ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/10/84)
>>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 I quite agree: there is a difference between permitting and requiring. However, in the particular case apparently described by this bill, there is not as much difference as may appear on the surface. In any event, your question deserves an answer. What about the angry protests of parents? Answer: I'm not reassured by that. Consider: not every parent who feels strongly about this issue will protest. Protesting carries a heavy emotional cost: if you don't have much support, your children may be ostracized. Even if they aren't, protesting takes a lot of time and effort. What is worse, the administration might reasonably choose to ignore the protests if those who disagree are in a small minority. I live in a town that is overwhelmingly Christian, if I can judge by the number of churches I have seen and the fact that I have not seen a single synagogue. I therefore believe that if the Equal Access bill were to become law, it is entirely possible that the local school administration would decree that only religious extra-curricular activites would be permitted. If they did, I have a pretty good idea how little my angry protests would accomplish. I am not a Christian, and I do not want my taxes used to support any Christian activities.