ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, July 29, 1996 TAG: 9607290065
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CODY LOWE STAFF WRITER
As a constitutional amendment related to prayer in public schools continues to languish in subcommittee, at least one supporter of that idea says Congress may need to reconsider its approach.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke, who was a co-sponsor of one proposal to amend the Constitution, said this week he is now "willing to consider" instead passage of a statute to counter what he sees as an erosion of freedom of religious expression.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich last May promised a speedy vote on a constitutional amendment, which was a part of the Christian Coalition's "Contract with the American Family."
Two amendment proposals were being considered by the House Constitution subcommittee, on which Goodlatte serves, by the end of last year. However, the sponsors were unable to compromise on a unified proposal, so House Majority Leader Dick Armey offered a third proposal this month.
A hearing on the Armey proposal was held Tuesday.
Goodlatte now says passing a statute addressing concerns about religious expression may get results more quickly than an amendment, even if it has some drawbacks.
A statute would take "fewer votes to pass," though it is "fraught with difficulties" in terms of being overturned, potentially, by the courts.
But even that might present some advantages, Goodlatte said. It could provide "some guidance about what areas" to address in a later attempt at an amendment, and a negative court ruling on a statute might spur greater support for an amendment.
Last week's hearing on the Armey proposal "caused the members to pull up and say, `Let's not vote on this until we're clearer on what it says,''' Goodlatte said Friday.
Specifically, Goodlatte said he was concerned about some witnesses' fears that the latest proposal includes language that would compel government funding of religious schools and other institutions.
Goodlatte said he doesn't want to go that far.
"There are some members who have a different agenda - who want to provide as many government benefits to religious groups as they can. That is not my agenda. My agenda is religious expression being treated fairly."
Additionally, he said, "it concerns me that [the Armey proposal] doesn't do some of the things that I think need to be done." Those include specific language to permit prayer at graduation ceremonies and football games, and to allow Nativity or Hanukkah displays on public grounds.
"I'm leaning toward the conclusion that [the Armey proposal] doesn't address those issues."
He and other supporters of amendment efforts want "religious expression to have the same level of protection as other free speech in public places. The Supreme Court has allowed the establishment clause [of the First Amendment's religion provisions] to beat down the free exercise clause and the free speech clause."
The Christian Coalition and some other conservative Christian organizations continue to support a constitutional amendment. But at least one conservative religious-liberties group - the Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute - has been saying for months that statutory remedies for violations of the First Amendment are more practical than an amendment.
Colleen Pinyan of Rutherford's Washington office told The Roanoke Times last December that a statute would resolve problems "more quickly, albeit not as permanently."
That is still the institute's position, said Rita Woltz, its legal coordinator.
"A constitutional amendment might take a long time to ratify," Woltz said Friday, while problems continue. "In addition, we already have a provision under the free exercise clause to provide for religious expression, which would apply to schoolchildren as well as others."
Laws applying to specific incidents would be relatively easier to change and update than a constitutional amendment.
Goodlatte also said a statute "can be very, very precise. `This is allowed, that is not allowed.' A constitutional amendment can't do that, it can't be 10 pages long."
A proposed amendment that is succinct, clear and precise has proved elusive - and may well be impossible, some critics of such a proposal say.
"Even the groups promoting" the latest amendment language "disagreed among themselves about what it would do," said Robb Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The Maryland-based organization was one of numerous religious groups that worked to derail this latest attempt for an amendment.
In addition to being "turgid" and "vague," the latest amendment proposal is "unnecessary" and "dangerous," they said.
Boston said "scuttlebutt" on Capitol Hill is that the Christian Coalition wanted a vote on an amendment by early September. That would beat a printing deadline for the coalition's fall "voting guides" that will be distributed before the November elections.
Goodlatte, however, said the session of Congress is rapidly drawing near its end and considering that "there is no consensus on what amendment ought to be offered and no consensus on whether we ought to offer a statute first," that may be difficult.
"We should not rush to get anything done. We should make absolutely sure there is broad-based support and a clear meaning" before attempting to amend the Constitution.
"Obviously, there is a desire to get something done, and we'd like to get something soon, but we are running out of time in this Congress."
LENGTH: Medium: 100 linesby CNB