"Our organization is committed to seeing a vote on this before the August recess if possible, and we will spend whatever resources are necessary to mobilize our grassroots network to see that the First Amendment's freedom FOR religion will no longer be translated as freedom FROM religion..."

-- Ralph Reed, Director Christian Coalition

"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."

Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed dispatched a morning press release, promising that his 1.6 million member organization would campaign vigorously for the amendment. He said: "We look forward to working with the bipartisan co-sponsors of the Religious Freedom Amendment. Our organization is committed to seeing a vote on this before the August recess if possible, and we will spend whatever resources are necessary to mobilize our grassroots network to see that the First Amendment's freedom FOR religion will no longer be translated as freedom FROM religion."

This morning's bill is only the latest in a number of proposed amendments designed to legalize some form of prayer in public schools and other government venues. The measure, in some version, has been introduced twice since 1994, when it emerged as a centerpiece in the Christian Coalition's "Contract With the American Family." Despite efforts by religious right groups, however, including the Coalition, Christian Legal Society and Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, different versions emerged, and the respective sides balked at endorsing each other's proposals. This latest Istook version is more inclusive of the demands of some religious groups that the Amendment be "beefed up" to provide for religious ritual and display on government property.

Reed noted that over 110 congressional representatives have already expressed support for the measure as co-sponsors, including Sanford Bishop (D-GA) and Floyd Flake (D-NY), both of whom are members of the Congressional Black Caucus. This morning's press release mentioned that fact; statements sent out earlier from the Coalition's Chesapeake, Va. office promoted Saturday's "Congress on Racial Justice and Reconciliation," scheduled for Baltimore, Maryland. That event is being promoted as an effort "seeking to bridge the chasm between white evangelicals, African Americans and other minorities." Topics on the meeting agenda "will include racial reconciliation; gangs, drugs, drugs and violence (sic); the Religious Freedom Amendment, the Coalition's Samaritan Project and many other..."

Reed went on to describe the Istook amendment as "truly a bipartisan, universal issue which a majority of Americans can and do support." He added that "God is not a Republican or a Democrat nor is he white or black."

The latest version of the Religious Freedom Amendment specifically endorses behaviors and policies which have long concerned state-church separation activists; and it plugs in to many "culture war" themes now being played out across the nation, including places like Alabama, where a state judge insists that he will continue his practice of beginning court sessions with a Baptist invocation, and posting a plaque of the Ten Commandments above his bench. While the legislation pays lip service to nonbelievers or others who may object to orchestrated prayer ("The government shall not require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity"), it would permit any other form of prayer ritual initiated by students, and possibly even by teachers, administrators or even outside interests.

Yet major courts have decided that major problems exist with prayer initiated or conducted by student leaders. In the "captive audience" setting of public schools, students who opt out of prayer can often find themselves isolated, ostracized and even physically threatened by their schoolmates. Critics of school prayer note that the practice often divides students and creates hostility; others add that prayer itself is not efficacious, and has no place in such a venue.

Other parts of Mr. Istook's Religious Freedom Amendment clearly place the government in the position of endorsing either a particular religion, or religious belief in general. The "right to pray" addressed in the proposal is already guaranteed in the Free Exercise portion of the First Amendment; but RFA creates a new class of rights which would legalize prayer or recognition of "religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property..." In addition to public schools, this portion of the amendment would permit any religious display (directly or indirectly using public monies) in courtrooms, government lands, other buildings and in the official ceremonies of government business.

The final portion of the amendment is also cause for concern. It states that government may not "deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion." That phrase has been defended as a form of anti-discrimination clause against persons who profess a religious belief (including a "minority" belief), but it actually goes much further. This disingenuous "equal access to a benefit" would end any restrictions currently applied to religious organizations which receive government aid or monies of any kind. Churches and other religious groups would thus be permitted to establish non-profit, sectarian social outreaches and receive government funding despite the fact that they may use these public resources as part of their greater religious mission. Critics of RFA charge that this final part of the Istook proposal would permit a clear, blatant subsidy by taxpayers and the government of religious proselytization -- something currently prohibited by the First Amendment.

When the 105th Congress convened in January, it appeared unlikely that the different sides involved in crafting some version of the Religious Freedom Amendment (earlier referred to as the Religious Equality Amendment) could agree on a workable proposal. It also seemed likely that the Christian Coalition-religious right social agenda would once again be put on the Capitol Hill "back burner," as Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the hill thrashed out more pressing matters such as budget reform.

That still may be the case; but while the Religious Freedom Amendment is probably currently short of the required votes needed for passage, the situation could change. Among the factors which might affect the outcome of the Istook amendment in the next 60-90 days:

* Gridlock on substantive issues. "It's the economy, stupid" is still the operative phrase in Washington, but a breakdown in the budgetary process involving Congress and the White House could fuel a political environment where culture war issues again become a substitute for more harder, substantive questions. It should be noted that a good portion of legislation now being debated in the House and Senate already resonates with religious overtones -- everything from the Partial Birth Abortion Ban to the American Community Renewal Act and even "get tough" schemes for dealing with recalcitrant juveniles.

* U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Among the cases now being debated by the court are two important "religious liberty" appeals involving whether government can provide financial aid to private, religious schools, and whether religious groups are exempt under the Free Exercise clause from certain laws and regulations which apply to the rest of society. BOERNE v. FLORES and a rehearing on AGUILAR v. FELTON could go either way, and end up being a no-win situation for state-church separation, regardless of how the justices rule. Here's why. In the former case, the high court must decide whether a city can regulate the regional Archdiocese, which wants to demolish part of a historic church structure in order to construct a new edifice. The ruling will determine the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993. Should the justices find for the church, that action would essentially exempt religious groups from laws and regulations which apply to private individuals and businesses by burdening the state with the responsibility of showing a "compelling interest" in its actions. Critics charge that this would essentially create a class of "special rights" for religious believers and groups. In AGUILAR v. FELTON, government aid to religious groups is under consideration. New York City wants to allow remedial and special education teachers to go directly into private sectarian schools; critics charge that this opens the door to wider funding of these religious institutions.

Should the high court rule against the religious groups in either or both cases, that would fuel the call for passage of the Religious Freedom Amendment, says American Atheists President Ellen Johnson. "The Christian Coalition will point to unfavorable decisions in these cases and essentially say 'Here's why we need the RFA. Churches aren't protected enough by the current law, so we need to amend the constitution.' " But decisions which favor religious groups in BOERNE or AGUILAR could also enhance the appeal of the RFA. The Amendment could be packaged by supporters as being in accord with the intent and direction of the Supreme Court. * Black religious groups and the Congressional Black Caucus. Overlooked by most media is the fact that while a gulf has existed between the religious right and the nation's black religious establishment, the latter is often highly conservative on the "culture war" issues emphasized by groups like the Christian Coalition. While they may disagree on questions such as welfare reform, many black religious leaders have "answered the call" on issues like opposition to gay rights, gambling, pornography and abortion. Thanks to Reed, the CC in particular has enjoyed some success in positioning itself as a bridge builder between conservative white fundamentalists and evangelicals, and a large black religious constituency. AANEWS has advised readers to particularly note the role played by CC superstar Congressman J.C. Watt (R-OK). And the Coalition isn't the only religious right group courting blacks. The Promise Keepers movement is making a major, high profile effort to target black men; the group just concluded another rally held in Los Angeles which featured Bishop Phillip H. Porter, a black PK minister known for his extreme Christian Reconstructionist tendencies.

It remains doubtful, of course, that as a body the Congressional Black Caucus will sign on to the Religious Freedom Amendment; but expect some highly publicized and showcased defections over the prayer issue.

Even if they don't have the numbers for passage, the Coalition and its supporters are determined to get the Religious Freedom Amendment in front of the congress for a vote. The results will inevitably find their way into voter's guides and other handouts, along with representative's stand on related issues such as abortion and government aid to religious groups -- all in time for the next round of elections. Building opposition to the Religious Freedom Amendment should still remain a priority for Atheists and state-church separationists who seek to preserve what Mr. Reed has made his number-one target -- our freedom FROM religion.

[text only]