Representative Colin Peterson and the "Christian Nation" Amendment

 

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or "Of the press......"
        The first half of this clause of the First Amendment prohibits governments at all levels in the U.S. from declaring or supporting religion,  denomination, sect or cult within this nation   This short phrase is unmistakable in meaning. A religious State is against our laws.  The second phrase of the first clause mandates freedom of religion  no matter what kind, in the U.S. whether Christian Fundamentalist, peyote-smoking Aborigine,  animal-sacrificing African religion (in Florida), or militant unbelievers all are protected.  The remaining words of the First Amendment are clear in that they state that anyone who speaks out, sets in print or peaceably demonstrates in support, of any of these many viewpoints is protected by Law.
        The history of this country shows that religions have long enjoyed a “hands off" treatment by government; and there is evidence of many instances of “overprotection" of the Church by way of tax exemptions on their lands, structures, assets, stocks and bond holdings.  And get there are some who feel strongly that religion is in need of more reinforcement.
. . . . In the Spring of 1997, Rep. Ernest, Istook (Rep.,OK) re-introduced in Congress, a proposed ".Religious Freedom Amendment" known also as the “Christian Nation” amendment.  Approved by the House Judiciary committee, this slightly amended version proposes:  "To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience:  Neither the United States or 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 or 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."
        No one's right to express religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on any public property could be infringed   This means that, gay or all prayers, reading of the Bible or other religious texts, religious instruction, display of religious pictures and icons, hymn singing, or even preaching in public schools, courtrooms, etc., would be perfectly constitutional.  (Remember that sending a child to stand in the hall while her class has a morning  devotional brands her as "different" and often makes her the object of ridicule and harassment from other children.)   Notice the final clause of this proposed religion amendment re. "can not deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."  In other words, no government could deny equal funding to religious schools to that given to support public schools.  And as to government grants?  Religious institutes and charities could be completely public-funded under this proposed amendment.
        While the ostensible reason for the proposal is for the "protection” of religion (specifically Christian), it seems to me that its aims are rather to “promote" religion in secular government business and public education. One hundred fifty supporters hope to call for a vote in Congress when it re-convenes this month.  Nearly two-thirds of the co-sponsors are from the southern Bible belt and are heavily sponsored by al1 manner of right-wing religio-political groups headed by Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition.
        Why is Colin Peterson (Dem, MN) standing as a co-sponsor for such legislation? He is the only one of Minnesota's Representatives to do so.  Has he assessed or polled his constituency with sufficient objectivity in order to show support for such a stance?  Does he truly reflect the directions of the people of the 7th District?  To whom is he talking? Has he re-read the First Amendment recently? Doesn't he recognize that there are more than adequate safe-guards for religion inherent in the original language?
        It is my opinion that Representative Peterson should be called upon to respond to questions regarding his support of the "Christian Nation" amendment.  If he is of the same mind as the others who are apparently convinced that it might be possible to legislate behavior and beliefs, then he is deeply misguided. Furthermore, Colin Peterson’s position on this is an embarrassment, to the district he serves.

Marc Stratton
January 25, 1998