Religious Freedom Amendment
Redefining Religious Freedom
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Religious Freedom Amendment certainly seemed to be a wicked witch in need of a good dunking, and at first glance the 224-203 defeat in 1998 (just 61 votes short of the necessary 2/3 majority) would appear to have served this purpose; but that is not entirely accurate.
To be truthful, the RFA was actually just the latest - and most dangerous - manifestation of the real enemy: religious bigotry and authoritarianism. Don't let the misleading name of that amendment fool you! It was nothing more than an attempt by the ignorant and hateful members of the Religious Right to begin an imposition of their religion upon the whole of society. This has to be obvious to anyone who takes the time to read the press releases which have recently come out of the Christian Coalition, the American Family Association, and similar organizations.
The AFA was especially vociferous in its push to have the RFA passed through the our House of Representatives. Their ultimate goals were unmistakable, and we can read in their letters about how their efforts were directed towards having an America where we all "...desire to keep God, our Creator, in all aspects of our lives."
The text finally voted on 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.
Misrepresentations of the truth and insulting statements were rampant among the supporters of the amendment. Tom DeLay (R-TX), said that "Today, our schools are filed with drugs and violence - it's time we made room for a little prayer instead." The obvious implication of DaLay's comments is that prayer and active religious belief would have a salutary effect on problems in schools. There is already room for prayer in our schools - and that room exists in the private conscience of each student. There is, however, no permissible room for any schools to officially endorse or support prayers.
Another legislator, a supposed representative of the people, was Rep. James Traficant (D-OH) who stated that "When God is omitted, evil will be permitted. In America, the judges don't govern; the people do. And the American people want prayer in school." Traficant has a history of making statements like this - clearly indicating that there is something wrong or even immoral with people who don't happen to believe in his god. That's a strange sentiment from a person who went to jail due to criminal corruption.
Traficant once claimed that people who believed in his god made much better parents - and I wrote him a harsh letter about that. Beyond the insults, it simply isn't true that the American people want government-organized prayer in schools. Americans generally appreciate the separation of church and state in our country - and if they want their own children to pray, then they'll make sure that it happens.
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) claimed that "the constitution give us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." If that were true, then there would be little need for the RFA, so we can see that there is something amiss right away. But Aderholt is incorrect - the constitution does not give us that. It is a myth promoted by cynical and even deceitful religionists who don't want people to understand that freedom of religion is impossible without freedom from religion. Unless a Catholic child can be free from Protestant prayers, he cannot be free to say his own prayers. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
One legislator in particular, Ernest Istook of Oklahoma who was the amendment's chief sponsor, went even further and made numerous factual errors in his attempts to portray his bill as something which might promote freedom. I have refuted some of the most egregious errors in an open letter which I wrote to him and which was graciously published by the Washington Times on 6/5/98. Suffice it to say that a person which so little comprehension of facts and of the current nature of religion in our public schools has little business being an elected representative.
The American Jewish Congress also made note of the inexcusable spread of untruths in the battle to pass the amendment. The AJC took the lead in drafting, with other groups, the document " Religion in Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law." This, along with guidelines issued by President Clinton, have clearly delineated what is and is not permitted in public schools. Every school district in the nation has received these guidelines, and they have worked: a formerly trickling stream of complaints of religious repression has dried up. Legislators like Istook and DeLay simply have no excuse to erroneously claim that our public schools have become "religion-free zones."
It should be noted, though, that many legislators did a good job in attacking the RFA. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called it the "Religious Coercion Amendment" and warned that under this amendment, the religion of the majority would be favored by the government. The rule of the majority, he indicated, would serve to determine the content of religious exercises, what prayers would be recited, and what religious symbols would be displayed. This might be fine in the context of a church, but is unacceptable in government settings. Unfortunately, though, none of those opposing the RFA bothered - or dared? - to mention the rights of atheists or other nonbelievers.
It is ironic - and sad - that the RFA was supported primarily by Republicans. Normally Republicans make loud noises about getting government off the backs of the average American - but here they were engaged in a deliberate effort to impose extra government influences on the most private of individual pursuits: religious beliefs. Make no mistake: these people aren't real conservatives. They are authoritarian statists interested in imposing their will on the people in matters of personal morality and beliefs.
We already have an amendment to our Constitution which protects the religious liberties of individuals, including children. So why a new Religious Freedom Amendment? If it wasn't simply going to be redundant, then it must have had some other purpose not made explicitly by its supporters. They must have seen the RFA as authorizing more than the current law allows - which means a return of organized religion - and in particular prayer - to our classrooms.
Starting in the 1800s and through most of this century, our children sat through official school prayers which had a specific Protestant character. Catholic and Jewish children - at the time the primary "minority faiths" - either had to participate or were singled out for ostracization. This continues today in some rural areas where the local schools defy court orders and maintain official prayers.
This is the situation which the Supreme Court correctly ended more than 30 years ago, and this is the situation to which the Religious Right wishes to return when they call for an end to Supreme Court decisions strictly separating church and state. Whenever a religious zealot derides the current prohibitions against prayers in school or an official endorsement of religious symbols, we only need look to the de facto Protestant establishment which characterized the previous century in order to see the sort of society being sought.
Few people seem to realize that religion has flourished in America precisely because of the separation of church and state. In European countries, where churches are granted official recognition and funding, religiosity has been declining. Far from being banned in our public life, religion suffuses our culture, media, and almost everything which we do. It is a rare politician who doesn't invoke the Christian god in her speeches, and religious leaders are active in both the community and in the drafting of laws. Personally, I'd be quite happy if religion played less of a role in people's lives - but if that would be the result of a greater intermingling of church and state, then why would religionists be pushing it?
The political consequences of this effort were put very succinctly by Tom DeLay (R-TX), who said that "This vote will provide an opportunity for Members of the House to be put on record as supporters of religious freedoms and "One nation under God." The clear implication of DeLay's statement - something which has been made explicit by others - is that the members of the House have been put on record as either voting for or against God. That's why mixing religion and politics is dangerous - when a politician starts arguing that he is on the side of God and his opponents are on the "other" side, it's no longer simply a political disagreement.
Unfortunately, this fight isn't over. The supporters of the Religious Freedom Amendment haven't gone away and few, if any, have been convinced that it was a bad idea. All of these issues will continue to reappear in the guise of more laws and election-year rhetoric. This means that we need to continue fighting this brand of bigotry and authoritarianism emanating from the Religious Right. Freedom isn't something which can be granted and then ignored. Instead, it is something which we must constantly struggle for. Freedom isn't the normal social or political condition for humans - it is unusual and difficult to maintain. It will take work, but it is worth the effort.
-->