ROANOKE TIMES Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times DATE: Sunday, December 3, 1995 TAG: 9512030010 SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO SOURCE: CODY LOWE STAFF WRITER note: above
REP. BOB GOODLATTE wants to change the Constitution with a ``religious equality amendment.'' Opponents call it a ``religious tyranny amendment.''
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke, remembers "when I was a kid, we'd sing Christmas carols and Hanukkah songs this time of year" in his public school classroom. "I see nothing wrong with that."
Sharing students' religious background, traditions and beliefs "builds understanding and tolerance," Goodlatte says. "I think intolerance is built by saying that anything that is religious expression is taboo."
Today, teachers in public schools generally are prohibited from leading their classes in religious Christmas carols.
That distresses the 6th District congressman. And he is in a position to try to do something about it.
Goodlatte sits on the House Judiciary Committee's constitution subcommittee, which in the next few months will consider at least two proposals to amend the Constitution to clarify how courts should interpret the First Amendment's religious liberty provisions.
Goodlatte co-sponsored one of the proposals, called the Hyde Amendment after chief sponsor and committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill. Its language would prohibit discrimination, including the denial of government benefits, to any individual or group "on account of religious expression, belief or identity."
A second proposed amendment, offered by Rep. Ernest Istook Jr., R-Okla., specifically would protect "acknowledgments of the religious heritage, beliefs, or traditions of the people" and "student-sponsored prayer in public schools."
Like many other Americans, Goodlatte perceives a "pattern of hostility" against religious expression in the nation's classrooms - and in a variety of other public forums - engendered by Supreme Court decisions of the last three decades.
In 1962, the court banned teacher-led prayers in public schools. It ruled that such official prayers were tantamount to a government establishment of religion, which is specifically prohibited in the First Amendment.
Some critics of that decision trace the origins of a variety of social ills - from rising teen pregnancy rates to falling SAT scores - to that date.
Though Goodlatte hasn't argued for those connections, he does say the courts have violated "the intent of the public in their reading of the First Amendment" by "their wrong-headed interpretation." The courts have unreasonably sacrificed the exercise of religious freedom - protected by the First Amendment - at the altar of the "establishment clause."
Though his amendment would not specifically single out school prayer for constitutional protection, Goodlatte says its provisions would "allow voluntary prayer, as long as it was initiated by students. We are not looking for government-sponsored prayer."
Goodlatte insists that children of all religious faiths would have to be allowed to express their beliefs freely and that they should be able to refuse to participate in activities - such as singing religious songs - if it contradicts that faith.
"This is not a matter of the state imposing religious participation or beliefs, but of the state accommodating religious expression," Goodlatte said.
Opponents of the proposed amendments don't see it that way, though.
The amendments "are designed to remove the concept of the separation of church and state from the First Amendment," says Robb Boston of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a Washington-based religious liberty watchdog group.
The proposals "would allow government funding of religious groups and set up official programs of prayer in public schools and other government agencies," Boston asserts.
The way Boston reads it, Goodlatte's measure would require the federal government to fund religious schools if it provides funds to public schools.
Goodlatte says the amendment would not do that, though he says if the government provided funds to any nonpublic schools, it would be required to fund religious schools equally with secular schools.
While he acknowledges there have been violations of religious freedom in schools and other places, Boston says "the answer to that question is to help school officials and the lawyers who advise them understand the state of the law, not throw out the First Amendment and substitute Pat Robertson."
"This is the result of a bunch of lawyers and people who belong to groups run by TV preachers trying to rewrite the First Amendment," Boston says. "Those individuals do not have the talent or ability to rewrite the First Amendment."
Melissa Rogers, associate general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, calls the amendments the "full employment for lawyers act."
"Contrary to the claims of proponents that these measures would clarify, we believe they would confuse the law. They would create a complete repeal of a half-century of Supreme Court jurisprudence ... there would be endless litigation" as "we would have to revisit every church-state issue," Rogers says.
The Hyde amendment amounts to a "religious subsidy amendment," Rogers says, that would allow the use of tax money to support churches, synagogues and other houses of worship.
That would "violate the consciences of taxpayers whose taxes would be used to advance religion," says Rogers, whose agency represents several national Baptist denominations, but not the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Baptist body.
Southern Baptists several years ago severed ties with the Baptist Joint Committee in large part because of a disagreement over prayer in public schools. The Joint Committee has traditionally opposed any effort aimed at reintroducing official or majority-led prayers in schools. Many Southern Baptists, including the denomination's Christian Life Commission, support efforts such as the Hyde and Istook amendments.
The Christian Life Commission and other conservative Christian public-interest law groups have been working to help devise language for an amendment for several months.
Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice has been involved for "more than six months," says spokesman Gene Kapp.
"We see a pattern of hostility and discrimination against people of faith," Kapp says, and his center supports the Hyde proposal.
"The school prayer issue is important, but we believe the overarching amendment will guarantee the First Amendment right of those who want to express" their faith, he says.
"We continue to see discrimination, despite many Supreme Court rulings affirming the right of students to have Bible clubs, or to express their religious faith."
The Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute also has been involved in the discussions of an amendment, but its founder and president, John Whitehead, favors moving more quickly with statutory legislation.
The institute "feels the Hyde amendment is the better of the two," says Colleen Pinyan, who runs the Institute's Washington office. "However, over the long-term we question whether federal legislation in the form of a statute might resolve the problems faster, albeit not as permanently."
In recent years, Congress has countered specific Supreme Court decisions with legislation such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - which defined legal tests for violation of the establishment clause - and the Equal Access Act - which allowed public school students to have Bible clubs and other religious organizations on campus if other noncurriculum clubs were permitted.
Pinyan says Whitehead worries that pressing church-state concerns will languish while waiting the years it will take to ratify a constitutional amendment, even if one should be approved by Congress.
"Whatever we do, we have to make sure we make the problem better, not worse," Pinyan says.
A few years ago, many school-prayer advocates wanted a return to the days when the teacher led a class in prayer. Now, however, "among conservative religious groups, most people don't want to go back to before the Supreme Court ruling" disallowing such prayers, Pinyan says.
"The ramifications of mandatory prayer are more far-reaching than some people originally thought. ... They say, `Heaven forbid that some New-Age person, or Hindu or Muslim teacher should be leading the prayer.' They don't want that, and they realize that's a problem,'' Pinyan says.
"What we are trying to do is shift to a position of government neutrality." Before the school prayer decision, there was sometimes preference for Christians, Pinyan says. Afterward, there was sometimes hostility. "We're trying to shift to the absolute middle."
Advocates on both sides of the issue say the sponsors of the amendments failed in a months-long effort to put up a united front when Istook would not support the Hyde amendment.
In announcing his proposal, Istook said the Hyde amendment did not go far enough in protecting school prayer.
Goodlatte, while refusing to criticize Istook's proposal, says he believes the Hyde amendment stands a greater chance of being acceptable to a broad spectrum in the House. His committee will examine both proposals - and any others that come in - before making a recommendation to the House leadership or the floor of the House, Goodlatte says.
Observers on both sides also believe the House is much more likely than the Senate to actually pass some version of a religious equality or school-prayer amendment.
"House members have shown a cavalier disregard for the First Amendment in other cases," Boston says.
Most of those interested, including Goodlatte, believe the Senate -"known as a place where things get bogged down" - will prove to be a tougher selling ground.
"The House will definitely pass" some form of amendment, Pinyan predicts. But "there is no way on God's green earth they'll get this out of the Senate."
LENGTH: Long : 172 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: File/1995 Rep. Bob Goodlatte Proposal co-sponsorby CNBcolor