[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 72 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RESTORING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOSE E. SERRANO

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 4, 1998

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 
78, the Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment. I reject this 
measure because it is intended to destroy the delicate balance of 
church-state relations in America. The so-called Religious Freedom 
Amendment is fraudulently labeled and it would obliterate the Founders' 
vision, expressed in the First Amendment, of a tolerant nation where 
religion can flourish in the absence of excessive government 
entanglement. There are few passages in the Constitution more central 
to the premises of this country's establishment than the 10 words that 
open the First Amendment: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion * * *'' Americans already enjoy the liberty 
to worship freely and of not having to participate in religious 
activities in which they do not believe. And, they have the liberty not 
to have their taxes pay for religious instruction with which they might 
disagree. These are the freedoms that would fall if the Istook 
amendment were passed. Clearly, a proposal to offer schools and 
governments a role in determining how Americans worship is dangerous 
and unnecessary. Perhaps, we should more appropriately label this the 
Religious Freedom Stripping Amendment!
  The Istook amendment is dangerous, because it aims to create a new 
right to practice religion in public institutions and on government 
property. It would permit inherently coercive programs of group prayer 
in public schools and mandate use of public funds to support private 
religious schools and other religious programs. It would also allow 
government officials, including teachers and judges, to display 
religious symbols in classrooms, courtrooms or other public spaces and 
communicate their personal religious beliefs while on the job, say by 
reciting a prayer at the beginning of a public school class or legal 
proceeding. The religious right in this country and, specifically, the 
Christian Coalition argue passionately about the need for prayer in 
school as a way to unite the nation in the face of racism, yet nothing 
currently bars students from praying voluntarily in school so long as 
they do not interfere with classes or commandeer a captive audience of 
other students. Moreover, it is hard to think of anything more divisive 
than putting the Federal and state governments in a position to favor 
one religion over another, as the amendment would do by granting 
officials the right to display religious material and channel tax 
dollars to religious programs.
  The amendment rests on the false premise that neither the 
Constitution nor current law adequately protects religious expression 
or permits religiously affiliated groups to play a role in delivering 
secular services with public funds. However, recent court decisions 
have reaffirmed the equal right of private citizens to erect religious 
symbols in public areas and to have access to public facilities for 
religious activities. Religion has not been shut out of the public 
square but is an active voice in American culture. Students already 
enjoy many opportunities for religious expression within the school 
environment, including the opportunity to pray and read the Bible 
privately, say grace at lunch, distribute religious materials to their 
friends and join voluntary religious clubs. Two documents outline 
students' rights to religious expression: Religion in the Public 
Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law and the U.S. Department of 
Education's guidelines on religious expression. Under current law, 
organizations that are religiously affiliated, but not pervasively 
sectarian, can and do receive government grants for secular social 
programs as long as they do not advance religion or discriminate on the 
basis of religion.
  In short, Mr. Speaker the Istook amendment is dangerous and 
unnecessary. I urge my colleagues to reject the needless Istook 
amendment and preserve real religious freedom.

                          ____________________