November 29, 2001 

Dear Member of Congress: 

As we have in the past, the Coalition to Preserve Religious Liberty vigorously opposes the so-called "religious speech" constitutional amendment to be introduced by Representative Ernest Istook (R-OK). On June 4, 1998, the House of Representatives recognized that a similar "religious freedom" constitutional amendment by Rep. Istook would have hurt rather than helped the cause of religious liberty, and wisely rejected the amendment. Nevertheless, Representative Istook apparently intends again to introduce a "religious speech" constitutional amendment for your consideration. 

Some have claimed that the tragedy of September 11 requires reconsideration of this discredited amendment. America's multi-faceted response to terrorism certainly has important spiritual aspects, but reintroducing state-sponsored prayer into the public schools is unnecessary and divisive. 

The amendment is unnecessary. We already have a "religious freedom" amendment - it is the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights, and it has worked extremely well for more than 200 years. That is exactly why the Bill of Rights has never been amended in our nation's history. 

Prayers have not been kicked out of the public schools, and religion has not been zoned out of the public square. Indeed, recent reports indicate that voluntary student-sponsored prayer and religious expression are thriving in today's public schools. Under current law, students can pray and read the Bible privately, say grace at lunch, distribute religious materials to their friends and join voluntary religious clubs in middle and high schools. 

The amendment is divisive. For example, the amendment would allow students to use the school intercom to lead captive classroom audiences in prayer, interfering with parents' rights to raise their children and creating a host of troubling questions: Whose prayer will be prayed? Which faith groups will get more days for their prayer? Who will assign prayer opportunities? What will those who object to the prayer do during prayer time? These issues will trigger divisive battles among the hundreds of religious traditions represented in our diverse society. 

The amendment effectively would give government officials a constitutional right to promote their own religious beliefs to captive audiences. Judges and drill sergeants could proselytize to their courtrooms and their troops. A county government could effectively turn its offices into a shrine, erecting crosses, menorahs, or other religious symbols throughout the holidays. Governmental endorsement of religion turns religion into a political tool and sends the message that those who don't hold a certain faith are second-class citizens. 

In short, the Istook amendment is unneeded and would harm religious liberty in America. Once again, we urge you to protect religious liberty by rejecting this unnecessary and unwise "religious speech" constitutional amendment. Thank you for your consideration of these views. 

Yours very truly, 

Rev. J. Brent Walker 
Co-Chair 

Rabbi David Saperstein
Co-Chair