TheReligious Right is at it again. While Iwas searching for a topic to write about, I literally tripped over one. An article on the front page of the May 16 New York Times caught my attention: "The Religious Right Readies Agenda for Second 100 Days."
Naturally, I was intrigued. It seems the Republican majority is attempting once again to legislate morality by returning prayer to the schools and restricting abortion.
Rolling my eyes, I wondered, would it be terribly offensive for me to write an article against prayer in public schools? After all, religion is such a personal matter. And thus I had tripped once again over the answer, this time figuratively. Religion is a personal matter; it has no place in a public institution of learning.
The Religious Equality Amendment, proposed by the Christian Coalition, purports to place school prayer under Constitutional protection. To be fair, no mention was made of teacher-led prayer; instead the emphasis will be on student-led prayer, for example at graduations. So, in other words, the amendment is designed to protect those of us who want to express the fact that we are religious.
But what is stopping any graduating student from returning to her seat after receiving her diploma and expressing her faith in a silent prayer? Likewise, what is preventing someone from thanking his god during a National Honor Society induction?
The answer is absolutely nothing, which is why the Religious Equality Amendment would send us straight back to the days when imposing our religious beliefs on others was an everyday occurrence. Apparently many of our government officials have forgotten the real reasons why religion does not belong in public schools.
It is pointless to return to the traditional argument, that is, the "religious freedom is what this country was founded on" defense. We are all well aware that our country was founded, in part, with the hypocritical notion of freedom for Puritan religion, and not for religion in general.
Instead, it is necessary to recognize that this country is not simply a Judeo-Christian culture. So while the Christian priest addresses a graduating class of 200, what do those students who are not Christian do? To be fair, do we poll the graduating class to make sure a representative of each religion speaks at the ceremony? Probably not. So we are reduced to choosing a speaker who's faith is represented by the majority of the students (please insert the white Western religion of your choice here).
This is all hypothetical, but in any given situation, the same script would follow. There is no way to represent every possible religion with equal time and effort in every school endeavor. And anything less would be simply playing favorites with something as personal and private as religious faith.
To continue with the example of graduation, choosing to represent certain religions is tantamount to imposing our religion on others, violating the First Amendment which calls in part for freedom of religion. Moreover, it would not be very satisfying to those who do not feel any connection to the god about which the religious figure is speaking.
All of this is part of the Republican party's Contract With the American Family, the offshoot of the Contract With America. The focus on "moral issues" such as religion and abortion makes one wonder what the aim of the whole package actually is. The Religious Right cannot possibly think that it will cure the ills of our country by spending energy passing an amendment that not only violates the American ideal of separation of church and state, but is absolutely unnecessary as it is framed by the Contract. No one is stopping anyone from "expressing his religion" by saying a prayer before the day's classes begin, or crossing herself after she receives her diploma. Whatever it is that the Christian Coalition is trying to do or say, they should just say it, instead of trying to gloss over their agenda by "protecting" rights that we all already have.
The energy could be better spent at school by, for instance, educating students about pregnancy and birth control. Possibly then abortion rates would drop, and the conservative faction of the government would not feel so compelled to restrict a woman's choice concerning her own body.
The First Amendment's freedom of religion means not being subjected to a foreign faith while attending or graduating from a public school. Again, there is no law against being religious, or expressing religion, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to express their faith.
However, public expression belongs in public places of worship or in the privacy of our homes, not in public schools. The richness of our country's diversity could not have it any other way.
