The measure, introduced by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) would "gut" the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and permit wider expression of sectarian religious belief in public schools and other secular institutions. It could also throw open the public treasury, and legalize taxpayer subsidies of "faith based" outreaches. Whatever the vote, RFA continues to be a religious litmus test for public office.

he House Judiciary Committee is expected to vote next week on a controversial bill which would amendment the U.S. Constitution, and allow a greater expression of religious belief and ritual in government. HJ Res 78, known as the Religious Freedom Amendment, has been a major action item for groups such as the Christian Coalition, which argue that it is necessary to address a "climate of official hostility" toward religion by government and other secular institutions. Critics argue, though, that the Amendment would "gut" the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and allow practices such as school prayer, religious instruction in classrooms and other invasive activities -- effectively overturning nearly 35 years of state-church separation decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The RFA has undergone numerous revisions, and is the latest incarnation of what was once called the Religious Equality Amendment when it was originally proposed by the Christian Coalition. Various craftings of the legislation have divided supporters, and HJ Res 78 is considered the version which stands the best chance of passage.

   Religious Freedom Amendment is sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK). It 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 religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

    Next week's anticipated vote within the full House Judiciary Committee marks the first time that body has considered the legislation; indeed, RFA and the earlier writings of the Religious Equality Amendment have often languished in that body, never making it to the floor of the Congress.

   The Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee stands a good change of passing the RFA and then sending in on for a full vote. But the proposed amendment faces tough opposition on both sides of the hill, and votes are probably not there for passage at this time. Why, then, would RFA supporters be working so hard for a floor vote?

• The Religious Freedom Amendment has become a litmus test for loyalty to the religious right (Christian Coalition) agenda within the GOP. When Republicans took control of both houses of congress after the 1994 election -- the first time in four decades -- credit for many crucial victories was given to the Christian Coalition, then under the leadership of the savvy Ralph Reed. (Reed has since departed to open a political consulting group based in Atlanta, but he remains on the Coalition board). The GOP victory has been energized by the party's "Contract With America." The Coalition, however, released it own "Contract With the American Family" that contained a more religiously explicit agenda calling for "family friendly" legislation, a ban on abortion, discharging gays from the military, and passage of the Religious Equality Amendment. Since then, however, religious right leaders such as James Dobson (Focus on the Family) and Gary Bauer (Family research Council) have become increasingly disenchanted with Republican leadership which, they insist, has sacrificed principle for high-profile political gimmicks, and neglected the religious evangelicals and fundamentalists within the party. Dobson recently expressed his disapproval at a meeting of the semi-secret Council for National Policy, accusing key Republicans such as House Speaker Newt Gingrich of "betrayal."

     Next week's vote on the Religious Freedom Amendment could end up putting pressure on Mr. Gingrich to schedule the legislation for a full House vote. A reluctance to do so may signal growing tensions between GOP leaders and the party's religious rank-and-file.

• Even if the RFA meets its demise on the floor of the House, Representatives' votes on the amendment are sure to be including in forthcoming versions of the Christian Coalition's disingenuous "voters guides" and other electioneering materials. Critics have charged that the Coalition oversimplifies legislators' votes on key issues and that its propaganda is distinctly partisan -- a charge made in the Federal Election Commission's suit against the CC. Any Representative voting "no" on Religious Freedom Amendment is sure to be cast as being "against school prayer" or "hostile toward expressions of faith in the public square" in the next elections.

      "Getting congress on the record" is an ancillary benefit even if the Religious Freedom Amendment is defeated.

Background on the Religious Freedom Amendment is widely available through news sources on the world wide web, including this American Atheists site. Also, for an analysis of different "special rights" legislation, check out "ALPHABET SOUP" at the American Atheist Magazine web site. Mr. Istook's office has established a pro-RFA site at http://religiousfreedom.house.gov. There are also other resources, including the C-SPAN website and All Politics which can be reached through Cable News, cnn.com.

    A convenient way of reaching House Judiciary Committee members is through the Capitol Hill Switchboard at 202-225-3121.

    Atheists, freethinkers and state-church separationists need to watch closely any legislation which threatens the "wall of separation" between government and religion. Among the issues raised by this sort of legislation:

• IS IT REALLY NECESSARY?

      Both freedom of and freedom from religion are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a system which despite flaws has worked well for over two centuries. In the last 35-years, key legal decisions regarding school prayer and other forms of government entanglement with religion -- MURRAY v. CURLETT, ENGEL v. VITALE, LEE v. WEISMAN and many others -- have helped to define the proper role of private religious groups and public institutions. Do we really want to tamper with this? Much of this legislation protects not only religious minorities, but children who come from atheist and non-believer families. Why should these youngsters be pressured in any way and at any time in public schools to participate in religious ritual?

• "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" ADVOCATES OFTEN DISTORT THE RECORD. If you follow our coverage of this amendment on the American Atheist web site, you'll see that many of the "horror stories" alleged by the Christian Coalition and its allies which supposedly necessitate this brash action are exaggerations or clear misrepresentations of fact. Legitimate problems, though, can often be addressed through existing laws. Religious individuals and groups have plenty of time to worship or appease the god(s) of their choice; and there are over 350,000 churches, mosques, temples and other venues for them to do so. Why should religion be made a matter for government, and be carried into secular, public institutions?

• "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" BOOSTERS DISTORT THE EFFECT OF THEIR PROPOSALS.

      RFA has been accused of paying lip service to state-church separation (by prohibiting, for instance, compulsory prayer or government composed prayers). But the effect is often to create a climate within schools or other public institutions where nonbelievers, even those of minority faiths, are ostracized, bullied and coerced into participating in a majoritarian prayer. While it is true that RFA would legitimize "student led" or "student initiated" prayer, this religious activity is often not promoted even by a majority of students. Besides, do we want to send the message that any prayer or religious ritual must always be acknowledged -- whether supported by a majority, or even one student? Religious belief and ritual can often divide any group; students, especially those in lower grades, are vulnerable to peer pressure and other forms of bullying. Classrooms shouldn't be disrupted by questions about prayer or other religious ritual.

• IS IT ''WELFARE FOR THE CHURCHES" OR WORSE?

      The final words of the proposed measure states that religious groups may not be denied a "benefit" on account of their faith. Critics have charged that this is perhaps the most dangerous part of the measure, one which would open the floodgates for public funding of religion-based outreaches -- religious schools, social services and other activities.

     This would, in effect, compel millions of atheists to subsidize religious activities through their taxes. Clearly, this goes against not only two centuries of American history, but a widely acknowledged appreciation that no person should be compelled to support a particular religious faith, or religion in general. It is no exaggeration to suggest that these sorts of measures would result in a "scramble for public dollars." American Atheists National Media Coordinator Ron Barrier has charged that this provision of the Religion Freedom Amendment established "a raiding party on the public treasury led by the Christian Coalition and other religious groups."

[text only]