A new effort is underway to promote the controversial prayer-in-government measure. While supporters may not have the votes to pass the measure during this session of congress, the move could point to a shift in religious right politics and the growing influence of Gary Bauer and the Family Research Council...

   The legislation, introduced by Rep. Ernest Istook (R. Okla.), would permit a wide range of religious activities and rituals in government, including prayer and proselytizing in public school classrooms. Critics charge that the proposed amendment -- a centerpiece in the Christian Coalition's social agenda -- would effectively "gut" the Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment, and overturn decades of crucial, state-church separation law and court decisions.

   Crafting legislation which would meet the demands of the various religious groups clamoring for school prayer and other church involvement in government affairs has proved to be a daunting task. Indeed, the history of what is now known as the Religious Freedom Amendment is a convoluted one, marked by constant bickering among the groups supporting it, and a series of re-writes and amendments to the original version.

    With the 1994 elections, Republicans gained control of both sides of Capitol Hill for the first time in four decades; and much of the credit was due to the energized, precinct-level army fielded by religious right groups, especially the Christian Coalition. Taking a cue from the GOP and the new House Speaker, New Gingrich who had paved the way for the Republican sweep with the "Contract With America," the Coalition quickly released its own religious-social agenda. It was known as "The Contract With the American Family" -- and it called for "A constitutional amendment to protect the religious liberties of Americans in public places."

    In its "Contract," Coalition strategists claimed, "With each passing year, people of faith grow increasingly distressed by the hostility of public institutions toward religious expressions," and cited what it claimed were numerous "Examples of hostility toward religious values and those who hold them..." The CC then proposed a Religious Equality Amendment; House Speaker Gingrich turned the job of wording the legislation over to Rep. Henry Hyde (R. Ill.).

    The religious groups, though, quickly began fighting over the wording of the proposed amendment, and soon there were two competing versions, each supported by different organizations. Hard-liners said that the Hyde version was not sufficiently strong in its language. Both versions were constantly modified, and in 1996, one rendition introduced by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okl.) appeared and became known as the Religious Freedom Amendment. Backers of the RFA have attempted to rally support behind their version, saying that it has the "best chance" of being enacted. In March, 1997, a new effort was underway to move the Religious Freedom Amendment through the labyrinthian House Judiciary Committee. It was then shuffled for a round of hearings (there have been at least two other sets of hearings, as well) to the Constitution Subcommittee, where it was amended again, this time in a proposal introduced by Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R.-Ark.) That version now reads:

"To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall 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 certain portions of the proposed amendment -- such as the not establishing religion or compelling people to participate in a religious activity -- is, at best, gratuitous; and they warn that the RFA has the effect of isolating and coercing nonbelievers or others who may not wish to participate in public displays of faith. And they see the final portion of the proposed measure, which prohibits denying "equal access to a benefit on account of religion," as a key to the public treasury, and a way of putting churches and other religious groups on the payroll for public subsidies.

   The Religious Freedom Amendment (in any of its versions) has never cleared the full House Judiciary Committee for a full vote of the House of Representatives. But the FAC reports says that according to Forest Montgomery, counsel for the office of governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelical, RFA is back again on a legislative "fast track," because Mr. Gingrich "has promised that a prayer bill would eventually come up for consideration."

    But American Atheists President Ellen Johnson is skeptical. "They don't have the votes," Johnson told aanews earlier today. "Nothing has changed since the end of the last session that we're picking up, and if a vote were held today on the floor of the House, the RFA would be turned down." Johnson cautioned, though, that separationists need to be vigilant, and that hoopla over the Religious Freedom Amendment should not distract attention from other issues, such as the "religious persecution" legislation also being promoted by various interfaith organizations.

    Then why is there any movement in the Judiciary Committee over the RFA? The answer may rest with the growing political clout of Gary Bauer and his Family Research Council, a $60 million-a-year think tank and activist group head quartered in Washington, D.C. FRC spun-off from James Dobson's Focus on the Family, and has emerged in the last year as a major power broker in religious right circles. Some observers say that FRC is even eclipsing Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, especially since the departure of former CC Director Ralph Reed. Reed has now established his own political consulting firm based in Atlanta, Ga., where he plans to run election campaigns for religious right candidates.

"If a vote were held today on the floor of the House, the RFA would be turned down..." --Ellen Johnson, American Atheists

    Bauer and the FRC represent a wing of the religious right that has increasingly grown disenchanted with the inclusive, "bit tent" philosophy of the Republican Party. Bauer, while retaining contacts and ties with the GOP, nevertheless insists that key Republicans like Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott have sacrificed the religious right's social and cultural agenda for a platform of tax cuts and other economic policies designed to woo votes. This segment of the right splits with traditional conservatives, moderates and libertarians over issue such as the role of government in banning abortions, enacting a school prayer amendment, putting controls on media and other "culture war" issues.

    Last Month, Bauer and the FRC organized key religious right activists and groups into a "Statement on Religious Freedom and the Right of the People to Acknowledge the Creator," as well as an effort to re-energize the push for passage of the Religious Freedom Amendment. Citing the controversy in Alabama where a federal judge has declared that state's school prayer law to be unconstitutional, a violation of state-church separation, the Statement called for a two-pronged strategy, legislation that:

"(1) erects a federalism shield to protect the authority of state institutions, such as state courts and public schools, to acknowledge the Creator by, for example, posting the Ten Commandments, and (2) preserves the right of individual citizens in these institutions and other public forums freely to express their religious faith, so long as they refrain from interfering with the legitimate rights of others."

    Endorsing the Bauer/FRC Statement were: James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Don Hodel (Christian Coalition), Chuck Colson (Prison Fellowship Ministries), Donald Wildmon (American Family Association), D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries), Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America), William Donohue (Catholic League for Civil Rights), Rev. Keith Fournier (Catholic Alliance), ex-Governor Robert Casey (Campaign for the American Family), Rev. Louis P. Sheldon (Traditional Values Coalition), and Pat Nolan (Justice Fellowship). Legal experts who signed on to the Bauer declaration included Robert P. George (Prof., Princeton University), Gerald Bradley (Prof., Notre Dame) Bernard Dobranski (Dean, Catholic University Law School) and David Smolin (Prof., Samford University).

    Which version of the RFA -- the Istook proposal, or the slightly modified rendition as amended by Congressman Hutchinson -- will come up for full Judiciary Committee review is uncertain. The former remains on a special web site operating out of the office of Rep. Istook, funded by public monies (http://religiousfreedom.house.gov/.

    While backers may not have the votes to pass the RFA during the second session of the 105th Congress, they may nevertheless still push for a floor vote. The reason for that action would be to get as many representatives as possible "on record" so that their votes may be included in "voters guides" which have become an effective political organizing tool of groups like the Christian Coalition. Those who vote against RFA would be described as being "against religious liberty" or "the right of children to pray in our schools."

    But for Bauer and other religious right movements, the Religious Freedom Amendment, or some form of prayer-in-government legislation, remains more than just a convenient political tool at election time. For atheists, RFA poses a serious threat to state-church separation; for the religious, it is a way of legislating their goal of "one nation under God."

[text only]