America God Bless America

(or is it still all right to say that?)

The Limitation of Judeo-Christian Beliefs

by Liberal Interpretations of the Law

In the interests of preserving the civil rights of all Americans, legislation over the past few decades has mandated a conspicuous absence of Christian or Jewish symbols, prayers or teachings from public places: the classroom, the sports arena, the courts, public buildings of all sorts. Yet followers of these faiths make up the majority of Americans. In the wake of the tragedy of September 11, and the previous shocking incidences of student violence at Columbine and other schools, Americans feel the need for increased, rather than decreased, emphasis on religion in the classroom and everywhere their children go. What can be done to protect the rights of these citizens to observe the dictates of their beliefs in their daily walk of life outside of their homes and places of worship?

God Bless America

(or is it still all right to say that?)

The Limitation of Judeo-Christian Beliefs

by Liberal Interpretations of the Law

After the shocking incidence of student violence at Columbine High School and other subsequent events, a great number of American parents wondered if the abolition of religious instruction and observance in our schools helped to bring about such misguided behavior. Gone were the days when students began the school day with the Lord's Prayer, for example; the Ten Commandments were no longer displayed in the hallways or classrooms. With the best of liberal intentions (the desire to avoid making children of religions other than Christianity or Judaism feel excluded), America had legislated the teachings of the Bible out of the public education system. In retrospect, was America reaping a dreadful harvest, as her children demonstrated moral vacuity?

The Religious Freedom Amendment introduced by Rep. Ernest Istook (Republican, Oklahoma) brought the debate front and center over whether the church has a role in the public realm of such places as the schools, sports and the courts. If passed, this amendment would have superceded the Supreme Court ruling on such issues as public school prayer,...

Although the vote in the House was in favor of the amendment by 224 to 203, the required two-thirds majority was not achieved.
The Istook Amendment has been widely perceived as a vehicle for the Religious Right to promote mainstream Christianity over the interests of other religions. For this reason, the powerful Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism, fought the passage of the Istook Amendment. In the 1998 Annual Report of the ADL, their position is summed up as follows: "Although ADL understood that many parents believe an increased religious presence in schools can help teach moral values to their children, the League argued that the 'cure', in this instance, was far worse than the disease. 'The majority religion in each school,' said ADL, 'would inevitably choose which faith to follow' -- which in many American schools would mean Christianity, at the expense of other faiths."

The powerful lobby of the Catholic Church refrained from supporting the Istook Amendment, perhaps for similar reasons and also in part because the separate school system permits the Roman Catholic Church greater freedom to establish a religious presence within the classroom.

Other adversaries include the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a religious liberty watchdog group representing 60,000 members and allied houses of worship in all fifty states.

The argument against the Istook Amendment goes beyond the possible dominance of mainstream Christianity over minority religions; other issues are the perceived threats to the First Amendment's separation of Church and State, allocation of public funds for religious purposes, and increased benefits to members of the majority religion over the average citizen.

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) says, "The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide in…