Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.
-The First Amendment to the
Constitution
The Religious Equality
Amendment
Currently, there is a bill in Congress called the
Religious Equality Amendment, sponsored by Representative Ernest
Istook (R-OK), and heavily supported by the Christian Coalition and
Pat Robertson. The text of this proposed amendment to the
Constitution is the following: "Nothing in this Constitution shall
prohibit acknowledgments of the religious heritage, beliefs, or
traditions of the people, or prohibit student-sponsored prayer in
public schools. Neither the United States nor any State shall compose
any official prayer or compel joining in prayer, or discriminate
against religious expression or belief."
At first glance this almost sounds like an good
thing. But then again, doesn't the First Amendment provide for all of
this already? Why, yes it does. So then, why does the Coalition want
this seemingly frivolous item added to the Constitution of our
country?
The answer partly lies in the words
"acknowledgements" and "student-sponsored." "Acknowledgements" is a
broad term. It would allow mangers to constantly "acknowledge" their
religious beliefs to their employees, giving the implication that
only those who believe the same can get a promotion. The same could
go for school officials. It could allow Congress to vote to
"acknowledge" that America is a Christian nation, based upon a
majority of its "people" and their "religious heritage, beliefs, or
traditions." Religious symbols such as crosses could be erected
inside of courthouses.
"Student-sponsored" means that students can lead
the class in prayer. Of course, who decides what this prayer is? The
student? The teacher? Is it right for students, who have to be in
school whether they want to or not, to be subject to teachings that
they may believe in? Maybe a student could bring in a evangelistic
preacher to speak to the class about how they all need to be saved;
after all, you cannot "discriminate" against the students or
preacher's expression of religious belief. Maybe each student could
lead the class in prayer from whatever religion they choose, to make
sure thy nobody is discriminated against. Too many questions are left
open. What many people who are for this amendment like to point to is
a few cases in which students have been stopped from reading Bibles
during free reading time, or stopped from meeting after school with a
religious club. What they don't tell you is that the Supreme Court
has affirmed students rights to do these things, and that whenever
these cases have been taken to court, the students in question have
won, and justice has been served.
Additionally, the part about being prohibited from
discriminating against religious expression of belief could easily
make it so that the government would have to subsidize religious
organizations the same way it does many other organizations. Your
atheist taxes could end up paying for a synagogue, or your Islamic
dollar could pay for a new Presbyterian church.
In the final analysis, this amendment goes beyond
affirming rights we already have. Its broad language would allow for
all sorts of possible interpretations, causing all sorts of civil
rights violations-only they wouldn't be civil rights violations any
more, because this is not just a law, it is a Constitutional
amendment.
Related Links:
- A summary of the situation by Americans United for Separation of
Church and State.
- An article on REA by the American Baptist Press.
- A statement from Rev. Albert Pennybacker (Interfaith Alliance
President).
|
Back to the Anti-Pat home
page...
|