ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, December 5, 1995 TAG: 9512050058
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
WHATEVER happened to that old-time conservatism?
The kind that, honoring the wisdom of the republic's Founding Fathers, resisted frivolous tampering with the Constitution?
The kind that, believing it vital for preserving order in a pluralistic society, strove to keep the coercive powers of government safely distant from involvement in sectarian strife?
The kind that, recognizing the limitations of the temporal realm in seeking answers to ultimate questions, opposed the intermingling of the civil state with matters of religious faith?
Maybe some of the old wisdom is still around. Unfortunately, it's conspicuously missing in the assault on religious freedom incorporated in the proposed - by Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde and 6th District Congressman Robert Goodlatte of Roanoke - "religious equality amendment" to the U.S. Constitution.
Here's how the thing reads:
Neither the United States nor any State shall deny benefits to or otherwise discriminate against any private person or group on account of religious expression, belief or identity; nor shall the prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of religion be construed to require such discrimination.
What's the big deal? After all, to take one oft-misunderstood issue, genuinely student-initiated and voluntary prayer in the public schools already is OK with the courts and the First Amendment's establishment clause.
No new amendment is needed to make it unconstitutional to deny anybody Social Security benefits, or a farm subsidy, or admission to a state university, or the right to vote, or any other government benefit, on the basis of religious affiliation or nonaffiliation. Whether you're a Baptist, a Catholic or an agnostic, if you have the same income and the same deductions, you owe the same amount in income tax.
The big deal is that this proposal is more than unnecessary boilerplate. The sneaky, radical part is the last clause, which would effectively gut the First Amendment's separation of church from state.
Gone would be current constitutional protections against forcing taxpayers of all religions to help fund Catholic schools, or Protestant evangelistic endeavors, or Jewish religious observances, or the activities of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam.
Farfetched? Not at all.
Government assistance to parochial schools is an idea that's been kicked around for decades. But it has always foundered, appropriately, on the rock of the First Amendment's establishment clause. The Hyde-Goodlatte amendment would remove that rock, allowing government to officially fund and support the inculcation of particular religious beliefs.
Currently, church-based social programs that get government funds must be operated by separate affiliates that do not themselves engage in religious activities. The Hyde-Goodlatte amendment would make this distinction unnecessary, and open the way for mixing public money and private proselytizing.
A contract for the Nation of Islam Security Agency to police public-housing projects in Baltimore was canceled recently by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, after Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole objected to, among other things, the church-state implications. Under the Hyde-Goodlatte amendment, the objection would have been constitutionally irrelevant.
Hyde and Goodlatte and other amendment supporters, who call themselves conservatives, apparently think they know better than the nation's founders. Let us hope enough others in Congress know better than Hyde and Goodlatte - know enough, that is, to leave the First Amendment alone.
LENGTH: Medium: 67 linesby CNB