-Caveat Lector-
from: AMERICAN ATHEISTS
subject: AANEWS for July 15 1999
A M E R I C A N A T H E I S T S
#604 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7/15/99
http://www.atheists.org
ftp.atheists.org/pub/atheists/
http://www.americanatheist.org
---------------------------------------------
A Service of AMERICAN ATHEISTS
"Leading The Way For Atheist Civil Rights
And The Separation Of State and Church"
----------------------------------------------
In This Issue...
* House debating RLPA
* Court strikes portion of DeMent-Alabama ruling
* Resources
* About this list...
HOUSE DEBATING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY PROTECTION ACT
Few Cite Separation: Nadler Version Limits Coverage
The House of Representatives opened debate this morning on the
controversial Religious Liberty Protection Act (RLPA). Two versions
of the measure are on the floor, one offered by Rep. Charles Canady
of Florida, a second more restricted writing presented by Rep.
Jerrold Nadler of N.Y. At issue at this point in the discussion is
whether or not RLPA should trump the nation's civil rights law and
other anti-discrimination statutes.
A vote on the amended is expected shortly, and a tally on the Canady
bill (HR 1691) could come later this afternoon or sometime this
evening. A special AANEWS dispatch will be sent out at that time.
The Religious Liberty Protection Act would hold government to a
"compelling interest/least restrictive means" test when dealing with
faith-based groups and practices. It is based on the old Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court
in the historic BOERNE v. FLORES decision in 1997. Justice John Paul
Stevens opined that thanks to RFRA, churches and other religious
groups possessed a legal instrument which "no atheist" could hope to
obtain, and thus constituted an impermissible establishment of
religion.
The battle over RLPA has pitted a coalition of religious groups and
some advocacy organizations, against an equally broad range of
opponents. Many of the latter disagree only with certain portions of
the Religious Liberty Protection Act, and have attempted to have the
legislation amended so it would be accommodating. Legal groups, for
instance, worried that RLPA might compromise security inside the
nation's penal system, by allowing inmates exemption from regulations
so that they may pursue questionable religious activities. Others,
like historic preservation groups and municipal agencies, worry that
the law would create an incentive for churches to ignore land use and
zoning ordinances.
RLPA, like its predecessor, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was
crafted in order to adjust the balance between religious exercise and
the enforcement of "neutral" and generally applicable legal statutes.
In EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH (1990), the high court ruled that the
First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion did not
extend to religious exercise that is burdened by a neutral law of
general applicability. That, backers of RFRA/RLPA argued, changed
dramatically the standard the court had used since 1963 established in
case like SHERBERT v. VERNER; in SHERBERT, a member of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church who refused to work on her religion's
Saturday Sabbath was awarded unemployment compensation which had
previously been denied. Other decisions came into play as well before
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION and the historic BOERNE v. FLORES which struck
down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In LYNG v. NORTHWEST
INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION (1988), for instance, the court
opined that rendering an individual's obligation to obey a law
continent on religious belief thus permitted that individual "to
become a law unto himself," a contradiction of "constitutional
tradition and common sense."
Critics of RFRA and the Religious Liberty Protection Act charge that
the legislation thus encourages "special rights" for churches,
mosques, temples and other faith-based groups.
The House opened deliberations at 10 a.m.(ET) with a prayer by Rev.
James Ford, official chaplain of the body. During a session of
off-topic one minute speeches, C-SPAN interviewed Larry Wirtham of the
Washington Times news paper, who provided background on the RLPA, and
said that opposition to the measure came from municipalities worried
about land use and zoning problems which they might encounter as a
result of the act. While acknowledging that RLPA enjoyed universal
support from America's religious community, he did not mention
opposition from state-church separaitonists worried about the First
Amendment consequences of the legislation.
Debate then began on a modified version of RLPA. Even those
supporting the new rendition claimed that the bill was necessary in
order to protect religious groups from encroachment by state and local
governments. Considerable attention was paid to the fact that the
measure enjoyed the support of America's religious community,
specifically over 70 different faith-based denominations and groups.
Some, such as Texas Rep. Ron Paul, criticized RLPA as an improper
extension of congressional and/or government power. Paul opined that
the bill did not properly define notions inherent to the legislation,
such as "compelling interest" or "least restrictive means."
"This imposes a universal standard of religious liberty beyond that
established by the Constitution," Paul warned. He described the
measure as "national terms of infringement" in respect to such
liberty. "We do not need an unconstitutional standard of religious
freedom."
Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX) said that the First Amendment guaranteed
religious excise, and prohibited government from intervening in the
affairs of churches. Like others in Thursday's debate, little
attention was paid by Edwards to the separation of church and state.
Edwards defined "compelling interest" as enforcement of the nation's
civil right and anti-discrimination laws, but then -- incredibly --
urged that even with modifications, members of the House should still
support the original act proposed by Rep. Charles Canady and others.
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) then presented the House with a shopping
list of horror stories that, he argued, demonstrated the willingness
of local or state governments to interfere with religious exercise.
This included discrimination against Jehovah's Witnesses taking oaths,
an unidentified community supposedly banning Bible study groups, and a
California municipality that prevents churches from building in
commercial-zoning districts. Blunt noted that an adult bookstore
would be tolerated, but not a house of worship. He then presented the
clerk of the House with a list of religious groups supporting RLPA.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) took the floor, warning that the
original version of the Religious Liberty Protection Act, while
ostensibly preventing discrimination against faith-based groups, would
foster other forms of discrimination. Conyers pointed out that RLPA
would blunt enforcement of civil rights and anti-discrimination
statutes. Rep. Charles Canady of Florida -- the major RLPA booster
in the House -- followed, and presented his rendition of the history
of the act. He questionably argued that RLPA was crafted in such a
way as to avoid the constitutional problems encountered in the earlier
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He justified the use of the
commerce clause of the Constitution to protect religious exercise,
adding that government should "accommodate" those practices, and the
intervention -- "based on the record of abuse we have seen" --of the
state on behalf of churches in matters of land use or other local
action.
Rep.Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), defending himself as a supporter of the
old Religious Freedom Restoration Act, nevertheless expressed
skepticism about RLPA. He argued that the Conyer's rendition of the
act trumped the nation's civil rights and anti-discrimination laws,
adding, "this is unacceptable." He agreed with Conyers and others,
though, that religious groups had "suffered" because of recent U.S.
Supreme Court rulings. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) followed,
and pointed out: "All you need to do is invoke your religion, and you
can discriminate..." A similar argument was advanced by Rep. Sheila
Jackson Lee (D-Texas).
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), saying "I think we're all children in
the eyes of god," said that he was still voting against RLPA because
it would trump civil rights protections, and rhetorically asked: "Does
this act protect the World Church of the Creator?" Rep. Canady
responded by saying that the RLPA had such broad support from the
religious community that everyone should vote for its passage.
Defending his amended version of RLPA, Rep. Nadler returned to the
congressional well, and suggested that his "carve out" exemptions for
civil rights and anti-discrimination was both necessary and desirable.
He too, though, cited the "damage" done to religious practice by
recent Supreme Court cases. Nadler added that if his amended version
did not pass, he would urge his House colleagues to vote against the
Canady version. Rep. Canady praised Nadler as a sincere friend of
religious practice, but added, "In his zeal to adopt language to adopt
a stance acceptable to groups like the ACLU, he has varied from the
principle that truly animates this bill." He criticized "other groups
on the far left" as well.
Canady also observed that the Clinton administration "expresses strong
support" for the Religious Liberty Protection Act; and he criticized
opponents of his version, noting that the same objections they now
raise about RLPA could have been raised about the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act -- but were not.
A vote is expected later today on the amended version. The Canady
RLPA could also be the subject of a vote this evening. A special
AANEWS will be sent out at that time.
**
CIRCUIT COURT MODIFIES ALABAMA PRAYER RULING
Both Sides Claim Victory In School-Religion Decisio
On Tuesday, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned part of
a 1997 ruling which struck down prayer and other religious activities
in Alabama public schools. The appeals court modified certain earlier
guidelines established by U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent, and found
that prayer or other religious ritual was permissible if it was led
and initiated by students. The rest of DeMent's ruling, however, was
upheld, including prohibitions that teachers or administrators could
not lead prayer or other religion-based activities.
"Permitting students to speak religious signifies neither state
approval or disapproval of that speech," noted the appellate court.
"The suppression of student-initiated religious speech is neither
necessary to, nor does it achieve, constitutional neutrality toward
religion."
The Tuesday decision followed a controversial ruling by Judge DeMent
on a case brought by Michael Chandler, a former vice principal at
Valley Head High in Dekalb County. His suit asked for an end to
orchestrated prayers at school athletic event, teacher-led prayers and
distribution of Bibles in the school.
Absent from many news reports about the Alabama case is the fact that
the court also focused much of its attention on arguments offered by
Attorney General Bill Pryor and former Gov. Fob James. The
three-judge panel unanimously agreed with Pryor's arguments concerning
student-led prayer, but rejected James' claim that the First Amendment
and other portions of the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.
According to the Gadsden (Ala.) Times newspaper, "Pryor had not sided
with James on his sweeping claim, but attorneys for James had argued
his case before the appeals court."
Both Pryor and the Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and
Justice (ACLJ), a legal arm for televangelist Pat Robertson, moved
quickly to praise the Circuit Court ruling and amplify its legal
importance. "Today's ruling is a victory for religious freedom in
Alabama," gushed Pryor. "It is a victory for the First Amendment in
Alabama and specifically it is a victory for the Alabama students."
Sekulow then disingenuously informed reporters that his group had no
quarrel with the rest of the ruling, where the court struck down
teacher-led religious activities. He declared that the new decision
"sent the clearest message possible that student religious speech
cannot be censored," and that it also "sends a clear message to the
ACLU and others that they cannot censor speech they disagree with
simply because that speech is religious."
Attorney Pamela Sumners, though, who led the legal defense for Michael
Chandler, warned that certain school officials will likely
misinterpret the ruling, and think that teacher-led religious activity
is acceptable in the public schools. "We'll be right back just where
we were," she told a reporter for Associated Press. "We'll have to go
reinvent the wheel that the Supreme Court invented for us in 1963.
But he, that's why God invented the Supreme Court."
**
RESOURCES FROM AMERICAN ATHEISTS...
* For information about American Atheists, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please include your name and postal mailing
address.
* For a free catalogue of American Atheist Press books, videos and
other products, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kindly include
your postal mailing address.
* The American Atheist Magazine is now on the web! Check out select
articles from the current or back issues, as well as special web-only
features. Visit us at http://www.americanatheist.org
* If you are a current member of American Atheists, sign up for our
e-mail discussion group, aachat. We have over 120 participants who
discuss topics such as Atheism, religion, First Amendment issues and
lots more! Contact Margie Wait, the Moderator, through
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ABOUT THIS LIST...
AANEWS is a free service from American Atheists, a nationwide movement
founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair for the advancement of Atheism, and
the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
You may forward, post or quote from this dispatch, provided that
appropriate credit is given to AANEWS and American Atheists. Edited
by Conrad Goeringer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Representative for
American Atheists is Margie Wait, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
