(7)     Wed 16 Aug 95 18:26
By: Robin Murray-o'hair
To: All
Re: Religion/Coming School Year
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@EID:0b38 1f109340
@MSGID: 1:382/1006.0 886D130B
@TID: WILDMAIL!/WC v4.11  94-0279
LABOR DAY TEST OF RELIGION GUIDELINES MAY LOOM

by Conrad F. Goeringer

     With a little more than two weeks to go until the Sept. 4
Labor Day weekend, many parents are already getting their kids
ready for school and the U.S. Department of Education is
preparing guidelines in what may be a new round of battles over
the role of prayer and religion in the public school system.

     During July, President Clinton outlined his
administration's position on the role of religious belief and
exercise in the American educational system. According to
Christianity Today magazine, the president "spelled out how
religion can be integrated into public education without running
afoul of First Amendment restrictions or recent Supreme Court
rulings." The "how" involved religious activities such as Bible
clubs as well as group or individual prayer rituals, but not
during periods of official school business.

     Reaction to the president's talk was swift and
divided. Some liberals considered it a "middle-road" compromise
between total government neutrality regarding religion and a
"pro-active" role for the state in promoting religious belief.
Even state/church separationist groups were divided. Jon Murray,
president of the American Atheists, said that the Clinton
guidelines detracted from the role of public schools in
supporting secular education and enlightenment and defended the
idea of schools as "religion free" institutions. "Religion is a
private affair," said Murray. Other groups insisted that Clinton,
who several times emphasized his own religious sentiments, was
not endorsing official school prayer.

     Conservatives, however, were the most hostile. Groups
such as the Rutherford Institute said that the Supreme Court and
the rest of the government is not fully protecting religious
freedom, and that the Clinton directives will do little or
nothing to address that alleged inequality. Christianity Today
also noted that the Clinton manifesto on religion was really "a
blatant attempt to blunt the growing movement to pass a
constitutional amendment that would ensure greater religious
liberty."  Clinton has directed the U.S. Department of Education
to contact the 15,000 school districts throughout the nation
before the start of the new school year, informing them of
government guidelines concerning religious exercise. Clinton and
the Education Department will be relying heavily on an 18-point
accord issued last April by 35 religious organizations and known
as "Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current
Law." The meetings which served as the basis of the document
involved a wide range of denominational groups, from
Scientologists and Buddhists to Catholics, Jews and Protestants.
Some refused to sign, however, insisting that it was a "tool of
predominantly liberal political organizations to sabotage the
movement for a school prayer amendment." At least one group which
did sign, the Christian Legal Society, is still lobbying on
behalf of a full-scale Religious Equality Amendment.

     But notifying school districts may not diffuse a
round of protests and court cases dealing with religious
exercise. Judith Winston, general counsel at the Department of
Education, said that "There does tend to be a fair amount of
confusion about what is permissible . . . and most often it seems
that school officials err in the direction of limiting religious
expression rather than in the other direction." Critics, however,
point to last week's edition of the TV program "60 Minutes,"
which had a segment involving school prayer. One state education
official told reporters that school districts throughout the
state of Mississippi persisted in organized prayer despite
Supreme Court rulings against the practice. Many insist that
mandatory religious ritual in classrooms and other official
school events remains a serious problem. Obviously, Clinton is
hoping that his own statements last July, along with the
Department of Education mailing to individual school districts,
will defuse the controversy. But even religious moderates such as
Vanderbilt University Professor Charles Haynes are insisting that
"Schools have an obligation under the First Amendment to be
proactive." He told Christianity Today that schools curriculums
must treat religion with "fairness" and make sure that they
follow "both the letter and the spirit of the law."

Religious Equality Amendment Still Not Ready

     While the Clinton administration has its hands full
trying to rationalize the "role of religion in American society"
with separation of church and state, another complication has
arisen as the new school term approaches. The much-touted
"Religious Equality Amendment" which groups such as the Christian
Coalition have been promoting, is still not ready for
Congressional action. House Speaker Newt Gingrich promised that
legislation was to have been ready by last July 4. That deadline
passed, amidst reports that the amendment's framers, operating
out of the office of Rep. John Istook, were having difficulty in
fashioning precise wording.

     There are two "unofficial" versions of the Religious
Equality Amendment, one presented by Rev. Louis Sheldon of the
Traditional Values Coalition and James Dobson of Focus on the
Family, and the other by law professor Michael McConnell. The
McConnell proposal now enjoys the official backing of both the
Christian Legal Society and the National Association of
Evangelicals.  The Sheldon/Dobson version reads:

     "In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to
     acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience:

     Section 1. Neither the United States nor any state shall
     abridge the freedom of any persons or groups, including
     students in public schools, to engage in prayer or other
     religious expression in circumstances in which expression of
     a nonreligious character would be permitted, nor deny
     benefits to or otherwise discriminate against any person or
     group on account of the religious character of their speech,
     ideas, motivations or identity.

     Section II. Nothing in the Constitution shall be construed
     to forbid the United States or any state to give public or
     ceremonial accommodation [acknowledgement in Dobson's
     version] to the religious heritage, beliefs, or traditions
     of its people.

     Section III. The exercise, by the people, of any freedoms
     under the First Amendment or under this amendment shall not
     constitute an establishment of religion."

     The McConnell proposal is more concise:

     "In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to
     acknowledge God according to the rights of conscience,
     neither the United States nor any State shall deny benefits
     to or otherwise discriminate against any persons on account
     of their religious expression, belief, or identity; now
     shall the exercise by the people of full and equal rights to
     freedom of speech, press, association or religion be
     construed as an establishment of religion because of its
     religious content." (Quoted in "Church & State", July/August
     1995)

     Neither version or another proposal has come out of
the House Judiciary Committee which has been holding rounds of
public hearings on a proposed amendment. This means that the
efforts of religious activists concerning religious exercise in
public schools must still deal with the present body of law,
including such despised standards as those outlined in the Lemon
case, which severely restrict the role of government in promoting
religious belief.

     The 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision established that
government polices are unconstitutional if they have the purpose
or effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or if they would
result in an "excessive entanglement" between government and
religion. Overturning Lemon has been a goal for religious
conservatives. While that decision has yielded "results that are
hostile to religion," in the words of Christianity Today, it has
been a useful tool in defending the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.  But the school year is opening with another
Supreme Court case which legal experts are still debating. On
June 29, the High Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the
University of Virginia violated the rights of student Ron
Rosenberger to free speech when it refused to finance his student
publication solely because of its religious content.

     "The decision puts an end to the double standards used in
university funding of student groups and guarantees a free
marketplace of ideas on campus," said Rosenberger. The Center for
Individual Rights, which assisted him in the case, declared that
the decision "has started a profound rethinking, particularly
among government attorneys, about the mistreatment of religion
that's gone on for thirty years." That figure refers to cases
such as the famous Murray vs. Curlett decision which ended
mandatory recitation of the Lord's Prayer and Bible reading in
public schools.

     But the Rosenberger case involved a complex and
tricky situation. Even CIR attorney Michael McDonald noted that
subsequent cases will have to be decided "on a fact- by-fact
basis according to particular circumstances." The Rosenberger v.
Rector case centered on three University of Virginia students who
wished to obtain $5,862 in funding toward production costs for
their Christian magazine. While the University turned down their
request, saying that it constituted a "religious activity", the
school had approved funds for 118 other student groups, including
the Muslim Student Association and the Jewish Law Students
Association. They were classified as "cultural activities."

     Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court
majority, said that the university should have funded the
magazine, and could have done so while maintaining a "guarantee
of [religious] neutrality" through the use of "neutral criteria
and evenhanded policies." Some argue that the case was won
because the university was ALREADY funding various religious
groups and that the Rosenberger activity should have been
entitled to "equal access." Rosenberger may well lay the
groundwork in coming weeks for numerous local-level school
district battles throughout the country which call for school
funding of religious activities, so long as all religious groups
are "treated equally." The case also seems to have emphasized the
free speech aspects of religious expression, at the expense of
prohibitions which enjoin the government from aiding, assisting
or "establishing" religion. Conservatives are also hoping to use
Rosenberger to prop up their case for school vouchers.

     Others worry about Justice O'Connor's "case by case"
warning, even though she sided with the majority of her fellow
jurists. Noted Christianity Today: "Evangelical leaders insist
that the shortcomings of the Rosenberger decision reinforce the
need for a religious-equality amendment."

     Until that amendment, however, has reached the floor
of Congress in a final format, the school year may well start
with calls for a greater role in classrooms for religious belief
and exercise. Parents and students may insist on "meet at the
flagpole"-type prayer sessions, use of school facilities for
Bible clubs and other religious events, and of course funding for
religious publications. There may be another round of examination
of textbooks and other materials for their "religion-friendly"
content. And creationists may again be demanding "equal time" and
"free expression" in the school curriculum to present their views
on evolution.

     The climate is also ripe for continued attacks on
traditional targets including sex education and condom
distribution. Expect stepped-up calls for "abstinence only"
policies in health awareness courses. We can likewise anticipate
efforts by religious conservatives to have religious films and
other resources introduced into history, sociology and other
classes under the guise of "values" or moral instruction.

     Saturday, September 4 is Labor Day. That weekend
usually marks the end of the summer tourist and vacation season.
The beach and mountain resorts begin to empty out, fast. The
schools fill up. All of a sudden, orange buses are everywhere on
the highways. Traffic is slowed down, even stopped for endless
lines of book-toting students.

     Mom, dad, or whoever is taking care of the kids fall
into a new schedule. Although some school districts now have
"year round" sessions, most don't. It's nine months of sheer
routine. Each year, the battle over what happens inside those
schools gets a little louder, a bit more bitter, and groups of
parents, students and teachers all get a bit more polarized. And
why not? It's the "Culture Wars" of the 90s.

     And the war is just heating up.


-----------------------------------------------------------
                     THEISTWATCH
An educational service provided by American Atheists, P O
Box 140195, Austin, TX 78714-0195, Telephone (512) 458-1244,
FAX: (512) 467-9525, BBS: (512) 302-0223, Fidonet 1:382/1006.
For information on American Atheists, e-mail: info@atheist.org.


--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.11
 * Origin: American Atheists Online (512) 302-0223  (1:382/1006.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 835 890 943 279/54 311/81 382/29 88 90 91 92 506 802 1006
SEEN-BY: 396/1 3615/50

@PATH: 382/1006 29 91 92 3615/50 279/54 102/835 943
