|
|
| RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?
Does the Religious Freedom Amendment violate or strenghten the First Amendment? June 10, 1998 |
|---|
Questions asked
in this forum:
How does this proposal protect minority faiths from discrimination? Is this amendment necessary? Does the amendment allow religious schools to receive federal and state aid ? What would the RFA allow that is not already granted under the First Amendment? Is this amendment just an example of the GOP appeasing its constituency? 
Scott Eggener of San Francisco, CA, asks: What would the RFA allow that is not already granted under the First Amendment? Terri Schroeder of the ACLU responds:
In terms of religious protections, defenders of religious liberty believe that the Religious Freedom Amendment was unnecessary because of the protections already provided in the First Amendment combined with acts of Congress such as the Equal Access Act. Istook's amendment meant to create a new constitutional regime governing religion by proposing a new set of constitutional values, but the values of religious freedom and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment have worked astonishingly well for America, and there is no reason to throw the handiwork of the Founders overboard now.
The Istook amendment would have allowed for government-endorsed religion in public schools and other public places and government-subsidized parochial schools and religious ministries. The First Amendment does not allow this type of government-sponsored religious activity because the Framers of the Constitution were aware of the sanctity of individual religious belief, and the harm which government intervention into religious belief would cause to American society.
Arne Owens of the Christian Coalition responds:
Not a thing. But remember, the First Amendment is not the problem. In fact, if it were being interpreted by the Supreme Court as our Founders intended, there would be no problem. The problem is the impact of Supreme Court justices who are judicial activists, those who read things into the Constitution that are not really there, like the phrase "wall of separation between church and state." Those justices, usually in split decisions with a majority of only one vote, have for the last 30 years imposed restrictions on religious liberties. In 1962, they said students could not pray together in school, even if it was voluntary.
In 1980 they said the Ten Commandments could not be posted on the wall at school, even as examples of our religious heritage, because students might "read... and obey" them. In 1985 they ruled a moment of silence was unconstitutional because, while some students might use it to think about a trip to the beach, others might use it to pray. In 1995, the Supreme Court, which ruled that a Nazi swastika is protected on public property, ruled that a cross could not be included in a group of symbols on a city seal, to depict the heritage of a city in Oklahoma.
Other examples abound, from Jersey City, where the local courts prohibited the display of a nativity scene and a menorah on the City Hall grounds during the holidays, to Alabama, where a federal judge has issues an order banning even voluntary, student led, group prayer in schools. The American Center for Law and Justice receives over 100,000 communications from citizens with a story of how their religious freedoms are being threatened. They have on file over 1,100 cases which they are pursuing. All these examples reflect an increasingly hostile climate toward religious expression created by the Supreme Courts actions. Only a constitutional amendment can resolve this problem.
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
