AJC Submits Statement In Opposition To Proposed Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment

American Jewish Committee
Tuesday, 22 July 1997

The following statement was submitted today by Robert S. Rifkind, President of the American Jewish Committee, at a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution:

"The American Jewish Committee, which has battled to protect religious liberty since its founding in 1906, strongly opposes Congressman Ernest J. Istook's proposal to add a 'religious freedom' amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"This initiative is dangerous and unnecessary. It is dangerous because, far from serving America's historic commitment to religious freedom, its proposed tampering with the First Amendment will undo essential protections against government endorsement of religion that are an integral part of that provision. The amendment will allow the whole authority of the state to be thrown behind religious expression that will inevitably reflect the preference of the majority. And the amendment is unnecessary because the First Amendment, as well as the Equal Access Act enacted by this Congress in 1984, already protect private religious expression in public schools and in the public square.

"The amendment proposed by Rep. Istook would allow public-school teachers, military officers, and other government officials to sustain and orchestrate religious activities with a resulting inherently coercive effect on students, soldiers, and others confided to their custody. And private citizens would be allowed to include programs promoting sectarian religious views in officially sponsored school assemblies and other public events. The inevitable result would be interference with parents' right to raise their children according to their religious faith, undermining of the integrity of religion and government as they seek closer identification with one another, and divisiveness and harsh contention as government officials choose the religious voice in which they will speak.

"In addition, were the amendment to become law, it would permit -- or even require -- the government to fund religious activities and pervasively sectarian institutions (such as parochial schools, churches and synagogues) on the same terms that it funds secular activities and institutions. This is a violation of the fundamental constitutional principle that taxpayers should not be forced to support the promulgation of religious tenets that are contrary to their own beliefs. And it would open the door to divisive and contentious competition between religious groups as to which of them will receive how much from an all-too-limited public treasury.

"Ironically, with these and other baleful effects the amendment serves no necessary purpose. The religious expression concerns that it ostensibly addresses are already protected by current law. Students are entitled to pray in a nondisruptive fashion, whether silently to themselves in class, as a group saying grace at lunch, or to form prayer and Bible clubs in middle and high schools that have other kinds of noncurricular clubs. Public employees may engage in religious worship and discussion that does not disrupt their duties, and private individuals and groups may, of course, publicly recognize their religious heritage and beliefs. And religious institutions that are not pervasively sectarian may receive public funds for the provision of secular services.

"Representative Istook has asserted that his amendment, perhaps with some additional language, is an appropriate response to the recent action of the United States Supreme Court striking down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. We urge that you not be misled by this claim. The Supreme Court's decision on RFRA is a threat to religious liberty, but the 'religious freedom' amendment is at least as great a threat.

"The Supreme Court's decision in City of Boerne v. Flores dealt a grievous blow to religious liberty, leaving Americans for the second time in a decade with much-reduced protection for the free exercise of religion. But, far from remedying this situation, the constitutional amendment advanced by Rep. Istook would deal a second grievous blow to the First Liberty, vitiating the Establishment Clause's prohibition of laws 'respecting an establishment of religion' even as the Court's jurisprudence has vitiated the Free Exercise Clause. There are steps that ought to be taken to deal with the consequences of Boerne, but the 'religious freedom' amendment is assuredly not one of them.

"In sum, rather than promoting religious liberty, the 'religious freedom' amendment presents a grave peril to the crucial principles protecting religious liberty that are part of the framework of American law. The American Jewish Committee urges that Congress strongly reject this dangerous initiative."

For more information, or to contact American Jewish Committee, see their website at: www.ajc.org