THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, May 30, 1995 TAG: 9506010631
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ESTHER DISKIN, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 187 lines
Last week, 11-year-old Andrew Hannas of Chesapeake was a star at a Washington press conference, joining conservative leaders who want to amend the Constitution to expand religious expression in public places, from classrooms to city halls.
In December, the sixth-grade boy was not permitted to recite at a PTA program because his Christmas poem talked about Jesus Christ. School officials said they didn't want to favor one religion over another.
So Andrew has become a symbol in the lobbying effort for the ``Religious Equality Amendment'' - a piece of legislation that would roll back decades of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the separation of church and state. It would permit organized prayer in classrooms, Nativity scenes at city halls, and religious icons in government employees' offices.
But Renee Hannas, the boy's mother and the author of his poem, says she's in a quandary about the amendment. She'd like more Christian prayer in the schools. However, she is concerned about how an amendment to allow it might ``open a can of worms,'' exposing her three children in the public schools to religious beliefs she doesn't endorse.
``The thing that I worry about is, and my husband brought this up . . . what if a child wanted to worship Satan?'' she said. ``If you talk about equality across the board, you have to be fair. How are we going to suppress that?''
Her question goes to the heart of the struggle facing those who want to write a new amendment to make more room in the public arena for religion.
Supporters say they're trying to strike a delicate balance: giving greater freedom to express faith in public settings while avoiding coercion of those who don't share those beliefs. As it allows more religion in the public square, they say, the government must avoid favoritism toward any particular religion.
That means, in certain situations, people reciting a Christian, Jewish or Muslim prayer might share a school intercom with people praying to Satan - as long as the Satanic group were a school-sanctioned club. ``If they were approved, they'd have to be given the same, equal treatment,'' said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, an umbrella group representing mainly evangelical churches.
Sheldon's organization is combining forces with the Chesapeake-based Christian Coalition to try to push the amendment through a Republican Congress. Passage of an amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, plus ratification by three-fourths of the nation's state legislatures.
There's no final wording of the amendment, or even consensus among the bevy of conservative religious groups working on it. The Christian Coalition, a 1.5-million-member grass-roots group founded by Pat Robertson, made passage of an amendment a central goal of its 10-point ``Contract with the American Family.''
The coalition hasn't released its version, but gives its thumbs-up to a proposal released by Sheldon at the Washington press conference. ``There may be some changes, but the intent behind the language . . . we're in unison,'' said Christian Coalition spokesman Mike Russell.
Even without specific language, the idea has ignited a protest among many in the religious community, including United Methodists, American Baptists, Jews, Quakers, Episcopalians, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Church of Christ. They say the First Amendment is fine the way it is, and that the new amendment would put authority figures such as teachers, principals and judges in the position of promoting religion.
``My hunch is that a lot of people want prayer in the school because they want to impose a certain type of morality or religion on children,'' said Rev. Robert Tiller, director of governmental relations for the American Baptist Churches U.S.A., which represents 1.5 million people. ``They see prayer spoken aloud as a vehicle for doing that, so that the prayer is envisioned as evangelistic.''
The Southern Baptist Convention, a larger and more conservative group that represents 15.6 million members, has been supportive of the amendment.
Because of a trend of court rulings and confusion at the local level, ``it is necessary to make a correction by the most serious means,'' said SBC official Jim Smith.
A final version of an amendment isn't likely before the end of July, said an assistant to Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr., R-Okla., who is leading the effort in the House of Representatives.
A House subcommittee will hold five to seven hearings around the country to help shape the amendment's language and build public support for it, said Camille Mitzner, in Istook's office. On June 10, a hearing will be held at a public high school in Harrisonburg, Va., she said.
The public is invited to listen, but not to step up to the microphone. Testimony will be by invitation only. The hearings will ``point out to the public how Supreme Court rulings have eroded our religious liberties,'' she said.
The proposal released by Sheldon's group has general support from some of the big hitters in the evangelical Christian community. That includes James Dobson of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family who endorsed it in his May newsletter.
While the proposal covers religious expression in a wide range of public places, the most intense debate centers on its role in public schools. ``Historically, that's where the focus has been,'' said Forest Montgomery, legal counsel for the National Association of Evangelicals. ``A lot of people of faith are unhappy with public schools, and there has been confusion about the role of religion in schools.''
How those principles would work in the schools isn't clear. Supporters say student-led prayer is what they have in mind, but acknowledge that principals and teachers would have to play some role, such as organizing the use of a school intercom or keeping students from disrupting the prayer period.
The Christian Coalition's Russell depicts the student prayer as a ``spontaneous occurrence'' that ``wouldn't need any management.'' The SBC's Smith says that if students vote to permit a time of spiritual observance, anyone would have free and open access to the loudspeaker and ``There might be non-Christian views expressed.''
Sheldon, of the Traditional Values Coalition, says it could be organized around clubs, so that secular and religious student clubs would have rights to public space. Clubs that were not approved would not be allowed to participate.
Religious coercion is the main thing that both supporters and opponents of the amendment say they are determined to avoid. But their definitions of coercion are poles apart.
``How do you draw the distinction between listening and participating?'' asks Tiller, of American Baptist Churches U.S.A. ``It's a false distinction to say that you can listen to a prayer and not participate. The whole point of a prayer spoken aloud is to try to get the minds and souls of the people there, directed toward God.''
Coercion starts with required speech, not required listening, says Jim Smith, director of governmental relations at the Southern Baptist Convention's Christian Life Commission.
``As long as students are forced to go to school, they should be able to express their views when they want to express them,'' he said. ``It is reasonable for students to hear things they don't agree with. It's not coercing, because they are free not to listen.''
Renee Hannas, the Chesapeake mother, worries about making students listen to religious ideas they don't share. She said she wouldn't be happy if her kids had to listen to statements by Satanists or atheists, even though she would like to have more Christian prayer.
``It should be fair, and it's hard to be, because there are so many religions, cultures, whatever you call it,'' she said. ``In my opinion, maybe it should be a silent time, because each child might have their own special prayer.''
Still, she'd like something more. ``It seems like now you are banning everything from public schools, especially Christmas. It's like you can't say the J-word.'' ILLUSTRATION: Color photo
MARTIN SMITH-RODDEN/Staff
Renee Hannas, left, wrote a poem that the PTA wouldn't let her son,
Andrew, 11, recite.
Graphic
THE AMENDMENT: A PROPOSAL
One of the goals of the Chesapeake-based Christian Coalition's
``Contract with the American Family'' is passage of a constitutional
amendment to expand opportunities for religious expression in
public. It would allow group prayer in public places such as
classrooms and sporting events, and religious displays on government
property.
The Christian Coalition, and a broad coalition of conservative
religious groups, argue that an amendment is needed because the
Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment to banish religion
from the public square.
Is this enough?
The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
redress of grievances.
Or do we need this?
There's no final wording for a proposed amendment. Last week, the
Traditional Values Coalition - which has worked closely with the
Chesapeake-based Christian Coalition - offered a proposed new
amendment:
Section 1. Neither the United States nor any state shall abridge
the freedom of any person or group, 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 2. Nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to
forbid the United States or any state to give public or ceremonial
accommodation to the religious heritage, beliefs or traditions of
its people.
Section 3. The exercise, by the people, of any freedoms under the
First Amendment or under this amendment shall not constitute an
establishment of religion.
Amending the U.S. Constitution requires the vote of two-thirds of
both the House of Representatives and the Senate, plus ratification
in three-fourths of the states.
by CNB