Editorial: A Commentary on the Proposed "Religious Equality/Liberties" Amendment

Abstract

In the final weeks of November 1995, Congressmen Heniy Hyde (R-IL) and Ernest Istook (R-OK) introduced before the U.S. House of Representatives their respective versions of a constitutional amend ment, either of which, if adopted by a two-thirds vote in Congress and ratified by the necessary thirty-eight states, would drastically alter the meaning of the First Amendment's religion clauses. In late December, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) joined forces with Congressman Hyde and introduced Hyde's measure in the Senate. Supporters of the pro posals claim that such an amendment is needed to protect religious expression in public settings, especially in the nation's public schools, and to guard against religious discrimination. While such claims are debatable, the proposals actually go much further by permitting broad governmental endorsements and funding of religion. The motives of the proposals' proponents should not go entirely unappreciated, but such an amendment is altogether unnecessary and if enacted into law, would bring to an abrupt end the nation's commitment to the twin pillars of freedom—religious liberty and the separation of church and state—that eminent religious historian Sanford Cobb rightly referred to earlier this century as America's greatest gift to civilization and to the world. As the date for a vote on the proposals approaches, it is hoped that Congress and the American people will oppose both of the proposed amendments as ill-advised maneuvers to alter the Founders' goal of providing maximum religious freedom to all people while favor ing no community of faith over others.