom Amendment would violate the rights of millions of nonbelievers, and even those who hold to a minority religious teaching, but also "would be a raiding party on the public treasury" by religious groups.

   Senators and Representatives have broad powers in crafting and advancing legislation such as the Religious Freedom Amendment, but the new RFA web site breaks new -- and possibly improper -- ground. Officials have usually employed traditional venues such as the "franking" privilege which is a taxpayer subsidy for "vanity mail" within the respective legislative districts. But most legislation is promoted off the Hill by private advocacy groups. The Religious Freedom Amendment web site appears to appropriate that role, and use public monies in order to promote Rep. Istook's religious and political agenda.

   Much of the information is duplicated at other sites, including that for the House of Representatives, which provide the public with basic information (wording, list of co-sponsors, status) concerning bills such as the RFA. The RFA Capitol Hill site, though, creates a somewhat different impression. The logo boasts the heading "Coming Together"and includes subsections discussing the RFA and listing supporting groups. Of the thirty organizations listed, most are overtly Christian and are names generally identified with the religious right. They include Christian Coalition, Catholic Alliance (an "independent" CC spin-off), Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Southern Baptist Convention, Youth for Christ, WallBuilders and Americans for Voluntary School Prayer. Additions to list of national groups supporting passage of the Religious Freedom Amendment are provided as well; included are the Salvation Army and American Muslim Council, which worked for enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

   The Coming Together... site is designed and maintained by Justin Holbrook, a former intern for Rep. Ishtook who was appointed as Executive Assistant in July of 1995. A link button from "religiousfreedom.house.gov" takes readers "Istook online" at another address. That section includes the usual features found on web sites for Representatives and Senators, such as a welcome, contact button and section outlining the legislator's stand on specific issues. Istook's site has commentary on fast track trade legislation and national testing; but the Religious Freedom Amendment is promoted separately. Istook's home page urges browsers to, "Visit the new Religious Freedom Amendment web site at http://religiousfreedom.house.gov. You'll find the language of the amendment, a list of current cosponsors and supporting groups, and more."

   While the "religiousfreedom.house.gov" web site may not be technically illegal, it may well be an improper and inappropriate forum for promoting specific legislation, especially a proposal which so intimately involves religious groups and belief. We have failed to locate a similar web site hosted on Capitol Hill where a specific legislative item was so prominently showcased -- and at public expense. While Mr. Istook is certainly given the right to express his opinion on certain issues, the "Coming Together...Supporting the Religious Freedom Amendment" web site may be sending the message that Capitol Hill solidly backs this proposal. In fact, the RFA has yet to make it out of the House Judiciary Committee, and has a long history of being fast tracked, then dropped from the congressional agenda. Critics say that this shows lack of popular support for the amendment, and little sympathy within the House and Senate for amending the U.S. Constitution.

   By using this web site as a "stand alone" advocacy tool, Mr. Istook may be utilizing tax monies to further the Religious Freedom Amendment in an improper way. Private organizations such as the Christian Coalition have already devoted considerable electronic and print resources to promoting the RFA; but Istook's web site is using public monies, and thus blurs the distinction between the proper role of an elected official with legislative advocacy. The equivalent might be a situation where Mr. Istook obtained public funds to run print advertising boosting the amendment, or some other legislative issues.

   The net effect, though, is that all Americans who contribute toward Mr. Istook's salary and operating expenses are also funding an advocacy web site. In his zeal to expand the role of religion in public life, Rep. Istook may have crossed a fine line between his responsibilities as a legislator, and a booster for religious groups and religion-friendly legislation.

[text only]