(2) Wed 11 Feb 98 9:12 By: Christopher Baker To: All Re: Re: Part 1 of 2 AANEWS #389 St: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @EID:7e09 244b4980 @MSGID: 1:18/14 34E1B1E4 @PID: GenMsg 5.00 [0002] @Date: 11 Feb 98 14:12:52 UTC * Copy of message posted via A_THEIST * Date: 11 Feb 98 09:04:54 * From: Christopher Baker * To: All * Message text was not edited! [part 1 of 2] From: Cgastbook@aol.com Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:42:15 EST Subject: [Atheist] re: AANEWS for February 9, 1998 Sender: owner-aanews@listserv.atheists.org Reply-To: cg@atheists.org from: AMERICAN ATHEISTS subject: AANEWS for February 9, 1998 A M E R I C A N A T H E I S T S ~~ A A N E W S ~~ #389 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2/9/98 http://www.atheists.org ftp.atheists.org/pub/ http://www.americanatheist.org --------------------------------------------------------- A Service of AMERICAN ATHEISTS "For Reason and the First Amendment" ---------------------------------------------------------- In This Issue... * Alphabet Soup: Part Two (RFRA And Its Clones) * American Atheists National Convention * Resources * About This List... More Alphabet Soup... STATE CHURCH SEPARATION AND THE ''SPECIAL RIGHTS" BATTLE Part Two of Three (We continue with our discussion of various legislative proposals which provide religious believers and groups with "special rights." Our last installment (AANEWS #387) included a discussion of the Religious Freedom Amendment. Part Two examines the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the various "mini-RFRAs" now being promoted by churches and advocacy groups throughout the nation.) ** While religious right organizations like Christian Coalition have supported the Religious Freedom Amendment, more mainstream and even liberal churches have undertaken their own efforts to achieve "special rights" and standing for organized religion. Their main effort has consisted of support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a measure enacted in 1993 but overturned last year by the U.S. Supreme Court in the BOERNE v. FLORES case. Since then, using technicalities in the case, RFRA advocates have taken their battle from Capitol Hill to the various states, where "mini-RFRAs" are now winding their way through legislatures. The array of different religious interest groups backing RFRA and its offspring is astonishing; it represents a wide segment of the American religious community, and even some groups which have identified themselves closely in the past with the cause of civil liberties and state-church separation. RFRA ignited a debate in the ranks of separationist, however, and many groups which have been stalwart defenders of the Establishment Clause appear to have jumped ship on this important measure. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a cause which has united Christian Coalition, the National Council of Churches, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Humanist and new age advocacy groups, and even the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. American Atheists continues to be the only national organization actively speaking out against the "special rights" agenda embodied in RFRA, and the various state versions it is now being promoted under, such as "Religious Freedom Protection Act." While the religious right supports RFRA, mainstream churches and other groups have not displayed comparable enthusiasm for the Religious Freedom Amendment. Both RFRA (and its state-level incarnations) and RFA both advance religious belief and favor religion; but when RFRA was struck down in BOERNE, the Coalition which had supported the law failed to translate that enthusiasm into any sort of alliance for RFA and the Christian Coalition. Understanding why this did not happen requires examining some history, and how different parts of the American religious establishment perceive their relationship with government. "Social Gospel" vs. Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism In terms of composition, most religious Americans are Roman Catholic, or use a label such as "fundamentalist" or "evangelical" to describe their Protestant affiliation. 10% of Americans describe themselves as atheists, nonbelievers, agnostics or skeptics of some kind in respect to religion. Other categories include beliefs such as Mormonism, new age, Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim (this being one of the fastest growing segments in the religious marketplace). Most Americans, though, fall into the category of being "unchurched," a pejorative label to describe those who do not regularly head for church, mosque or temple, or -- when they do so on holidays -- may attend for social or family reasons. Indeed, there has never been a time in American history when the majority of the population have been regular and devoted church service attendees. In terms of relationship with government, modern attitudes embraced by the religious right and mainstream have their antecedents in American history. Many religious groups fought the "disestablishment" process which began with the American Revolution; prior to the uprising, many colonies had an "established' or official religious sect often supported through taxation. Membership in this church was often a requirement for the exercise of certain rights, and the process of disestablishment prompted howls of protest. American culture underwent periodic frenzies of religiosity such as the Great Awakening, but by the end of the 19th century, technology and the findings of science were rapidly chipping away at the authority and infallibility of religious doctrines. Fundamentalism came to describe the conservative reaction among Protestants in the U.S.; and it emphasized many of the tenets considered essential to Christianity such as the inerrancy of Biblical accounts, physical resurrection of Christ, Rapture and the Second Coming. Fundamentalists continued to embrace the Bible as the infallible and revealed word of god, and in the early twentieth century the movement was articulated in a twelve volume published series, aptly titled "The Fundamentals." Bible institutes were established in order to transmit Fundamentalist doctrines, and as a result, this religious ideology prospered in rural areas throughout the 1920's. The so- called "Monkey Trial" in 1925 contrasted the Fundamentalist doctrine, including Biblical inerrancy and belief in Creation, with the latest findings in evolutionary science. Another related religious tendency was Evangelicalism. Like fundamentalists, evangelicals embrace a strict orthodoxy regarding the doctrines and authority of the Bible. The differences between the two, however, continue to be debated; but it seems that Evangelicalism emphasizes the "experience" of religious conversion, something evidence in the historical roots of the movement in groups such as the Hussites, Waldenses and Reformation sects. Evangelicalism also claims antecedents in the 1725 Great Awakening and religious revivalist movements. Evangelicals generally ignored political entanglement throughout the early to mid-1900s as an official policy. There were exceptions, of course, but most evangelical (and even fundamentalist) groups saw politics as "of this world," sinful and part of secular society. Evangelicals emphasized "saving souls" over precinct organizing. Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, however, both share a common spiritual and sectarian foe -- religious modernism and specifically the Social Gospel. Modernism describes the current in early twentieth century religious belief that rejected the more traditional and orthodox aspects of the Bible, and searched for a different meaning in its texts. Closely related to modern was the liberal Social Gospel movement which sought to apply certain Christian teachings to a variety of social problems related to industrialization. Founders of this tendency were Washington Gladden (1836-1918), an American Congregationalist minister, and theologian Walter Rauschenbusch (1861- 1918). The Social Gospel called for activism and involvement in social and political affairs; but fundamentalists and evangelicals, distrustful of those more worldly entanglements, emphasized religious conversion as the way of creating a "New Jerusalem" in anticipation of the Second Coming of Christ, or Parousia. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists became politically energized beginning in the 1960s and into the 1970s by the "first wave" of religious right activism -- groups like the Third Century movement and the Moral Majority. This marked a major reorientation for many evangelicals, many of whom still remained uncomfortable with the more authoritarian and draconian political program of leaders such as Jerry Falwell. With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, however, fundamentalists and evangelicals had already flexed their political muscle, and by the 1990s, new groups like Christian Coalition -- the "second wave" of religious right activism -- were declaring that their ideologies and churches had finally "arrived" in the power center of American social activism. From a macro-perspective, then, religious conservatives have come to emphasize a distinct social and political program: using government to ban abortion, censor "immoral" materials, allow certain religious activities in schools and other public institutions, and create a "family friendly" (i.e. heterosexual) economic environment. It is important to remember that there exist splits and fault-lines even within the segment we identify as "religious right," however. While various churches and interest groups may agree on a common stance in respect to gay rights or abortion, the can disagree on more arcane issues such as free trade or certain rights for others. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have often avoided the Protestant "mainstream," although they seem to have greater numbers than many of the established, mainline religious sects. The latter is best represented by the National Council of Churches. Liberal denominations are somewhat skeptical of the Biblical inerrancy claims of their fundamentalist counterparts, and they share a certain caution about the more blatant attempts to commingle government and religious. For instance, the religious liberals are generally wary of the Religious Freedom Amendment. [end part 1 of 2] - DB B2300sl/001027 @ Origin: Rights On!-Host/Moderator of A_THEIST-Edgewater_FL_USA (1:18/14) @PATH: 18/14 --- GenMsg [0002] (cbaker84@digital.net) * Origin: Rights On! for Privacy! It's a Right not a privilege! (1:18/14) SEEN-BY: 12/12 218/890 1001 270/101 396/1 3615/50 51 3804/180 @PATH: 18/14 374/98 46 12/12 396/1 3615/50 218/1001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (3) Wed 11 Feb 98 9:13 By: Christopher Baker To: All Re: Re: Part 2 of 2 AANEWS #389 St: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @EID:3a4d 244b49a0 @MSGID: 1:18/14 34E1B207 @PID: GenMsg 5.00 [0002] @Date: 11 Feb 98 14:13:27 UTC * Copy of message posted via A_THEIST * Date: 11 Feb 98 09:05:56 * From: Christopher Baker * To: All * Message text was not edited! [part 2 of 2] It should be noted in that in some quarters of the American fundamentalist and evangelical community, there is similar hesitance regarding efforts to breech the "wall of separation" between government and religion. Baptist groups, for instance, have a record of speaking out against some prayer-in-government proposals. Historically, this dates back to a fear that other religious groups - - specifically, the Roman Catholic Church -- would violate the First Amendment for their own, sectarian ends. The "Bible Riots" in 19th century America were rooted in this mutual hostility and suspicion which divided Protestants and Roman Catholics. In fact, one of the leading state-church separation groups in existence today was originally known as "Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State." Fear of Roman Catholic hegemony in the political sphere has served as the basis for some efforts made by specific Protestant groups to defend Jefferson's "wall of separation" between government and organized religion. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act RFRA was legislation that attracted support from across the religious spectrum. Its origins date to a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision, OREGON EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH. The issue involved the right of a Native American church to use an hallucinogenic plant, peyote, in its religious ritual. The State of Oregon had claimed that the ban on peyote and similar substances was a generally applicable rule which applied to everyone. Religious groups argued that if government passed any law that placed "substantial burden" on religious practice, it had to demonstrate a compelling reason, and had to achieve that end by the least restrictive means. The high court ruled, however, that not even religious belief could constitute an exemption from a neutral law that applied to everyone, and may have had the result of placing a restriction on a religious practice. A group known as the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion was promptly formed, and set to work crafting legislation that would circumvent the decision in SMITH. The effort paid off in 1993 when Congress overwhelmingly passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). President Clinton quickly signed the measure. RFRA was significant for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the range of support it managed to attract. Religious and civic groups flocked to the cause of RFRA -- Baptists, Roman Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Humanists, Ethical Culturalists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Muslims, Presbyterians, new age sects, Scientologists, Unitarians and religious right groups such as the Traditional Values Coalition. Also signing on to the RFRA agenda were the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and People for the American Way. The act required that government demonstrate the same compelling interest in any action which placed a substantial "burden" on religious groups or practice -- a condition said to exist prior to the decision in SMITH. But the underpinnings in RFRA were to be tested when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the Roman Catholic Church in the case of BOERNE v. FLORES. The case involved an effort by to demolish most of a 76-year-old church structure in BOERNE, Texas in order to build a larger facility. The City refused to grant a permit, saying that the church building fell under the purview of historical ordinances; the Archdiocese then filed suit, arguing that these restrictions violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and constituted excessive burden on a religious organization. The Justices disagreed in a controversial 6-3 decision handed down in June, 1997 which found RFRA to be unconstitutional. Most of the opinion centered on whether or not Congress had the authority to enact such legislation, and may have exceeded its authority in interpreting the constitution. Justice John Paul Stevens, however, was more direct, and enunciated his opinion that RFRA was clearly discriminatory, favored religious groups and belief, and was a violation of state-church separation. He wrote: "If the historic landmark on a hill in BOERNE, Texas happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinance that forbid an enlargement of the structure. Because the landmark is owned by the Catholic Church, it is claimed that RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law. Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. The government preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment..." "One, Two, Many RFRAs..." Stung by the decision in BOERNE which struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Coalition behind RFRA began to examine its options. One included a full constitutional amendment -- a lengthy procedure considered to be a "last resort." Groups such as the Christian Coalition which had been promoting the Religious Freedom Amendment hoped that they could woo the liberal and mainstream churches to their cause. The latter considered RFA to be unnecessary, or too extreme; and some questioned the political viability of working with the Christian Coalition, already tainted with the scandal of partisan political involvement. Instead, the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion decided to take advantage of a possible loophole in BOERNE, and begin promoting RFRA-like laws at the state level. These laws may also be unconstitutional, but litigating them in the court systems of individual states will prove to be a daunting task. Several "mini-RFRAs" have been enacted or introduced in state legislatures. In late January, 1998, the California Assembly passed the Religious Freedom Protection Act which is an RFRA clone. Like RFRA, it requires that government "should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification." A study by the Legislative Counsel defends the new measure, suggesting in one document that the State of California has the power and should "protect the free exercise of religion" by actions which are "more expansive than the First Amendment to the Constitution." RFRA and the "mini-RFRAs" pose a substantial threat to state-church separation, although they are more subtle than the blatant power grab demonstrated in the Christian Coalition's Religious Freedom Amendment. RFRA essentially fosters a system of "dual justice," and exempts religious groups and practices from the civil laws which apply to everyone else -- private individuals, businesses and even civic institutions. It encourages "special rights" for believers, and in the process of doing so, discriminates against millions of Americans who profess no religious beliefs. (End of Part Two of Three) ** REGISTER ON LINE FOR THE 24th AMERICAN ATHEISTS NATIONAL CONVENTION, JUNE 12-14, 1998, WASHINGTON, D.C. Use your credit card and our new secure transaction feature to register for the American Atheists National Convention. The Crystal City Hyatt Regency Hotel will be the site of this spectacular event, June 12-14, 1998 in our nation's capital. Attend lectures, panels, activist workshops. And join us for trips to Capitol Hill and our assembly in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building to commemorate the anniversary of the famous MURRAY v. CURLETT decisions which helped to end mandatory prayer and Bible verse recitation in public schools, and was the first statement of its kind for Atheist civil liberties! Visit us at http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/index.html and just click on the CONVENTION icon! And we look forward to seeing you in D.C.! ** RESOURCES FROM AMERICAN ATHEISTS * For information about American Atheists, send mail to info@atheists.org. Please include your name and postal mailing address. * For a free catalogue of American Atheist Press books, videos and other products, send mail to catalogue@atheists.org. Kindly include your mailing address. * The American Atheist Magazine is now on the web! Check out select articles from the current and back issues. Visit us at http://www.AmericanAtheist.org. * If you are a member of American Atheists, why not sign up for our e-mail discussion group, aachat? We already have over 100 participants who discuss topics such as atheism, religion, First Amendment issues, and plenty of other issues. Contact Margie Wait, the Moderator through aachat@atheists.org. ** ABOUT THIS LIST... AANEWS is a free service from American Atheists, a nationwide movement founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair for the advancement of atheism, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion. For membership information about American Atheists, just send e-mail to info@atheists.org and include your name and postal mailing address. For subscribe/unsubscribe information, send mail to aanews-request@listserv.atheists.org and put "info aanews" (minus the quotation marks, please) in the message body. You may forward, post or quote from this dispatch, provided that appropriate credit is given to aanews and American Atheists. Edited and written by C. Goeringer, The LISTMASTER (cg@atheists.org). Internet Representative for American Atheists is Margie Wait, irep@atheists.org. [end part 2 of 2] - DB B2300sl/001027 @ Origin: Rights On!-Host/Moderator of A_THEIST-Edgewater_FL_USA (1:18/14) @PATH: 18/14 --- GenMsg [0002] (cbaker84@digital.net) * Origin: Rights On! for Privacy! It's a Right not a privilege! (1:18/14) SEEN-BY: 12/12 218/890 1001 270/101 396/1 3615/50 51 3804/180 @PATH: 18/14 374/98 46 12/12 396/1 3615/50 218/1001