by Kimberly Blaker

Pennsylvanians are on their way to winning a new liberty—religious freedom! At least, that’s what Christian Right proponents want us to believe.

In November, the Pennsylvania State Senate passed the Religious Freedom Protection Act. In 11 states, similar acts have been approved and are being pushed through many more.

Of course, religious liberty is nothing new. The First Amendment guarantees this freedom: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Nonetheless, religious freedom acts have been proposed repeatedly since 1997, when the Supreme Court ruled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) unconstitutional. According to Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, the Supreme Court determined that religion was given more protection by the RFRA than was constitutionally required.

Since this time, the religious right has proposed a rash of acts and amendments. Most notable was the Religious Freedom Amendment, sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook of Oklahoma in 1998. Fortunately, the RFA didn’t pass, as it would have broken down the wall of separation between church and state, therefore, destroying religious freedom.

At first glance, most of these acts appear harmless. But when dissected, they prove to have fatal flaws. They typically outline the rights of religious individuals to freely acknowledge “God.” Yet, they fail to specify the freedom not to acknowledge God or to acknowledge many Gods, Buddha, Allah, or any other divine figure.

This is exactly why the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom doesn’t satisfy the religious right, because the Constitution protects the freedom of all Americans, while providing a wall between church and state.

What the religious-right wants is the freedom to proselytize in schools, in government, and in all public arenas—and they want to use our tax dollars in doing so. The religious right favors religious freedom for conservative Christians, but not the freedom to believe and practice as one chooses.

To sum up what such proposals are really about, Ralph Reed, former Executive Director of the Christian Coalition said, in 1998: “we will spend whatever resources are necessary to . . . see that the First Amendment’s freedom FOR religion will no longer be translated as freedom FROM religion. . . .”

But how can one have freedom of religion without being free from other religions? Reed’s statement indicates the Christian right’s view that people should not be free not to practice religion.

The Christian right has been striving for a theocracy for quite some time and is in it for the long haul. When its federal proposals are unable to take hold, it takes the less visible approach, working state-by-state to break down the wall. While not always evident, most of these acts are undoubtedly an attack on religious freedom—a liberty that Americans currently truly possess.

Kimberly Blaker’s The Wall™ appears weekly. She is editor and coauthor of the The Fundamentals of Extremism: the Christian Right in America. Send your comments to Kimberly Blaker: TheWall@TheWall-OnChurchAndState.com © 2002, Kimberly Blaker