-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...