Ellen Johnson

Upon very short notice, these dedicated individuals took time off from work to stand together in the summer heat and humidity in Washington, D.C., and to protest the exclusion of American Atheists from the select panel testifying against the RFA before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution. We are proud to list their names here. Besides myself, there was Spike Tyson, Conrad Goeringer, Neal Cary, Noel Scott, Dick Hogan, Stan Brown, Bob Zauner, Liz Tyahla, Dale Hicks, Dave Vining, Rice Odell, John Obert, Jim Senyszyn, Chris Prokop, George Tipton, and Mark Spencer. 

The RFA has been bandied around Congress since 1995, when it was called the Religious Equality Amendment (REA). It is an offshoot of the Christian Coalition’s 1995 “Contract With the American Family” which, in part, called for “A constitutional amendment to protect the religious liberties of Americans in public places.” 

In 1995 two factions in the Republican party emerged in disagreement over the wording of the proposed amendment. They were represented by Representative Henry J. Hyde, Republican of Illinois, who was more concerned with preventing what he and other religious conservatives perceived as discrimination against (private and public) religious expression. And there was Representative Ernest J. Istook, Republican of Oklahoma, who wanted the REA primarily to sanction school-sponsored prayer. 

The compromise wording of the 1995 version of the REA 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.

In the June 1995 issue of the American Atheist Newsletter, we asked our members and supporters to write to the House Judiciary Committee and ask that a representative from American Atheists be allowed to testify at the 1995 hearings. After all, the main objective of the REA was to circumvent the 1963 Supreme Court decision of Murray v Curlett, which removed forced prayer and reverential Bible reading from the nation’s public schools. The plaintiff in that case was, of course, the founder of American Atheists, Dr. Madalyn Murray O’Hair. 

No one would be more profoundly affected by the REA than the nation’s Atheists. If we were facing the emasculation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, we damned-well wanted to have a say about it. As it turned out we were the one group of citizens specifically excluded from giving testimony before the subcommittee. The only option for American Atheists was to provide a written copy of our testimony for submission into the Congressional Record on the hearings, which then American Atheist’s President Jon Murray did. It read in part: 

What we have here is the mind-set of the religious. Their assumption is that there are certain inherent values in religion which (1) must be appreciated by all. Therefore, religious practices (2) must be protected, (3) have an enlarged arena in which to function and (4) be openly accepted by government. All of this is under the banner of “protection of religious belief.” But the intent is really to promote religion and to force inclusion of the populace in the religious belief system. 

The religious position is that religion must be a pervasive factor in our culture that penetrates and permeates every institution without exception. If the influence of religion in any given public institution or area is curtailed even partially, then that area is attacked not alone as being “wholly secular” or “religion-free” but accusations of religious intolerance are voiced. The religious mind cannot accept a situation in which religion has its areas and then there are separate secular concerns in which religion is an unnecessary part of the equation. This, of course, relates back to the New Testament, Romans 14:11, “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” —the ultimate sectarian demand.

In 1995 the REA derailed at the committee level. Some say the split in the Republican ranks over the language of the proposed amendment doomed it from the start. 

In 1996, the Religious Equality Amendment reared its ugly head again, but this time with a new name and a facelift. It was now the “Religious Freedom Amendment” (RFA) and it read: 

In order to secure the right of the people to acknowledge and serve God according to the dictates of conscience, neither the United States nor any State shall deny any person equal access to a benefit, or otherwise discriminate against any person, on account of religious belief, expression, or exercise. This amendment does not authorize government to coerce or inhibit religious belief, expression, or exercise.

If the measure was voted on by September, the Christian Coalition would report on the votes in its 45 million Congressional voting guides sent to 100,000 churches in October. 

Hoping to create a perceived urgency and need for the RFA, the measure’s proponents began to paint a picture of Nazi-like persecution of religious citizens in America, especially school children. However, close examination of the claims by TV news programs and liberal religious groups indicated that such stories were usually distortions of the truth or were simple mistakes that were remedied quickly. Two examples will suffice. 

The transcript of the NBC Nightly News segment “In Depth” on September 20, 1995 read: 

Reporter Bob Faw: Ten-year-old Joshua Burton is now suing his Orlando, Florida, school district, arguing that when he read his Bible quietly before class last year, teachers confiscated it and, he says, humiliated him. 
Mr. Joshua Burton: They thought that I had no rights. I felt that they—I felt that I was getting trampled on. 
Faw: Said Joshua’s father, ‘What is this, Iraq?’ 
Mr. Mark Burton (Joshua’s Father): These children should not have to go to school in fear that they’re going to be turned in just because they’re reading something that they feel is sacred to them. 
Faw: And the Christian Coalition insists students are persecuted all the time for their religious beliefs. Listen to Ralph Reed describe a 15-year-old student in Metropolis, Illinois. 
(Mr. Ralph Reed) “...who was escorted into a police paddy wagon, handcuffed, and threatened with mace because she tried to lead a prayer around the school’s flagpole.” 
Faw: Outrageous? Indeed. But visit tiny Metropolis, talk to local officials, and you’ll hear Ralph Reed’s horror story did not happen. 
Mr. Don Smith (School Superintendent): There was no paddy wagon. There was a police car. There were no handcuffs used, And there wasn’t no mace. The so-called Christian Coalition has, in essence, misrepresented the facts. 
Faw: As for Joshua, the local school board attorney says his allegations were untrue, that Joshua was disruptive; and his principal adds... 
Ms. Sylvia Boyd (Principal): Students are allowed to bring anything that they wish to read.

Lacking legitimate claims of religious intolerance, the Christian Coalition continues to this day to parade Brittney Kaye Settle around as an example of censorship of religious speech. 

Once again, American Atheists asked for – and was denied – the opportunity to testify at the 1996 hearings on the proposed amendment. We submitted our re-written testimony, which stated in part: 

Passage of this amendment would give special protections and special rights to the vague, varied, and often contentious issues surrounding ‘religious expression.’ 

Simply because a manner of expression cloaks itself in religiosity is not grounds for accommodation or agreement. In the free marketplace of ideas, religion should be treated like any other idea, given no special treatment, no special protections or advantages, subjected to neither preference nor prejudice mandated by government. Rejection of an idea is as democratic as is its acceptance. The attempt to legislate respect for ‘religious’ ideas raises the question as to just how valid are these arguments if the arm of the state is to be employed to accomplish wholesale conformity. We are again reminded of the words of Jefferson who wrote, “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” (Notes on Virginia, Query 17) 

And we would urge those asking for government intervention to remember the words of the Supreme Court in 1952: ‘It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.

In the true tenacious fashion of the religious right, the Religious Freedom Amendment was rolled out again in 1997, but this time we were ready. Even before the new round of hearings was scheduled, American Atheists was organized. At the urging of the national office of American Atheists, our supporters began to fax, e-mail, phone, and mail letters to the entire House Judiciary Committee asking that I be allowed to testify at the hearings. We bombarded them with requests up until the day before the actual hearings. And our Texas State Director, Dick Hogan, went to Capitol Hill to see Brian Woolfolk, counsel to Representative Robert Scott of Virginia. Woolfolk selected the panel to testify against the RFA. He said that it wasn’t our Atheism that kept us from testifying, but rather our lack of political clout. 

The new 1997 version read: 

To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. The Government shall not 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.

American Atheist Board member Conrad Goeringer suggested that we hold a press conference on Capitol Hill to tell the media why it was wrong to exclude us from testifying. It was a great idea, and so we did that. 
 
 

TV Reporter records the position of American Atheists on the Religious Freedom Amendment

On Tuesday morning July 22, our contingent of American Atheists went to the Rayburn Building to attend the public hearings on the amendment. There wasn’t any noticeable attendance from any major media, but I was interviewed on camera in the hearing room. 

Copies of our written testimony were quickly picked up by the press as some of our members made the rounds of the hearing room and spoke with people on both sides of the issue. It was clear to many people that American Atheists were in attendance. And we all felt very good about it. 

As I sat there I took notes on the proceedings and it became very clear to me that there was another reason why we weren’t given an opportunity to testify. We are not apologists for religion. Everyone that I heard testifying for and against the RFA qualified their statements by saying how they were “the friend” of prayer. For example, Representative Walter Capps of California testified against the amendment, but added “I come here today as a scholar and a friend of religion.” And, “While I agree with the sponsors of the amendment that we must foster respect for religion, I have grave reservations about this legislation and the impact it would have on the lives of many Americans.” 

If allowed to testify, we would not show such respect for prayer. While some would argue that, as long as we all agree to the same ends, what difference does it make how we get there? That is, so what if apologists testify against the amendment? The difference lies in our fundamental assumptions about religion. The position of American Atheists is that if there is nothing wrong with prayer and religion, then there is no need to oppose the RFA. 

When it was time to hold our press conference, AA member Bob Zauner, a recently retired D.C. attorney, deftly guided us through the maze that is the Capitol and to our designated spot for our press conference. We held up our signs, some of which read, “Atheists Need to Be Heard”, “The First Amendment, Not the First Commandment” and “Open The Hearings.”  

I told the press why we were there and what my impressions of the hearings were. Afterwards, we all agreed that we were determined to have our “seat at the table” in Washington, D.C. We needed political clout to do that and we were going to work for it. 

Being in Washington, D.C. felt good. That’s where we belong. American Atheists’ goal is to have a full-time office in Washington, D.C. so that we no longer have to sit at the back of the proverbial bus. Those days are over. We are on our way to the front. 

Footnotes: 

¹Brittney Kaye Settle v dickenson county School board, et al., May 8, 1995. US Court of Appeals For the sixth Circuit.