Texas Jewish Post (Fort Worth, Tex.), Vol. 38, No. 23, Ed. 1 Thursday, June 7, 1984 Page: 2 of 20
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
TEXAS JEWISH POST THURSDAY, JUNE 7. 1984 PAGE
'Equal Access’ Defeated
BY MARC A. PEARL
American Jewish
Congress Washington
Representative
The Jewish community,
faced with an all out effort
by forces determined to
bring religious activity into
our public schools, emerged
from the recent “equal
access” battle with a hard
fought victory. Those who
treasure religious liberty,
constitutional rights, and,
rather ironically, local con-
trol, have every reason to
celebrate a successful educa-
tion and political action
effort; though not for too
long. It was, however,
achieved by a parliamentary
fluke, and we should not be
fooled into thinking that
further attempts will not
continue.
The proposed School
Prayer Constitutional
Amendment was defeated
two months ago in the
Senate only because it
required a two-third’s vote.
It was a heated debate
played out in the media, on
the Senate floor, and pre-
dominantly behind closed
doors where attempts were
made to draft an “accept-
able” bill. However, a broad-
based coalition, deeply root-
ed in religious pluralism and
liberty, was able to con-
vince enough Senators [the
Amendment was defeated
with an 11 vote margin] that
amending the Bill of Rights
is a dangerous precedent,
and the Establishment
Clause of the First Amend-
ment should remain above
mere politics.
The “Equal Access Act”
would have allowed religious
clubs to meet in public
secondary schools, before
during, and after the school
day, with the participation
of outside religious leaders.
The bill offered no protec-
tion to religious minorities,
sL ~e a principal could have
set an arbitrary minimum
number for any club. Addi-
tionally, the bill provided for
a total cut-off of federal
funds. If the “Equal Access
Act” had passed, we would
have witnessed a historic
weakening of the wall
separating church and state.
However popular, the bill
posed great constitutional
questions. As Congressman
Ted Weiss [D-NY] argued
during the floor debate,
“Our Constitution places
religion in a special cate-
groy, giving it additional
protection but also mandat-
ing special precaution, es-
pecially government neu-
trality in all religious mat-
ters.” It is clear that the
Court does not intend for a
Bible Club to be treated as a
chess club. This bill man-
dates that no school may
discriminate on the basis of
the “religious content” of
any speech, yet key issues
are left unanswered. Who
would define what is and is
not a religion? What about
rights of non-religious clubs?
Two further questions
loom ominously in the wake
of this surprising come-from-
behind victory. First, why
did this bill do so well? And
second, how did the coalition
fashion a victory in the face
of an impressive majority in
favor?
As members of a religious
minority which knows only
too well the danger of
allowing the wall separating
church and state to be
chipped away, we must ask
how a bill could gain the
votes of 270 members of the
House of Representatives.
“Equal Access” became a
politically popular concept,
since it allowed politicians to
appease the Religious Right
by demonstrating that they
support religion while still
claiming that prayer does
not belong in the school. The
title of the bill, “The Equal
Access Act,” is deceiving, it
was originally called “The
Religious Speech Protection
Act.” This is a more apt
discretion since the bill
would have allowed not only
a moment of prayer but bona
fide religious services as
well.
The lobbying effort
against Equal Access was
especially difficult. In the
past we had one of two
things going for us — either
time or a rudamentary
knowledge of the issue. For
example, during the
AW ACS debate the Jewish
Community had close to
eight months in which to
educate and attempt to influ-
ence the vote. On issues
such as ERA, School Pray-
er, and the Balanced Budget
Amendment, the members
knew something about the
issue before the lobbying ef-
forts started.
This time, however, the
coalition had nothing going
for it. The press was
disinterested, there was to
be no real debate on the
House floor, no tinkering
with amendments to buy
more time, and most impor-
tantly, there was less than 6
weeks to attempt to educate
and influence a 435 member
body which was under great
pressure to vote in favor of
something that would as-
suage the Religious Right.
Unlike the Senate, every
Representative stands for
re-election this Fall. The
need to stimulate consti-
tuent involvement and es-
tablish direct contact with
the Representatives was
essential.
In addition to the Wash-
ington and grassroots lobby-
ing by the coalition, a
number of things “broke”
our way. First, the Religious
Right thought it had the
battle won when the liberal
Education and Labor Com-
mittee voted the bill out by a
10-1 margin. They did not
want this to come across as
"Son of School Prayer,” and
did not put on a full court
press of phone calls and
letters. (Although Rev. Fal-
well told the press that,
despite the School Prayer
defeat in the Senate, “Equal
Access gets us what we
wanted all along.”) By
underestimating the energy
and commitment of the coali-
tion, the Religious Right was
unable to gear up an
intensive lobbying effort
until it was too late.
A Second thing going for
the bill’s opponents was the
manner in which Rep. Carl
Perkins [D-KY], Chairman
of the Education and Labor
Committee, brought the bill
up for a vote. Had he
allowed the bill to go
through normal channels he,
quite possibly, would have
won. But because he was
stubborn, and thought that
the 10-1 margin in Commit-
tee would hold up on the
House floor, he placed the
bill on the Suspension
Calendar [a process normal-
ly reserved for non-contro-
versial measures] and thus
needed to gain a two-thirds
vote. The vote, though
decisively in favor, [270-
151], failed to achieve 2/3’s
by 11 votes.
In an attempt to educate
the media and the public
(and hopefully, as a result, to
influence members of the
House of Representatives)
the American Jewish Con-
gress coordinated a series of
coalition press conferences
around the country; in such
places as Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Boston, Long
Island, Philadelphia, De-
troit, St. Louis, Atlanta,
Miami, and a national press
briefing in Washington.
Since there going to be no
real opportunity to debate
the issue on the floor, and
absent an ability to compete
head on with the likes of a
“700 Club” or an “Old Time
Gospel Hour,” the coalition
needed to mobilize support
as best it could.
The coalition targeted
some 200 Representatives
for direct contact, not even
bothering members who
took part in the House’s all
night session in support of
school prayer (however, the
coalition pulled 6 votes from
the 135 members who were
left alone). The education
and lobbying efforts paid off
especially well in a couple of
areas. The original vote in
the Education and Labor
Committee to send the bill to
the floor was 30-3. However,
when it came time for the
final vote, 14 committee
members voted against it.
Two committee members
spoke out against the bill
during the brief floor debate
to say that this was the first
time either of them had op-
posed a bill reported out
by the Committee, one
called the bill “the worst
clinker the Committee ever
handled.” This proved out
the argument that the bill
never got a complete hear-
ing, and that committee
members did not fully
understand what they were
voting for. In the final
analysis, a majority of
Democrats voted against the
bill. Further, the lead-
ership, including the Chair-
man of the Rules Commit-
tee and the Speaker of The
House were opponents of
the bill.
Direct lobbying by the
Chairman of the Constitu-
tion Subcommittee, Rep.
Don Edwards [D-CA] to-
gether with such people as
Rep. Gary Ackerman D-NY]
and Rep. Charles Schumer
[D-NY] was the key to turn-
ing the vote around. The
Congressional voting pat-
terns are interesting. Of
the 31 Jewish members,
only 5 voted for the bill
[most of whom represent
very very conservative dis-
tricts, and have told the
coalition that they held back '
and would have vote< 11
against the bill if it woulc !
have made a difference]. '
Seventeen Republicans vot-)
ed against the bill-, more1
than we had expected. The,
vote in the Congressional
Black Caucus was unani- J
mous against the bill. A
majority of the Hispanic I
Caucus, voted against the
bill, and 3/4’s of the!
Women’s caucus were op-'
posed. The breakdown is,
quite telling: Had the Jews
voted in the same pro- ]
portion as the non-Jews, or'
had Black Caucus voted
differently, or had the
coalition only focused on(
Democradcs, this danger-
ous bill would have pass-C
ed, and the school doors
flung wide open. This effort i
proves that coalition-build-
ing is essential to the sur-
vival of our constitutional
rights.
The Senate version ol
Equal Access may still come
up for a vote at any time,
although the defeat in the
House dampens any further
action. Though Chairman
Perkins may still ask for the
bill to come up before the
end of the session, another
vote on religious activity in
public schools is highly
unlikely this year. However,
the fact that both the School
Prayer and Equal Access
bills received a majority
vote should force us to
realize the importance ol
continuing this fight anc
remaining vigilant.
We can take comfort in
the words of Representative
Gary Ackerman [D-NY] who
told the House that “The
wall between the church and
state is high enough to give
us confidence that people
can practice their religious
beliefs unintruded on by
government. It must remain
high enough to allow govern-
ment functions to operate
unintruded upon by reli-
gion.”
Status Of Jews in Mexico
PART I
BY BEN G. FRANK
MEXICO CITY - En-
rique Beraha is a high
official of the Mexican
Jewish community. As he
sat in the lavish Jewish
sports center in Mexico City
which encompasses more
than 20 acres, he lamented
the fact that American Jews
know very little about Latin
American Jewry.
To counter this, he told
me in an interview, he was
sending a message to Amer-
ican Jews: Esta es su casa,”
“this house is yours,” he de-
clared with a wave of the
hand covering the expanse
of this vast Jewish center in
Mexico City, probably the
largest city in both North
and South America, with an
approximate 15 million (no-
body knows the exact num-
ber) and still growing.
To back up this . offer,
Beraha said every American
Jew who visits Mexico City,
known as the metropolis of
the Americas, and shows his
passport, will receive a
warm welcome and “free ad-
mission” to the facilities of
the center.
It’s good advice to Ameri-
can Jewish tourists and
business persons to Mexico
to visit this gathering place
of Mexican Jewry. About
27,000 Jews belong to this
complex which has 250 paid
employees and over 300
volunteers.
On a given Sunday, Jews
from all walks of life move
about this complex; sun-
bathe on manicured lawns,
-swim in several pools;
attend lectures and classes;
study and do research in an
up-to-date library; go to
hobby sessions like photo-
graphy; or have a snack or
meal at the restaurant or
snack bar of the center
located at Boulevard Com-
acho 620. Here’s where you
will meet Mexico’s Jews.
Beraha, this writer be-
lieves, did not make this
offer out of hand. “We need
to show what’s going on
here,” he declared.” U.S.
Jews simply know very little
about Mexico City Jewry.
Certainly it is not dis-
tance; Mexico City is the
Latin American capital clos-
est to the U.S.; some 500
miles from the border.
Obviously, Mexican cul-
ture and history is not U.S.
Culture. The former is a
blend of Aztec, Spanish and
French and it does filter
down to the attitudes of the
Jewish community here.
And Mexican Jews have
a different outlook on events
than American Jews. There
are common threads, to be
sure. But for example,
Mexican Jews feel their role
in politics is different than
their amigos up north. Jews
here prefer not to be
involved directly in politics.
American Jews more and
more are running as candi-
dates and are active in the
U.S. electoral process. Mexi-
can Jews prefer to stay
outside the system; to influ-
ence candidates yes; but not
become part of a system
where you really almost
have to have a Spanish name
to be a successful candi-
date I was told.
“Absolutely necessary to
increase contacts,” assert-
ed Beraha who is a vice
president of the Commite
Central Israelite de Mexico.
Both he and other Mexican
Jewish leaders felt that one
should not really wait for
incidents to occur before the
ties are made; too often it is
a “knee-jerk reaction.”;
Of course, when things go
astray, Mexican Jews and
American Jews react vigor-
ously, as they did recently
when a Mexican congres-
sional representative made a
vicious anti-Semitic attack
on Mexican Jews. He was
repudiated by Mexican Pres-
ident Miguel de la Madrid
Hurtado who has been
praised by Jewish defense
groups.
See Mexico Page 16
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Wisch, J. A. & Wisch, Rene. Texas Jewish Post (Fort Worth, Tex.), Vol. 38, No. 23, Ed. 1 Thursday, June 7, 1984, newspaper, June 7, 1984; Fort Worth, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth753217/m1/2/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .