ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/09/84)
I saw a few days ago that there is a bill before Congress which, if passed, would require public schools to allow the use of their property for religious activities organized by students. I had thought there was a Supreme Court ruling that it was unconstitutional for public schools to do this, as it would be tantamount to government subsidy of religious activity, something prohibited by the Constitution. Be that as it may, there is a bill before Congress, called (I think) the Equal Access bill, that would require public schools to allow religious activity on their property. My first reaction was that this bill was a good idea. I didn't see any good reason that students should not be allowed to do whatever they please on school property before or after hours, provided that the logistics could be adequately arranged and the pupils didn't do anything criminal. On second thought, though, I see a trap door in the bill. Suppose that this bill passes and I am the principal of a public school. Suppose further that I am one of these people who has long wanted to force religion on everyone, but my hands were tied until now. What is there to stop me from decreeing that all extra-curricular activities (such as sports, drama club, glee club, whatever) must begin and end with a prayer? My rationale would be this: I am now required to permit religious extra-curricular activities, but I CAN PROHIBIT ALL OTHERS! Thus, I will allow prayer+football, prayer+swimming, prayer+drama, and so on. Let's keep the camel's nose out of the tent.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/09/84)
> >My first reaction was that this [Equal Access] bill was a good idea. >I didn't see any good reason that students should not be allowed to do >whatever they please on school property before or after hours, provided >that the logistics could be adequately arranged and the pupils didn't >do anything criminal. > >On second thought, though, I see a trap door in the bill. Suppose that >this bill passes and I am the principal of a public school. Suppose further >that I am one of these people who has long wanted to force religion on >everyone, but my hands were tied until now. > >What is there to stop me from decreeing that all extra-curricular activities >(such as sports, drama club, glee club, whatever) must begin and end with a >prayer? My rationale would be this: I am now required to permit religious >extra-curricular activities, but I CAN PROHIBIT ALL OTHERS! Thus, I will >allow prayer+football, prayer+swimming, prayer+drama, and so on. What is to stop you? How about the angry protests of parents? There is a difference between permitting and requiring. Requiring religious influence goes against the separation of Church and State. I would see no problem with saying that religious activities must be restricted to the meetings of specifically religious clubs. I think the bill specifically requires this. It also rules out organized evangelism on the school grounds. Recently the principal of a school in Florida had pictures of the school Bible Club cut out of their yearbook after a threatening phone call from an ACLU lawyer. It is protection against this kind of harassment that the bill seeks to invoke. A student club should not be prohibited from having the same priviledges of other student clubs just because it is religiously oriented. The way I see it the existence of any club cannot be made mandatory. Clubs come into existence because there is sufficient interest umong students to form one. If the interest isn't there, no club is formed. Paul Dubuc
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (04/10/84)
>On second thought, though, I see a trap door in the bill. Suppose that >this bill passes and I am the principal of a public school. Suppose further >that I am one of these people who has long wanted to force religion on >everyone, but my hands were tied until now. >What is there to stop me from decreeing that all extra-curricular activities >(such as sports, drama club, glee club, whatever) must begin and end with a >prayer? My rationale would be this: I am now required to permit religious >extra-curricular activities, but I CAN PROHIBIT ALL OTHERS! Thus, I will >allow prayer+football, prayer+swimming, prayer+drama, and so on. >Let's keep the camel's nose out of the tent. Your first thought seemed more reasonable than the second. Remember that permitting religious activities on campus does not imply allowing discrimination on religion (in fact, it stops one kind of religous discrimination). Your 'trap door' is too far-fetched. By the same rationale, since both black and white students are permitted on campus, the same principal could decree that the leader of each group be a white student (he has discretion over which groups are allowed, and could prohibit at his choice). This is still blatantly illegal. The constitution prohibits establishment of a religion. While allowing public facilities to religious activities (and this would have to be done on an equitable basis -- i.e., if permission is given for a bible club to operate, a koran or talmud club could not reasonably be refused, does not constitute establishment of religion, REQUIRING the religious activities does. Azhrarn -- Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf