MERGING OF CHURCH AND STATE; ILL-CONCEIVED HOUSE RESOLUTION THREATENS TO UPEND THE NATION'S LONGSTANDING SECULAR DIVISION.

Byline: Harry Schwartzbart

OUR religious freedom, the envy of the world, is secured by the first 16 words of the First Amendment, which are ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .''

The Supreme Court has generally interpreted these words to mean that church and state should be separate, that the state should be neutral on the subject of religion and not favor, in any way, one religion over another. Neutrality is not hostility, and those who claim that the government is hostile to religion are wrong, sometimes motivated by political consideration.

The separation of church and state has served this country well for more than two hundred years, bringing America interfaith harmony and incredible religious vitality. It is absolutely vital to minority religions.

Although the First Amendment has never been itself amended, attempts to do so date from 1863 when the National Reform Association stated its goal ``to secure such an amendment to the Constitution . . . as will declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ and its acceptance of the moral laws of the Christian religion, and so indicate that this is a Christian nation.''

Fortunately, the House Judiciary Committee voted against its adoption, and a subsequent attempt to reintroduce it failed.

Similar, ``Christian American'' amendments were introduced in Congress in 1961, 1963 and 1965, when one of the sponsors was Congressman John Anderson, who ran for president as an independent in 1980. During that campaign, Anderson recanted, saying, ``It was a dumb thing to do, and I should not have introduced it.''

Now, fast forward to May 8, 1997, when Representative Ernest J. Istook, R-Okla., introduced House Judiciary Resolution 78, the deceptively titled ``Religious Freedom Amendment.'' Rather than being a ``Religious Freedom Amendment,'' it is a blueprint for religious tyranny. It would obliterate the separation of church and state and result in government-sanctioned worship, taxation to benefit religion, and majoritarian oppression.

Let's examine point by point what's wrong with the Istook amendment:

No new amendment is needed to guarantee a student's right to pray in public schools. HJR 78 is designed to permit coercive programs of group prayer in public schools. Students who do not want to participate will be forced to single themselves out by getting up and leaving the room. Provisions in the amendment barring government officials from compelling participation in prayer are insufficient. In public schools, student ``volunteers'' could impose religious worship on their peers by reciting prayers in class, over the loud speaker, and at every school event.

Over 30 religious leaders have signed a resolution of the San Fernando Valley Interfaith Council opposing a constitutional amendment that would legalize organized prayer in public schools.

The provision in the amendment allowing ``the people'' to ``recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property'' is dangerously vague. HJR 78 is designed to allow government officials to endorse religion, a practice that could make millions of Americans feel like outsiders in their own communities. For example, in Utah, the people could vote to declare the state officially Mormon; and in Alabama, a county could become officially Baptist. Religious groups would be forced to compete with one another for government recognition and favors.

HJR 78 would force taxpayers to put their hard-earned money in the collection plates of houses of worship. For example, the provision stating that government shall not ``deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion'' forces government to give tax aid to religious groups for schools, social services, and other ministries.

It taxes people to support religions in which they may not believe and is therefore a religion tax - a notion that this country did away with more than 200 years ago. Public tax support for private schools, i.e., vouchers, etc., would result in the ultimate destruction of the public school system, an outcome that would bring joy to Jerry Falwell, who has said that he lives to see the day when we won't have any public schools.

Under this amendment, every religious group that wants public funding would have a constitutional right to receive it. There are nearly 2,000 separate religious denominations in the United States. The government simply does not have the money to fund religion on this scale. Even if just half of the groups demanded public aid, financial chaos would result. Either taxes would increase dramatically, the budget deficit would soar or other government services would have to be cut or eliminated. In addition, since the government cannot play favorites among religions, every group that asks would have to be funded, including unpopular groups or denominations with unusual doctrines. Who will have responsibility for defining the difference between religion and a cult?

HJR 78 is a huge step toward government control of religion. Giving religious groups a constitutional right to public funding also guarantees that they will be regulated by the state. The government simply does not hand out money with no strings attached.

The First Amendment was drafted by our founding fathers, wise men who were familiar with the misery and pain suffered by religious minorities in theocracies, where church and state coincide.

James Madison said ``It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.''

Let us cherish the precious heritage of religious freedom afforded us by the First Amendment and say no to the political opportunists who are urging us to abandon the time-tested principle of church-state separation.