Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, April 30, 1995 TAG: 9504280023
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CODY LOWE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
We can hope that the new tenor of the controversy is demonstrated by two recent examples - last Sunday's prayer service in Oklahoma City and proposed guidelines for prayer in public schools in Virginia.
A week ago, millions of us joined thousands of Oklahomans in prayer services for those stricken by the bomb in Oklahoma City. For many of us, that meant taking time during worship services in our own churches and synagogues and mosques to remember those killed, injured and bereaved by the blast.
Many of us also joined via television and radio the thousands who gathered in the Oklahoma State Fair arena to pray together.
At first, the event was being called a "memorial" service, but later it was acknowledged as a "prayer" service.
I don't know if the federal or state governments "sponsored'' the service in a strict sense. That is, I don't know if government employees planned and organized the event, deciding who would pray and who would not, or whether taxpayers footed the bill.
We do know that the service was in a government-owned building, that taxpayer-funded law-enforcement officials secured the building, that government officials led the proceedings.
It was the kind of event that could have drawn fire from strict separationists who want no relationship at all between the public religion and the public government. For some reason - perhaps because it would have seemed to be in extraordinarily bad taste - no such condemnation has arisen. At least, none has gotten any attention.
The service seemed obviously designed to involve a broad range of religious belief - Catholic, Protestant and Jewish clergy spoke. Yet it noticeably did not include a Muslim cleric, even though early reports on possible suspects noted that there was a relatively large Muslim population in Oklahoma.
Perhaps there were concerns that, in light of early suspicions of an Islamic fundamentalist connection to the bombing, an imam might not be safe in the arena. If so, that is a sad commentary.
Aside from that glaring omission, however, the service seemed carefully crafted to accommodate the range of religious expression in the community. And that was as it should be.
Nonreligious taxpayers might have argued that they would not want their tax dollars used for such a purpose. I would understand that. But most of us object to some of the uses to which our taxes are put. The question is whether they serve a broader public need, even if they are contrary to our individual preferences.
This seemed clearly a case where the public's desire and need for an accommodation of religious expression was warranted.
It is important to remember, as well, that no one's participation in the event was compulsory.
That is a key difference between a prayer service of that type and prayers in public schools.
School attendance, of course, is not voluntary for children. So the issue becomes significantly more complicated, a minefield of subtle nuances peculiar to public education.
I have to admit up front that I was skeptical about the ability of the State Board of Education and the Attorney General's office to come up with reasonable, usable guidelines for public school administrators.
I was wrong.
The proposed guidelines, which were open to public comment at a recent public hearing at Patrick Henry High School, provide rational analysis of the legal issues and sound advice for local school boards about accommodating religious expression and activity in public schools.
Among the hundred or so who turned out for the Roanoke hearing, only a few raised any objections at all to the guidelines and most of those were minor.
The proposal acknowledges that students' rights to religious speech and activities must be protected while recognizing that public school teachers and administrators must curtail their religious speech and activities as long as they are fulfilling their roles as government agents.
It was the limitation on teachers' religious speech that drew the most objections at the hearing in Roanoke. The guidelines propose, for instance, that teachers should not participate in the annual student-initiated "See You At the Pole" prayer activities before school.
But the guidelines also specifically say teachers should be able to congregate during free time, out of the view of students, for prayer or Bible study. They also should be able to respond to students' questions about their religion, as long as they do so in a "noncoercive ... nonindoctrinating" manner.
The guidelines clearly support students' right to pray in their free time, and to include a prayer in remarks they may give during a valedictory or other graduation address.
The guidelines accurately describe the confusion in case law over whether a senior class should be able to vote on having a prayer during a graduation ceremony. They prompt several considerations, including a "bottom line" of "whether the activity, in practical effect, creates an impermissible appearance that the public schools are supporting a religious perspective or viewpoint at the expense of others."
If every state had such guidelines, there would be no need for Congress to bother with the ill-conceived notion of a constitutional amendment to protect school prayer.
It comes down to being reasonable, being fair.
In our schools every day, students should feel that their right to express their religion is protected and valued. In Oklahoma City last weekend, thousands of adults and children deserved to have their religious needs accommodated at the state fair arena.
It's a mighty good sign that both seem possible without the usual rancor over the issues.
by CNB