THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, July 1, 1995 TAG: 9507010501
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ESTHER DISKIN, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Medium: 73 lines
For eight months, conservative activists have been drafting a constitutional amendment to pave the way for organized prayer in classrooms, display of religious images in public parks and buildings, and use of tuition vouchers for religious schools.
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court gave them a jump start. In two split decisions, the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment to expand the use of government space and public money for airing religious messages.
Now, opponents of the proposed ``Religious Equality Amendment'' say the Supreme Court's rulings clearly demonstrate that religious speech can thrive without changing the constitution.
``This knocks the legs out of the Far Right and their amendment, saying that the courts are hostile to religion. Clearly they are not,'' said Elliot Mincberg, of the 330,000-member People for the American Way. ``Indeed, the conservative members of the Court seem almost willing to adopt the amendment themselves.''
The amendment's supporters say they've now got more reason to fight. The decisions were sharply divided, with many of the justices filing separate arguments, which made for a precarious victory.
``Any other case might go the opposite way,'' said Michael Whitehead, general counsel for Southern Baptist Convention's Christian Life Commission. ``I don't think religious Americans can relax about asking nine judges what those sixteen words mean.''
The sixteen words are the First Amendment's establishment clause, at the heart of both rulings, which states: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said that University of Virginia misinterpreted the First Amendment when it denied funding to a student-run Christian magazine.
The justices also ruled 7-2 that the Ku Klux Klan could erect a cross on the Ohio Statehouse lawn, because it is a public forum open to an array of private expression. On that case, the 7-vote majority splintered into two camps over the use of the ``endorsement test,'' which analyzes the situation based on a whether a reasonable observer would view the display as a government endorsement of the Klan's message.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is the swing vote on cases involving separation of church and state, according to experts on both sides of the debate. ``She's pivotal,'' said Mincberg. ``On the really close cases, she is the deciding vote.''
Supporters of the proposed ``Religious Equality Amendment'' say that it will roll back decades of confusing, and sometimes contradictory, Supreme Court rulings, and establish clear standards for religious liberty.
Right now, there are at least a dozen drafts of an amendment, but no timetable for when it will come to a vote in Congress, said Camille Mitzner, an assistant to Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr., R-Okla., who is leading the effort in the House of Representatives. Mitzner said that the vote will come after a series of public hearings about the amendment, which is expected to end in September.
Passage of an amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, plus ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
Both supporters and opponents of the proposed amendment said that legislators will consider the recent Supreme Court decisions when it comes time to vote. ``People in the middle, conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans, may say that the Supreme Court isn't hostile to religion, so . . Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
Even if the proposed amendment doesn't succeed, the Supreme Court decisions are likely to fuel efforts to pass specific laws, such as government-supported tuition vouchers for religious schools. by CNB