MITAAH News Briefs 1/26/98 -------------------------- A lot of news just came in over the various listservs, but we're not ready for another MITAAH-News just yet. So, here are some current events of interest for those who asked. * RFA: On the fast track * Clemency for Christians * Alabama Prayer Ruling -------------------- RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AMENDMENT -- BACK ON "FAST TRACK" OR ABOUT TO DERAIL? Gary Bauer's Family Research Council Energizing Prayer Agenda Reports from Capitol Hill say that supporters of the Religious Freedom Amendment will make another try at moving the controversial legislation onto the floor of Congress for a full vote in early February. The First Amendment Center says that Rep. Charles Canady (R.Fla), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, again wants to move the proposal through the full Judiciary Committee and "fast track" the measure. The legislation, introduced by Rep. Ernest Istook (R. Okla.), would permit a wide range of religious activities and rituals in government, including prayer and proselytizing in public school classrooms. Critics charge that the proposed amendment -- a centerpiece in the Christian Coalition's social agenda -- would effectively "gut" the Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment, and overturn decades of crucial, state-church separation law and court decisions. Crafting legislation which would meet the demands of the various religious groups clamoring for school prayer and other church involvement in government affairs has proved to be a daunting task. Indeed, the history of what is now known as the Religious Freedom Amendment is a convoluted one, marked by constant bickering among the groups supporting it, and a series of re-writes and amendments to the original version. . . . The religious groups, though, quickly began fighting over the wording of the proposed amendment, and soon there were two competing versions, each supported by different organizations. Hard-liners said that the Hyde version was not sufficiently strong in its language. Both versions were constantly modified, and in 1996, one rendition introduced by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okl.) appeared and became known as the Religious Freedom Amendment. Backers of the RFA have attempted to rally support behind their version, saying that it has the "best chance" of being enacted. In March, 1997, a new effort was underway to move the Religious Freedom Amendment through the labyrinthian House Judiciary Committee. It was then shuffled for a round of hearings (there have been at least two other sets of hearings, as well) to the Constitution Subcommittee, where it was amended again, this time in a proposal introduced by Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R.-Ark.) That version now reads: "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion." Critics charge that certain portions of the proposed amendment -- such as the not establishing religion or compelling people to participate in a religious activity -- is, at best, gratuitous; and they warn that the RFA has the effect of isolating and coercing nonbelievers or others who may not wish to participate in public displays of faith. And they see the final portion of the proposed measure, which prohibits denying "equal access to a benefit on account of religion," as a key to the public treasury, and a way of putting churches and other religious groups on the payroll for public subsidies. The Religious Freedom Amendment (in any of its versions) has never cleared the full House Judiciary Committee for a full vote of the House of Representatives. But the FAC reports says that according to Forest Montgomery, counsel for the office of governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelical, RFA is back again on a legislative "fast track," because Mr. Gingrich "has promised that a prayer bill would eventually come up for consideration." . . . Then why is there any movement in the Judiciary Committee over the RFA? The answer may rest with the growing political clout of Gary Bauer and his Family Research Council, a $60 million-a-year think tank and activist group head quartered in Washington, D.C. FRC spun-off from James Dobson's Focus on the Family, and has emerged in the last year as a major power broker in religious right circles. Some observers say that FRC is even eclipsing Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, especially since the departure of former CC Director Ralph Reed. Reed has now established his own political consulting firm based in Atlanta, Ga., where he plans to run election campaigns for religious right candidates. Bauer and the FRC represent a wing of the religious right that has increasingly grown disenchanted with the inclusive, "big tent" philosophy of the Republican Party. This segment of the right splits with traditional conservatives, moderates and libertarians over issue such as the role of government in banning abortions, enacting a school prayer amendment, putting controls on media and other "culture war" issues. Last Month, Bauer and the FRC organized key religious right activists and groups into a "Statement on Religious Freedom and the Right of the People to Acknowledge the Creator," as well as an effort to reenergize the push for passage of the Religious Freedom Amendment. Citing the controversy in Alabama where a federal judge has declared that state's school prayer law to be unconstitutional, a violation of state-church separation, the Statement called for a two-pronged strategy, legislation that: "(1) erects a federalism shield to protect the authority of state institutions, such as state courts and public schools, to acknowledge the Creator by, for example, posting the Ten Commandments, and (2) preserves the right of individual citizens in these institutions and other public forums freely to express their religious faith, so long as they refrain from interfering with the legitimate rights of others." Endorsing the Bauer/FRC Statement were: James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Don Hodel (Christian Coalition), Chuck Colson (Prison Fellowship Ministries), Donald Wildmon (American Family Association), D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries), Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America), William Donohue (Catholic League for Civil Rights), Rev. Keith Fournier (Catholic Alliance), ex-Governor Robert Casey (Campaign for the American Family), Rev. Louis P. Sheldon (Traditional Values Coalition), and Pat Nolan (Justice Fellowship). Legal experts who signed on to the Bauer declaration included Robert P. George (Prof., Princeton University), Gerald Bradley (Prof., Notre Dame) Bernard Dobranski (Dean, Catholic University Law School) and David Smolin (Prof., Samford University). Which version of the RFA -- the Istook proposal, or the slightly modified rendition as amended by Congressman Hutchinson -- will come up for full Judiciary Committee review is uncertain. The former remains on a special web site operating out of the office of Rep. Istook, funded by public monies: (http://religiousfreedom.house.gov/) ------------------ ATTORNEY FILES APPEAL FOR BORN-AGAIN DEATH ROW INMATE An attorney for Karla Faye Tucker, the 38-year old Texas woman sentenced to die next month by lethal injection, has appealed her case to the state Court of Criminal Appeals in hopes of challenging regulations about granting clemency. On Tuesday morning, lawyer David Botsford filed an action which says that the procedures used by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles are unconstitutional. He criticized the state's clemency-granting mechanism, saying that it involved no opportunity or hearings to present witnesses for the condemned, and no way to challenge erroneous information that might be contained in a prisoner's file. Tucker, convicted in a 1983 pick axe murder in Houston, Texas, has attraction nationwide support from religious groups due to her jailhouse conversion to fundamentalist Christianity. Among her more ardent supporters is Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and the "700 Club" program. Robertson, a supporter of the death penalty, has asked Texas Governor George Bush to "let mercy prevail" and grant clemency. Critics have charged that Robertson is, in effect, asking for a "religious exemption" from the death penalty or other laws. -------------------- ALABAMA RULING: TEMPORARY WIN FOR JUDGE MOORE, BUT BASIC ISSUES REMAIN UNANSWERED Two Rulings From That State's High Court Based On Technical Points Yesterday's rulings which appear to support the cause of controversial Alabama Judge Roy Moore were base on technical points rather than fundamental constitutional issues. In two separate decisions, Alabama Supreme Court Justices found that Governor Fob James and Attorney General Bill Pryor had no legal standing to bring their lawsuit in the Moore case; that finding thus permits Moore to continue posting a copy of the Ten Commandments in his Etowah County courtroom, and beginning court proceedings with a religious invocation. James and Pryor had hoped to elicit a ruling which, in effect, endorsed Moore's practices. But the Alabama high court decision noted, "As between the state and Judge Moore, there exists no controversy, whatever -- not even a contrived one. This is not what lawsuits are about." The court also warned, "We will not, however, allow the judiciary of this state to become a political foil, or a sounding board for topics of contemporary interest." Justices then addressed a second action which had been initiated by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Alabama Freethought Association. Those groups had sued State Chief Justice Perry Hooper, arguing that as Alabama's highest jurist, he had the authority to order a stop to Judge Moore's courtroom religious displays. The high court, however, disagreed, saying that while the Chief Justice is the administrative head of the court system, he lacks specific authority concerning Moore's Decalogue posting, and the Baptist prayer which opens the court sessions. Both the governor and the attorney general expressed pleasure with the Alabama ruling, although they were disappointed that the case still failed to resolve the fundamental legal and constitutional issues. "We have to await another lawsuit, Pryor told the Huntsville Times newspaper. The ruling has the effect of vacating a lower court decision involving Circuit Judge Charles Price. In 1997, he ruled that Moore's practices were unconstitutional, and said that the Ten Commandments could stay in the courtroom only if they were "secularized" by the addition of other historical documents. . . . The vote in the cases reflected the political volatility of the issue. The ruling was endorsed by five members of the nine-person court, with no dissenting votes. Justice Ralph Cook authored the verbal ruling, which was signed by Justices Janie Shore and Reneau Almon. Justices Gorman Houston and Hugh Maddox agreed with the ruling, and Maddox said that he felt that Judge Moore's Decalogue display and opening prayer were nevertheless constitutional. Friday's decision sends the whole question of Judge Moore and state-church separation back to square one. A new lawsuit would need to be filed by a resident of Etowah County, Alabama, and it could be years before the issue is resolved. AFA sued Judge Moore in April, 1995, only to have that suit dismissed from the federal courts three months later by U.S. District Judge Robert Probst, who said that the members lacked standing. Supporters of Judge Moore are already interpreting the state ruling as a victory, and the decision may energize the growing nationwide effort to post copies of the Ten Commandments in government venues, including courthouses, school classrooms and public offices. (from AANews #380) ---------------------