
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, June 24, 1995                   TAG: 9506260017
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-11   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: BONNIE MARGULIS
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Long

HARASSMENT COULD COME DISGUISED AS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

THE CHRISTIAN Coalition has recently put forth its Contract for the American Family, what Ralph Reed, the coalition's executive director calls ``the Ten Suggestions, not the Ten Commandments.'' One of these ``suggestions'' is a proposed constitutional amendment on religious freedom, called the religious-equality amendment.

Such an amendment purports to safeguard Americans' rights to religious expression in public places or on public grounds, such as in public schools. However, this right is already protected under the First Amendment, and no further tampering with the United States Constitution will advance this cause.

There is a great deal of confusion and misinformation circulating about the protections offered by the First Amendment, particularly as it pertains to religious expression in public schools. For example, members of the religious right would have us believe that all prayer and religious expression have been banned from public schools, and that anyone who tries to pray or read the Bible is subject to expulsion.

This is simply not true. Anyone who wishes to pray before a test, say grace over lunch, or read the Bible during study hall may do so unmolested. The First Amendment guarantees this right, and no further constitutional amendment is necessary.

The religious right would also have us believe that any discussion of religion is forbidden in public schools. Again, this isn't true. A secular, academic presentation about religion isn't only acceptable in certain circumstances, it's difficult to imagine a social-studies class, a literature class or a comparative-religion class that doesn't enter into a discussion of religion and its influences on history and the arts. Such discussions are well within the protection of the First Amendment.

As a matter of fact, in the 1963 Supreme Court case that declared mandatory school prayer unconstitutional, Justice Tom Clark said: ``It might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It may certainly be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.''

Of course, the right of religious expression isn't absolute, just as the right of free speech isn't absolute. Your right to express your religious beliefs stops at my right not to be harassed, and at my parental right to teach what I see fit about religion to my child. Yet, the religious-equality amendment threatens to allow just such harassment and to take the parental prerogative away, by allowing the intrusion of government-sanctioned religious speech in schools.

One proposed draft of the amendment says that ``any person or group, including students in public schools'' would be allowed to engage in ``prayer or other religious expression in circumstances in which expression of a non-religious character would be permitted.''

Thus, Bible passages could be read over the public-address system, proselytizing speeches could be made in the cafeteria, graduation exercises could turn into worship services - all under the guise of safeguarding a person's right to religious expression. The First Amendment protects our children today from such coercive activities in public schools.

The First Amendment, as well as protecting religious liberty for individuals, also forbids government intrusion into that liberty. Proposed drafts of the religious-equality amendment seem to open the door to just such government interference. One draft section of the amendment would forbid the denial of any benefits to a person or group based on their religious identity. Thus, parochial schools could demand public funding on the basis that to deny this would be to discriminate against them for being a religious organization.

The amendment could be worded to allow or not to forbid government to give ``public or ceremonial accommodation to the religious heritage, beliefs or traditions of its people.'' I shudder to think what such an ``accommodation'' would look like. Whose religious heritage, beliefs or traditions are meant by this? Perhaps it means all 2,000 or so religious denominations that make up the United States. How could we possibly accommodate them all? And who is to decide what is and what is not a legitimate religion? Thank God, the First Amendment precludes any such painful deliberations.

The First Amendment has stood us in good stead for the past 200 years. It has made this country into a homeland for all kinds of people holding many different beliefs. It has meant that, finally, all people have a place to come where they can live in peace, free from religious coercion or oppression. If the First Amendment is overturned or modified in any way, it would be an immeasurable tragedy for this country. I pray that I may never see that day.

Bonnie Margulis, of Staunton, is rabbi at the Blacksburg Jewish Community Center.

by CNB