From the moment it was introduced in Congress last year, the “Religious Freedom Amendment” was seen by its opponents as a thermonuclear device looming over the church-state battlefield.
The proposed constitutional amendment would have allowed for prayer in schools, religious displays in federal buildings and taxpayer funding of religious schools — much of what church-state watchdogs had spent a good part of the century fighting against.
Last week’s defeat of the measure in the House of Representatives may have defused that bomb, but the vote itself is expected to have a pronounced fallout just the same.
While Jewish groups and church-state watchdogs hailed the defeat as a victory for religious liberty, most conceded that the vote portends future battles over contentious issues such as school vouchers.
The vote also could have electoral consequences for lawmakers on both sides of the issue.
Religious conservatives have promised to remember the vote, and some Jews have suggested that they, too, might weigh this issue when it comes to backing candidates this election year.
In the House’s first vote on a school prayer constitutional amendment since 1971, the “Religious Freedom Amendment” failed June 4 by a vote of 224-203 – – 61 short of the two-thirds majority of lawmakers present that is necessary for passage.
No Jewish lawmakers, including the two Republicans in the House, voted for the measure.
The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), had been advanced as a means of reversing 30 years of court decisions its proponents claimed had distorted and restricted constitutional protections of religious freedom.
Jewish groups, together with a broad coalition of religious and civil liberties organizations, the Clinton administration and most Democrats, opposed the so- called Istook amendment as unnecessary and dangerous. They said a wide array of religious activity is already permitted in public schools.
Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas), who spearheaded opposition to the measure, called it a “horrible solution in search of a problem.”
The proposal was strongly backed by religious conservatives led by the Christian Coalition, which conducted an aggressive lobbying effort for the measure, running radio ads and flooding congressional offices with post cards and telephone calls.
Indeed, proponents of the amendment claimed a victory in bringing the long-shot amendment up for a vote and in winning even a simple majority.
“We have long recognized this is an uphill battle and requires perseverance over the long term,” said Randy Tate, executive director of the Christian Coalition. “Passage of a constitutional amendment often requires four or five attempts, so we will continue our efforts on behalf of a religious freedom amendment in future sessions of the Congress.”
Although Istook said he would continue to push for the proposal, the next showdown on the church-state front is likely to center around educational issues.
Some observers believe that the vote will give a boost to congressional efforts to pass legislation on school vouchers, which would enable families to use public funds or tax credits for parochial schools.
These efforts have had mixed success in recent years. Congress has approved a voucher plan for the District of Columbia, which President Clinton vetoed, while attempts to adopt vouchers at the national level have proved unsuccessful.
“They’re going to look for other ways that don’t require two-thirds to push their agenda,” Steve Silberfarb, deputy director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, said of religious conservatives.
“It doesn’t have to be in one fell swoop like a constitutional amendment. They know they can also try to go about it by chiseling away brick by brick, until all of a sudden the wall is gone.”
Beyond the Beltway, fallout from last week’s vote is likely to be felt in elections across the country.
Istook promised that the vote would not be forgotten in the minds of the public when House members face re-election in November.
The Christian Coalition, for its part, made it clear from the outset that it intends to include each lawmaker’s vote in its voter guides for the upcoming election.
“The House vote was designed to identify which members of Congress support the religious right agenda,” said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
“Those who were brave enough to oppose this gambit will now face harsh and unfair attacks during the upcoming election season.”
In what may be a precursor of things to come, the Christian Coalition distributed a “call to action” in Edwards’ Texas district, accusing him of “bigotry directed at Christians.”
“His attitudes have no place in Texas or anywhere in America,” the Christian Coalition’s flier stated.
Observers said lawmakers in the Bible Belt — mainly Southern states, where religious conservatives are a potent force — would likely feel the brunt.
For their part, Jewish political activists also suggested that this issue might become a critical one in determining Jewish support for candidates.
Some even went as far as saying that it may now be difficult to support members of Congress who voted for the amendment — even lawmakers who have traditionally been supportive of Israel.
Others, who might not get directly involved in partisan politics, said they would look at roll call sheets as they redouble efforts to educate lawmakers about church-state issues.
It is important to demonstrate to members of Congress that the Jewish community considers this “an emblematic vote” that “we will remember,” said Michael Lieberman, Washington counsel for the Anti-Defamation League.
Republicans, who by and large supported the Istook amendment, would be most likely affected by any Jewish reassessment.
For his part, Matt Brooks, executive director of the pro-Republican National Jewish Coalition, said he anticipated that Jewish Democrats “are going to try to demagogue this issue and try to give the Republican Congress no credit whatsoever for its defeat.”
His group, along with the Orthodox Union, were among the few Jewish groups who took no position on the Istook amendment.
Recognizing the potential electoral consequences, some members of Congress who opposed the Istook amendment are now hoping that another piece of legislation addressing religious liberty issues can provide cover.
This week, lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill known as the “Religious Liberty Protection Act.”
The bill is aimed at restoring some of the protections that existed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which the Supreme Court struck down last year as unconstitutional.
Jewish and other civil liberties groups were strong backers of that law, which made it harder for government to interfere with the free practice of religion. The new legislation also has the support of a broad coalition that includes Jewish groups and religious conservatives.
“It’s something positive members of Congress can vote for,” said David Harris, director of the Washington office of the American Jewish Congress.
“If they want to be about the real business of protecting religious liberty in America, this act will be the widely supported vehicle for doing so.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
