COMMENTARY: Diary of a Congressional witness

c. 1996 Religion News Service (Rabbi Rudin is the national interreligious affairs director of the American Jewish Committee.) (UNDATED) I recently presented testimony in Washington, D.C., before the House Judiciary Subcommittee that is considering a constitutional amendment on religion. Two entries in my diary speak volumes about the current religious and political climate in America. […]

c. 1996 Religion News Service

(Rabbi Rudin is the national interreligious affairs director of the American Jewish Committee.)

(UNDATED) I recently presented testimony in Washington, D.C., before the House Judiciary Subcommittee that is considering a constitutional amendment on religion. Two entries in my diary speak volumes about the current religious and political climate in America.


Monday, July 22: The subcommittee hearings are tomorrow morning. I’m absolutely opposed to tampering with the First Amendment which has worked well for over 200 years. We don’t need any amendment that permits government funding of religion and a breakdown of church-state separation.

Among some politicians and their constituents, amending the Constitution is the stratagem of choice when all else fails. Constitutional amendments have been proposed to ban flag burning, ban abortion, and require a balanced budget. And now, here’s a proposal to kill off the First Amendment’s”establishment clause,”which is designed to prevent any faith from receiving preferential treatment. Proposals for constitutional amendments make headlines, but fortunately they require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states. Not easy.

The Religious Right wants members of the House of Representatives to vote on the proposed amendment before the November election. The Religious Right will portray this as a vote for or against God. Ugh! Do God and religion really need votes from Congress?

As the only Jewish witness, am honored to speak for my organization and for the vast majority of American Jews who oppose any amendment. Everything is rushed because the hearings were called without much lead time. It’s always hurry up and wait. Just like my days in the Air Force.

There will be about 15 witnesses tomorrow, perhaps 7 on our side. The Presbyterian Church (USA), the National Council of Churches, the National School Boards Association and several other groups will testify against the amendment.

Witnesses for the other side include the lawyer for Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice; a Southern Baptist Convention official; a layman from a conservative Catholic group (the National Conference of Catholic Bishops did not speak in favor of the amendment); and U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook. An Oklahoma Republican, Istook is unhappy with the proposed amendment because it isn’t specific enough about putting required prayer in public schools.

Finally, my 24 pages of all-out opposition to the amendment are finished. Word processors make it easier to prepare such texts. Richard Foltin, the AJC staff lawyer in Washington, and I could have done better with more time, but it’s a strong statement. Several phone calls from the subcommittee staff keep asking:”When can we get 100 copies of your statement for distribution?” How did America exist before modern technology? Pretty well. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in longhand. Ditto the authors of the Constitution and Lincoln with the Gettysburg Address.

I get a call at my hotel from a reporter who says tomorrow’s hearings”aren’t going anywhere.”The amendment backers don’t have the necessary”yes”votes in the House, and the Senate won’t even”get near a religion Amendment.”Maybe the guy’s right, but still have to show up at the hearing and oppose any attempt to undermine the First Amendment.


Tuesday, July 23: Richard and I arrive at the Rayburn Building at 9:15 a.m. for the hearing. Am pleasantly surprised to see a line of people waiting to get in. It may not be Whitewater or the Nixon impeachment hearings, but it is a debate about whether to amend the Constitution and fundamentally change the Bill of Rights.

The hearings are chaired by Republican Charles Canady of Florida and from the start the bitter divisions between the Republicans and Democrats on the Subcommittee are obvious. Most of the GOP panel members favor an amendment, but all the Democrats are strongly opposed _ including Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Pat Schroeder of Colorado, and John Conyers of Michigan.

The witnesses are also filled with intensity and passion. The other side says a religion amendment will help cure America’s moral ills; our side declares an amendment will open the doors to sectarian strife, competition between religions for government funding, and increased coercion of religious minorities in public schools.

Since the written testimonies are made part of the official record, witnesses have only five minutes to speak. I love the colored lights on the witness table: green stays on for about four minutes, then it turns amber, and finally, the red light tells a witness it’s time to stop talking. Not a bad idea for the clergy when delivering sermons.

I closed my testimony this way:”We will never, never, never surrender the guarantees afforded to all Americans by the First Amendment without a fight.”Fervor in defense of religious freedom is no vice.

National Public Radio picked up that quote and broadcast it widely. Amazing … 24 pages of tightly reasoned logic and a 19-word soundbite gets the attention.


It could only happen in America.

MJP END RUDIN

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!