http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/cong14.htm
AS CONGRESS RETURNS TO FOGGY BOTTOM, A HOST OF NEW "RELIGION FRIENDLY"
BILLS ON THE AGENDA
Web Posted: September 4, 2003
Lawmakers returning from their late-summer recess will take up a slew of
new and old "religion friendly" legislative items.
In committees are several important bills awaiting hearings, including
provisions that would allow churches and other groups participating in
federal programs to discriminate in their hiring practices. Critics fear
that this session of Congress will see renewed efforts to enact President
Bush's expansive faith-based initiative in what Baptist Press Service
described as "a piecemeal fashion."
Other proposed statutes deal with culture war issues such as display
of the Ten Commandments on public property, the inclusion of the phrase
"under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, vouchers, political campaigning
by religious groups, and even a proposal to limit the scope of federal
judicial review when matters of state-church separation are involved.
� A bill that would permit churches, synagogues, temples,
mosques and other religious entities to engage in partisan political
campaigns -- and still preserve their unique tax-exempt status -- is back
in the legislative hopper. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) has introduced HR
235, titled "The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act." In the
last congressional session, the bill was disingenuously labeled "The
Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act."
The statute would alter the Internal Revenue Service Code of 1986, and
provide that any organization granted a religious tax exemption "shall
not fail to be treated and organized exclusively for a religious purpose,
or to have participated in, or intervened in any political campaign on
behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office ...
because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily,
sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious
services or gatherings."
For religious groups, the Jones bill is a win-win situation. Houses of
worship would maintain their special tax exemption, and at the same time
be able to raise money, endorse and campaign for partisan candidates
seeking public office.
So far, 159 lawmakers have agreed to co-sponsor the controversial
measure. Jones and his supporters argue that the statute is necessary in
order to protect free expression, and "level the playing field" for
religious congregations wishing to participate in the civic square. But
critics say that the proposed law would amount to a special perk for
houses of worship. Political action committees (PACS) and other
organizations which campaign for candidates are not tax exempt entities.
Some also worry that the integrity and independence of the pulpit could
be compromised, as churches and other houses of worship are increasingly
transformed into ward offices and booster-headquarters for political
hopefulls.
Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists, says that the growing
"push" to pass HR 235 has to do with the timing for the upcoming
elections.
"If we thought that the 2000 presidential campaign was a high-water
mark for the use of religious rhetoric in politics, wait until 2004
arrives," said Johnson. "Candidates from both major parties look forward
to courting religion-based voting blocks."
Johnson added that President Bush's faith-based funding initiative,
when coupled with the Jones bill, means that elected officials especially
will have a "carrot" to dangle before congregations.
"It's government aid to faith-based programs in exchange for political
contributions and help," warned Johnson.
� President Bush's faith-based initiative -- a plan to provide
federal assistance to churches operating religion-saturated social
programs -- has stalled over concerns of discrimination in hiring. The
contentious issue is likely to resurface when lawmakers take up the
controversial Head Start program. On July 24, the House passed
reauthorized funding for Head Start, including a provision that permits
religious groups to discriminate on the basis of faith. It is one of the
first times that lawmakers have allowed such a practice. And in May,
2003, congress amalgamated a similar exemption for religious groups into
the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act. Look for sparks to
fly when both measures come up in the Senate.
� The House is completing work on a scaled-down version of the White
House faith-based initiative, a plan consisting mostly of tax incentives
and indirect grants to help religious charities. Majority Whip Roy Blunt,
author of the legislation, says that it is designed to give churches and
other religion-based social groups "more access to resources than they
have had in the past."
A similar compromise measure was passed by the Senate in April. Both
measures omit the more blatant provisions of President Bush's original
faith-based funding proposal, which would have expanded "charitable
choice" by permitting religious groups to compete for federal grants
without secularizing the content of their programs.
Blunt's measure is HR 7, and would revise the 1986 IRS Code to allow
for charitable deductions for those taxpayers who do not itemize; raise
the cap on corporate charitable contributions; and make it easier for
churches to set up and operate corporations in order to administer
faith-based social programs.
Critics say that the legislation throws open the public treasury
window to religious groups that may have little or no expertise in
operating effective social programs, and does not include sufficiently
rigorous oversight and accounting procedures. There are also charges that
with many companies still laying off workers, corporate contributions to
charities (both religious and secular) will not take up the slack
resulting from deep government cutbacks in the social services area.
There are slight differences in the two measures. The Senate version
does not include the hefty deduction for corporate contributions, but
would give incentives for donors providing books, artwork and music to
charity. The Senate version would also include a $1.3 billion package of
"social service block grants" to individual states. Ironically, the White
House currently opposes this part of the Senate bill, which is not found
in the Blunt legislation.
According to the Washington Times, the $1.3 grant package was
"sweetener" to tempt Senate Democrats into supporting the initiative. An
unidentified staffer declared, "Liberals love (the grants) and
conservatives have never been big fans."
HR 7 is currently in the House Subcommittee on Select Education. The
measure, introduced last May, has 84 cosponsors.
� The battle over same-sex marriage has been re-ignited
following the summer ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a
Texas statute banning sodomy. Similar laws, including one in
Massachusetts are now under attack. Republicans are busy exploiting the
debate concerning homosexual unions, attempting to force Democrats to
take firm positions -- a fact that the Washington Times says could lead
to a "particularly dicey" conundrum for presidential candidates.
This week, Hill Republicans will hold meetings of the Senate Judiciary
Committee to see if the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, might be
threatened by Supreme Court or state rulings.
Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn told reporters, "I believe we must
do whatever it takes to safeguard the institution of marriage and ensure
that the principles defined in DOMA remain the law of the land... This
hearing will remind people why traditional marriage is so important for a
healthy society, and will determine the extent of the threat posed to
DOMA by judicial activism in light of recent court decisions and pending
cases."
Senate Republicans may attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to
limit the scope of judicial review of DOMA and other legislative items.
So, consider our pick for the bill most unlikely to pass Congress this
year, namely HR 2677, the "State Regulation of Marriage Is Appropriate
Act," introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MASS). Despite the title, the
proposal would essentially gut the DOMA, and call for "elimination of
federal policy on the definition of marriage." Mr. Frank, the only
openly-gay member of Congress, introduced the bill on July 9, 2003.
Predictably, it has no cosponsors and will likely languish at the House
Committee on the Judiciary.
DOMA passed the House and Senate by wide margins in 1996, and has been
described by the Human Rights Campaign as "a mean-spirited attack on gay
families." According to David Smith of the HRC, the "Defense of Marriage
Act" discriminates against same-sex couples who are raising children "and
simply want the same rights, benefits and security granted to other
families.."
In the current session, HJ Res. 56 introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave
of Colorado would provide a constitutional amendment declaring: "Marriage
in the United States shall consist only of a union of a man and a woman."
The measure is the Subcommittee on the Constitution and has 75
cosponsors.
� "Voluntary" prayer in public schools remains a constant issue,
and in this session Congress may take up HJ Res. 7 introduced by Rep. Jo
Ann Emerson. It proposes a constitutional amendment declaring: "Nothing
in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group
prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be
required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer.
Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe the content of
any such prayer."
The wording is remarkably similar to other bills and resolutions
introduced over the years under a rubric of titles such as "Religious
Freedom Amendment." They are usually designed to circumvent U.S. Supreme
Court and other federal, even state decisions striking down organized
"student led" devotionals in the classroom, graduation ceremonies or even
athletic events. Supporters of such legislation argue that it is meant to
protect freedom of expression; but critics say that it is simply a ruse
to "smuggle" organized prayer back into the public school classrooms.
They also note that such "spontaneous" prayer outbursts often involve
teachers, administrators and off-campus ministries, and have the effect
of "prayer bullying" against those wishing to opt-out.
The measure is now in the Subcommittee on the Constitution, and is co
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Georgia.
In the same legislative vein, there is HJ Res. 49 introduced on April
9, 2003 by Rep. Ernest Istook, a veteran of Capitol Hill efforts to
legalize prayer in government. It, too, proposes a constitutional
amendment "restoring religious freedom," and is a copy of Istook's
previous bills. The Istook amendment reads, in part:
"To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the
dictates of conscience:
"The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious
beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools.
"The United States and the States shall not establish any official
religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity."
"Istook's proposed amendment sounds innocent enough," warns AA's Ellen
Johnson. "But it would allow everything from orchestrated prayer to the
display of religious slogans, symbols and monuments like Roy Moore's Ten
Commandments rock.
"There's no way you can avoid the government endorsement of religion
if this amendment were to pass," Johnson added.
The Istook legislation is in the House Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on the Constitution and presently enjoys cosponsorship by 95
lawmakers.
� With courts striking down a range of unconstitutional
practices -- from organized public school prayer to bans on private
sexual behavior or the display of religious icons on public property --
religious and social conservatives are increasingly denouncing what they
call "judicial activism." Much of the rhetoric targets "sinister
secularists in black robes," as in the recent federal court incident
involving Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore's unconstitutional
display of a Ten Commandments monument in the foyer of the state Judicial
Building.
On Capitol Hill, Rep. Tom DeLay has taken up the crusade to reign in
"activist judges," even going as far as imposing limits on judicial
review, especially when First Amendment issues are involved.
One measure is the new "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" introduced
by Texas Rep. Ron Paul.
Ideologically, Paul is considered a blend of Republican traditionalism
and libertarianism. He opposed, for instance, the presentation of a
Congressional Gold Medal to Pope John Paul II, arguing that government
should not be expending any amount of money to promote or honor private
religion. His proposed statute, however, may have that effect.
Previous renditions of the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" were
concerned with placing a "least restrictive means" test on government
agencies when dealing with religious groups and practices. The original
RFRA was declared unconstitutional, although a scaled-down version
surfaced with the passage of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act. Paul's bill has nothing to do, per se, with this area of
First Amendment law.
Instead, the statute would result in "Removal of religious
freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction" (Sec. 3)
and "claims court jurisdiction" (Sec. 4) as well.
Sections of the bill enunciate the complaint of those seeking to end
"judicial activism." Section 3, Part 3 of Paul's bill, for instance,
argues that for a century-and-a-half, the U.S. Supreme Court made "scant
mention" of "Separation of Church and State." A laundry list of supposed
offenses then follows, including high court rulings in ENGEL v. VITALE
(abolished state-composed prayer in public schools), and ABINGTON
TOWNSHIP v. SCHEMPP which was acombined case with the historic MURRAY v.
CURLETT decision. These ended the unconstitutional practice of unison
prayer recitation and Bible verse reading in the public schools.
The bill also argues that the phrase "Separation of Church and State"
was taken, "out of context," and that federal courts have "inverted its
meaning and intent." Sections also praise the questionable scholarship of
Chief Justice William Rhenquist who argued in WALLACE v. JAFFREY that
"There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the
Framers intended to build a 'wall of separation'..."
Rep. Paul's proposal is likely unconstitutional since it seeks to
conceal whole areas of government action -- specifically those which
might involve religious proselytizing -- from judicial scrutiny. The bill
has no cosponsors at the time, and is in the Subcommittee on the
Constitution. This or other legislation to rein in alleged "judicial
activism" will surely command increased attention, though, by
politicians.
� Finally, there are the obligatory congressional efforts to
preserve unconstitutional practices ranging from display of the Ten
Commandments on government property to keeping the phrase 'under God' in
the Pledge of Allegiance.
Rep. Robert Aderholt is at it again with a Ten Commandments Defense
Act of 2003 (HR 2045), along with 66 cosponsors. It would legalize the
display of any version of the Decalogue on public property, from court
houses and government chambers to public schools.
Another proposal introduced by a slew of congressional
representatives, the "Pledge Protection Act of 2003" would ban federal
review in hearing or determining "any claim that the recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance ... violates the first article of amendment to the
Constitution of the United States."
Both measures are in the House Committee on the Judiciary.
-------
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the
mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every
expanded project." - James Madison
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
