Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, February 27, 1994 TAG: 9402240056
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Cody Lowe
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The short bill goes on to say that no one could be required to participate in prayer and that government, including the "local educational agency," may not "influence the form or content" of the prayer.
To get a sense of how broad the support for this was, the vote was 75-22, and even Sen. Edward Kennedy endorsed it.
The House passed the education bill without the prayer amendment, so it must be reconsidered by both houses after a conference committee works it over.
Now let's shift our gaze south from Washington to Richmond.
The Virginia House of Delegates this month approved two bills dealing with prayer in public schools.
One measure says students must be allowed to "voluntarily engage in student-initiated prayer" if done in accordance with the "constitutional principles of freedom of religion and separation of church and state."
The second bill requires the state Board of Education and attorney general to develop guidelines on "constitutional rights and restrictions relating to prayer and other religious expression" in public schools.
Both bills moved to the state Senate.
In both Richmond and Washington, legislators could vote for these bills with confidence that in upholding the right of students to pray, they would be seen as protectors of public virtue and well-nigh universal values.
The problem is, they've wasted an awful lot of time on legislation that isn't necessary.
It gives every appearance of the baser application of politics.
I'm not one of those who thinks politics is a dirty word. In both the secular and religious worlds it is a necessary - often noble - art.
Business - religious, family, financial and governmental - couldn't be conducted without politics. Its practice can be dirty, it can be unjust, it can be corrupt. It can be inappropriately applied in some realms of ethics and morality where there ought not be concessions.
Primarily, though, it is simply the art of compromise and communication necessary for the orderly conduct of our affairs.
We are offended, however, when it becomes a cynical tool to manipulate our emotions - to deceive.
In the United States of America and the commonwealth of Virginia, every public-school student has the right to pray if he or she wants to. It has always been illegal for any public official to interfere with that right.
Not one new word of legislation was necessary to protect it.
As is true with every right, this one comes with some responsibilities and restrictions. A student - or a group of students - cannot, for example, disrupt classes with prayers.
Since 1984, there has been federal legislation - the Equal Access Act - specifying that students may even organize religious clubs or Bible classes on public-school campuses.
Again, there are few restrictions. The clubs must be student-initiated. School districts may restrict school clubs to those that deal with subjects in the curriculum. But if any other special-interest clubs are allowed, religious clubs must be as well.
The much-maligned and grossly misunderstood U.S. Supreme Court decision on prayer in the mid-1960s said only that government - through its agents, in the form of teachers and administrators - couldn't impose religious instruction or prayer on students.
It has never ruled that students couldn't say a silent prayer at their desks before class if they individually, voluntarily choose to. It has never prohibited students from saying grace over meals. It never said students couldn't say "Thank God" when they passed a math test.
There have been cases where ill-informed school divisions have attempted to illegally limit students' religious activities.
But word is getting around that where that happens, one of the half-dozen or so religious-advocacy legal groups in the country is going to file a lawsuit.
Proponents of this newest round of legislation say it is to clarify the issues - to reduce the need for these watchdog legal agencies.
It strains credulity to think that school divisions that have so far neglected to educate themselves on the legal relationship between religion and public education will suddenly find the fog lifted and conflict ended.
If they really wanted to move this issue forward, perhaps what legislators ought to do is require school administrators, school boards and their lawyers to attend classes that would bring them up to date on the law.
This is not a new issue.
Granted, court cases are being decided all the time, so there can be changes in legal applications. And school divisions have a lot to keep up with besides church-state relationships.
But the intensity of the debate in recent years should have alerted education officials to the fact that this is an extremely important issue to their constituents - students, parents, teachers, taxpayers.
They don't seem to have gotten the message, though, and legislators have decided they must step in.
In Washington, they've threatened to hold back dollars from school systems that deny their students' right to pray.
Does anybody believe that would actually happen? The legislation has no guidance on how to prove this conspiracy against students. And no school officials anywhere believe they are denying their students' constitutional rights. It would take years - most of the time in court - to enforce any attempt to withhold federal funds on the basis of this amendment.
In Virginia, they're saying that guidelines will have to come down from Richmond. Is that likely to inspire local education officials to become better informed about the issues? On the contrary, it shifts the responsibility for becoming informed away from local officials to state administrators.
This babble on school prayer is an invitation to new misunderstanding and further erosion of local influence - especially that of the religious community - on public schools.
Legislators and school officials who really want want to pass the test on this subject might find they simply need better study habits, not a new textbook.
by CNB