[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 60 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3234-H3238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sessions). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) is
recognized for 37 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in three weeks the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook) will try to amend the U.S. Bill of Rights, the sacred
document that has served America for well over 200 years.
Perhaps the greatest contribution of the American experiment in
democracy is our Nation's religious freedom. Because of our Bill of
Rights, America is not torn by religious wars.
In contrast to the religious strife in Northern Ireland and in the
Middle East, Americans are at peace. In contrast to Islamic
fundamentalist states that use government to force religion upon its
citizens, America's Founding Fathers had the wisdom to write a Bill of
Rights that separated the power of government from the freedom of
religion.
These and others are powerful reasons why the Bill of Rights has
never been amended in our Nation's 207 years; never, never has been
amended since the Bill of Rights was adopted 207 years ago.
Yet Mr. Istook not only wants to tamper with the Bill of Rights, he
wants to rewrite the first 16 words of the First Amendment of the Bill
of Rights, those words that say ``Congress shall make no laws
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.''
Now, Mr. Istook calls his bill the religious freedom amendment. I
would suggest that James Madison and our Founding Fathers beat Mr.
Istook to the punch by just over 200 years. The real religious freedom
amendment is called the First Amendment of our Constitution. I believe
Mr. Istook's bill should frankly be called the religious freedom
destruction act.
It is amazing that some of the same people who do not entrust the
Federal Government to deliver our mail want government involved in
something as sacred as our children's and grandchildren's prayers. To
change the Bill of Rights for any reason is a grave undertaking. To
change it for reasons that simply do not exist is wrong.
Mr. Istook bases his amendment on several myths. His arguments are a
temple built on a false foundation.
Myth number one: Mr. Istook alleges that students cannot pray in
public schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. The law of
this land allows students to pray before, after, and even during
school. What the law prohibits, as it should, as intended by our
Founding Fathers, is that government-sponsored prayers should be
prohibited.
Time Magazine on April 27, 1998, and CNN have recently reported there
are thousands of prayer and Bible groups that have been formed in
public schools all across America in just the last few years.
Mr. Speaker, I enclose for the Record the article from Time Magazine
of April 27 record entitled ``Spiriting Prayer into School.''
Mr. Speaker, let me take several excerpts from this Time Magazine
article. ``Politicians may bicker about bringing back prayer, but in
fact it is already a major presence, thanks to the many after-school
prayer clubs.'' The article goes on to say that ``available statistics
are approximate, but they suggest that there are clubs in as many as
one out of every four public schools in the country. In some areas, the
tally is much higher.''
Later the article says this: ``The resulting Equal Access Act of 1984
required any federally-funded secondary school to permit religious
meetings if the schools allowed other clubs not related to curriculum,
such as public-service Key Clubs. The crucial rule was that the prayer
clubs had to be voluntary, student-run, and not convene during class
time.''
The article goes on to point out the Supreme Court in 1990 sustained
this law by a vote of 8 to 1.
Let me read additional excerpts from the Time Magazine article.
``Evangelicals had already seized the moment. Within a year of the 1990
court decision, prayer clubs bloomed spontaneously on a thousand high
school campuses. Fast on their heals came adult organizations dedicated
to encouraging more. Proffitt's, Tennessee-based organization, First
Priority, founded in 1995, coordinates inter-church groups in 162
cities, working with clubs in 3,000 schools. The San Diego-based
National Network of Youth Ministries has launched what is called
Challenge 2000, which pledges to bring the Christian gospel to 'every
kid on every secondary campus in every community in our Nation by the
year 2000.' It also promotes a phenomenon called 'See You at the Pole,'
encouraging Christian students country-wide to gather around their
school flagpoles on the third Wednesday of each September; last year, 3
million students participated.''
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this article points out very
clearly that Mr. Istook's allegation that somehow we simply do not have
prayer at our public schools does not bear out with today's facts.
The Time article also says, ``Says Doug Clark,'' quoting him, ``field
director of the National Network of Youth Ministries, `Our energy is
being poured into what kids can do voluntarily and on their own. That
seems to us to be where God is working.' ''
They then go on in the article finally to say, ``For now, the
prospects for prayer clubs seem unlimited.
The doom of Mr. Istook's predictions simply is not there.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that students can pray silently in the
classroom, or out loud over the lunch table. For anyone to suggest that
prayer is not alive
[[Page H3235]]
and well in schools is not facing reality. For anyone to suggest that
somehow God has been taken out of our schools, underestimates the God
that I and my family worship. No person, no law, has the power to take
an all-powerful God from anyplace in this world, much less a school
classroom.
Myth number two, used by Mr. Istook to push his amendment of the Bill
of Rights: Mr. Istook suggests that liberal Federal courts have
misinterpreted our Founding Fathers.
That is simply not the case. To begin with, the majority of these so-
called liberal Federal courts have been appointed by Republican
presidents, Gerald Ford, George Bush, and that well-known liberal
president, Ronald Reagan.
I would also point out that Thomas Jefferson could not have been more
clear in his interpretation of the First Amendment of the Bill of
Rights inasmuch as it deals with religious freedom. This is what Mr.
Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, our third president, the author of our
Declaration of Independence, said in his letter to the Danbury
Baptists.
``Religion is a matter which lives solely between man and his God
that he owes account to none other for his faith or worship, that the
legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with sovereign reference that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislatures should ``make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,'' thus, building a wall of separation between church
and state.''
The fact is that modern day Federal judges, including the majority of
judges that have been appointed in our Federal courts by Mr. Bush and
Mr. Reagan and Mr. Ford, have interpreted today's law exactly to be
consistent with the intention of Thomas Jefferson and our Founding
Fathers; not to demean religion by separating it from government, but
to respect religion and to defend religious liberty by the very act of
building a wall of separation to protect religion from the intrusion of
government.
Myth number three Mr. Istook has gone so far as to call opponents of
this bill ``demagogues.'' He has suggested that those opposed to his
amendment are somehow committed to keeping children from praying in
schools.
He has also suggested, or others have suggested, I should say, other
supporters of Mr. Istook, that opponents of Istook are somehow anti-
religion.
The implication that somehow Istook supporters are pro-prayer and
pro-religion and opponents of Mr. Istook's amendment of the Bill of
Rights are anti-prayer and anti-religion could well be a surprise to
the numerous religious groups strongly opposing the Istook amendment.
Let me mention just a few of the religious and educational groups
opposing the Istook amendment, for the very reason they believe that
Istook would harm religious freedom in America, not defend it.
These groups would be disappointed to know that Mr. Istook has
referred to opponents of his amendment as ``demagogues,'' and if
opposing Istook and defending the words of James Madison and our Bill
of Rights, make me a demagogue, Mr. Speaker, then I am in good company.
Let me just list some of that company that oppose the Istook amendment.
The American Association of School Administrators; the American
Association of University Women; the American Baptist Churches, USA;
the American Jewish Committee; the American Jewish Congress; the
Antidefamation League; the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs;
the Episcopal Church; the Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs; the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; the National Association of
Elementary School Principals; the National Education Association; the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference; the United Church of Christ,
Office for Church and Society.
I join in good company, Mr. Speaker, along with our Founding Fathers,
such as Jefferson and Madison and others, in defending the Bill of
Rights, not amending it; not changing it, not undermining it.
I agree with Brent Walker, the General Counsel of the Baptist Joint
Committee, who said this: ``The Istook amendment is unnecessary,
unwise, and unfaithful to our heritage of religious freedom and
separation of church and State.''
The fact is that, in my words, Mr. Speaker, the Istook amendment is a
house built on sand.
{time} 2300
Its foundation is flawed, unfounded, and false. In the days ahead, I
will also take time to point out the numerous possible harmful
consequences of the Istook amendment.
To name just a few this evening, the Istook amendment could first,
allow Satanic prayers and even animal sacrifices as part of prayer
rituals in first and second and third grade public school classrooms
across America.
Second, it could lead to censorship of prayers.
Third, it could allow outside religious groups to proselytize young
students on public school grounds so that our children will be going to
public schools learning reading, writing and arithmetic and perhaps
will be proselytized by some religious group such as those we see at
our Nation's airports across America. I am not sure America's parents
sending their children to public schools want to have to worry about
religious groups, or possibly even cults, proselytizing their children
while they should be learning on the school grounds.
Fourth, the Istook amendment could be an unfunded mandate of Biblical
proportions, stemming from its words that we cannot ``Deny equal access
to benefit on account of religion.'' Who knows how many decades of
court decisions it might take and divisiveness in our country to
interpret that particular language. But certainly, on the surface, it
could appear that this language of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook) could basically have required the Federal Government to fund
David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in my hometown of Waco, Texas for
a child care program or a child care center because other groups,
nonreligious groups, were given Federal funding for child care centers,
despite the fact that before his death, Mr. Koresh said that, in his
religious beliefs, that God had encouraged him to have sex with girls
as young as 10 years old.
I am offended by the possibility that America's taxpayers' dollars
could go to fund such religious groups and programs.
Fifth, the Istook amendment could lead to majoritarian prayers in
many of our public schools, and there are many others. But let me just
read from a statement prepared by the Coalition to Preserve Religious
Liberty. They said this:
The following are a few examples of activities that would
be permitted under the amendment:
A tax could be levied for support of sectarian schools.
Crosses, stars of David, or statues of the goddess Gaia
could be erected in public places such as courthouses, public
schools and military bases to represent religious heritage or
belief.
New testament readings and specific prayers could be
prescribed for all meetings of government employees (except
public schools) as long as no one was required to
participate.
Devotional Bible readings or meditations from the Quran
could be required in public schools as long as no one was
required to participate.
Upon a student's suggestion, a teacher could lead prayers
for his or her kindergarten classes, as long as the prayers
were not prescribed by the government and participation was
not required.
Bibles, Books of Mormon or Qurans could be printed or
distributed to all public school students or public employees
as a way of recognizing the people's heritage.
Public schools could be required to teach creation science
along with evolution as a way of recognizing the beliefs and
heritage of the people.
Tax money could be used to fund mission programs sponsored
by Baptists, Buddhists or Branch Davidians, Methodists,
Mormons or Mennonites.
A judge or juror could lead the courtroom in prayer and
limit such prayers to the majority faith of the surrounding
community.
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it will take far longer than one hour to
point out why so many religious groups and people of deep religious
faith are opposing the Istook amendment. For that reason, I would like
to focus on some of the cases of ``Religious persecution'' that Istook
supporters use to justify their taking such drastic action as amending
our Bill of Rights for the first time in our Nation's history.
[[Page H3236]]
I would refer to a recent publication by the People For The American
Way Action Fund, and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this
statement for the Record following my remarks. This is what they say in
the report:
The true facts behind the Christian Coalition's ``religious
persecution'' claims.
As part of its May 22, 1977 Religious Freedom Celebration
on Capitol Hill, the Christian Coalition is presenting 4
claims of what it calls ``religious persecution'' which
purportedly justify a constitutional amendment concerning
religion. In fact, these claims are nothing of the sort.
Instead, they are instances where officials properly applied
school or job rules without improper religious
discrimination, or, in one instance, where school officials
made a mistake and promptly corrected it. In the case of the
school-related examples that the Christian Coalition is
using, all 3 incidents are at least 5 years old. Religious
freedom should be celebrated in our country with the true
facts about the First Amendment which fully protects
religious liberty for all people.
The People For The American Way Action Fund statement then goes on to
mention these purported claims by the Christian Coalition of religious
persecution. Brittany Settle Gossett, ``Received an ``F'' on a research
paper simply because her topic was Jesus Christ.'' The Christian
Coalition letter, May 8, 1997. The true facts behind the claim,
according to this report, are these: ``As both a Federal trial and
appeals court found, Ms. Gossett grade on this 1991 assignment was
based not on religious discrimination, but on her ``refusal to comply
with the requirements'' of the teacher, including changing her paper
topic, without permission, and choosing a topic with which she was
already familiar.''
``As one judge explained, ``The student has no constitutional right
to do something other than that assignment and receive credit for it.
The First Amendment already protects a student's right to address
religious topics in homework if relevant and otherwise compliant with
the assignment.''
The second purported claim of religious persecution that is being
used to justify amending the Bill of Rights goes to the case of Kelly
DeNooyer who ``Was told by her school principal that she could not show
a videotape of herself performing a religious song in church for her
part in the VIP of the week program in her school classroom ``because
it had Christian things in it.''
The response of the facts according to this report is this: ``As a
Federal Court of Appeals found, the school's decision in 1990 was
upheld based not on the content of the video, but because the purpose
of the program was to increase ``students' communication skills by
requiring a live classroom presentation by the student,'' and that
purpose ``would be frustrated if every student were permitted to show a
videotape instead.''
Example number 3 used by the supporters of the Istook amendment to
say why Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson's first amendment is somehow
inadequate today. Audrey Pearson was told by school officials that
``She could not read the Bible on the school bus.'' This is the
response, according to this report: ``Within days, Audrey was back
reading her Bible on the bus after only a few phone calls to the
principal's office in 1989.''
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that Members of this House and
supporters of the Istook amendment would use a case from 1989, a
problem that was resolved within a few hours with a handful of phone
calls, knowing that that problem had been corrected because of the
misinterpretation of the law, to use that case to justify massacring
the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is unbelievable.
The final case of religious persecution used to undermine our
constitutional protections of religious freedom goes to the story of
Brad Hicks, a North Carolina police officer who was ``Reprimanded by
his police department for offering a religious tract to a woman whom he
had pulled over for speeding and was later fired for refusing a police
department request to refrain from speaking about religion whenever in
a police uniform.'' The response is this: ``According to the police
chief, Hicks was dismissed not for speaking about religion, but because
he refused to stop proselytizing to citizens while on duty. As Hicks
admitted, for 7 months, ``Whenever I would pull someone over to come
into contact with them on some kind of call, while on duty and on
police business, he sought to proselytize and witness.''
{time} 2310
The chief explained that, ``You cannot stop someone on the road as a
police officer and proceed to give them a church sermon.''
Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the judicial decision, that a police
officer in uniform should not be allowed to use the power and
threatening nature, at times, of his government position to proselytize
his personal religious views upon the citizens of this land.
In 3 weeks, Mr. Speaker, Members of this House must make a choice.
They must choose between defending our Bill of Rights or dismantling
it. Members must choose between the wisdom of our Founding Fathers,
such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and the latest and often-
amended version of the Istook amendment.
We must choose in this House between the cautious, careful
consideration of our Founding Fathers as they drafted that cherished
document we know as the Bill of Rights, versus a constitutional
amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that received 1
day of hearings, 1 day of hearings in 1998.
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that the leadership of this House
would even allow a measure to come to this floor attempting to amend
the first 16 words of the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights, after
having less days of hearings on it, on amending the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights, than they had in reviewing the Branch Davidian
situation in my hometown of Waco.
In less than 3 weeks Members must choose between America's proud 200-
year history of religious freedom versus the world's history of
religious intolerance caused by the commingling of government and
religion.
How ironic and sad it would be for America, which is a beacon of
religious freedom to the world, to take the first step down the path of
Islamic fundamentalist states to prove how religious freedom is
imperiled when the wall of separation between church and state is
dismantled.
The choice is clear, in my opinion. Madison and Jefferson were right,
and my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Earnest Istook), no
disrespect intended, is wrong. I believe the Bill of Rights should be
protected, not dismantled.
The materials referred to earlier are as follows:
[Prepared by People for the American Way Action Fund]
The True Facts Behind the Christian Coalition's `Religious Persecution'
Claims
As part of its May 22, 1977 Religious Freedom Celebration
on Capitol Hill, the Christian Coalition is presenting four
claims of what it calls ``religious persecution'' which
purportedly justify a constitutional amendment concerning
religion. In fact, these claims are nothing of the sort.
Instead, they are instances where officials properly applied
school or job rules without improper religious discrimination
or, in one instance, where school officials made a mistake
and promptly corrected it. In the case of the school-related
examples that the Christian Coalition is using, all three
incidents are at least 5 years old. Religious freedom should
be celebrated in our country with the true facts about the
First Amendment, which fully protects religious liberty for
all people.
The Christian Coalition claim:
Brittany Settle Gossett ``received an F on a research paper
simply because her topic was Jesus Christ.'' (Christian
Coalition letter May 8, 1997)
The true facts behind the claim:
As both a federal trial and appeals court found, Ms.
Gossett's grade on this 1991 assignment was based not on
religious discrimination, but on her ``refusal to comply with
the requirements'' of the teacher, including changing her
paper topic without permission and choosing a topic with
which she was already familiar. 1995 Lexis Fed. App. 141, 4-
5. As one judge explained, ``the student has no
constitutional right to do something other than that
assignment and receive credit for it.'' Id. at 20. The First
Amendment already protects a student's right to address
religious topics in homework if relevant and otherwise
compliant with the assignment.
The Christian Coalition claim:
Kelly DeNooyer ``was told by her school principal that she
could not show'' a videotape of herself performing a
religious song in church for her part of the VIP of the Week
program in her school classroom ``because it had Christian
things in it.'' (Rutherford Inst. Rep. Oct. 1992)
The true facts behind the claim:
As a federal court of appeals found, the school's decision
in 1990 was upheld based not on the content of the video, but
because the purpose of the program was to increase
``students'' communication skills by requiring a
[[Page H3237]]
`live' classroom presentation by the student,'' and that
purpose ``would be frustrated if every student were permitted
to show a videotape'' instead. 1993 U.S. App. Lexis at 4.
____
Statement prepared by the Coalition to Preserve Religious Liberty
The following are a few examples of activities that would
be permitted under the amendment:
A tax could be levied for support of sectarian schools.
Crosses, stars of David or statues of the goddess Gaia
could be erected in public places such as courthouses, public
schools and military bases to represent religious heritage or
belief.
New Testament readings and specific prayers could be
prescribed for all meetings of government employees (except
public schools) as long as no one was required to
participate.
Devotional Bible readings or meditations from the Quran
could be required in public schools as long as no one was
required to participate.
Upon a student's suggestion, a teacher could lead prayers
for his or her kindergarten classes, as long as the prayers
were not prescribed by the government and participation was
not required.
Bibles, Books of Mormon or Qurans could be printed and
distributed to all public school students or public employees
as a way of recognizing the people's heritage.
Public schools could be required to teach creation science
along with evolution as a way of recognizing the beliefs and
heritage of the people.
Tax money could be used to fund mission programs sponsored
by Baptists, Buddhists or Branch Davidians; Methodists,
Mormons or Mennonites.
A judge or juror could lead the courtroom in prayer and
limit such prayers to the majority faith of the surrounding
community.
____
[From the Time--April 27, 1998]
Spiriting Prayer Into School
Politicians may bicker about bringing back prayer, but in fact it's
already a major presence--thank to the many after-school prayer clubs
(By David Van Biema)
On a overcast afternoon, in a modest room in Minneapolis,
23 teenagers are in earnest conversation with one another--
and with the Lord. ``Would you pray for my brother so that he
can raise money to go [on a preaching trip] to Mexico?'' asks
a young woman. ``Out church group is visiting juvenile-
detention centers, and some are scared to go,'' explains a
boy. ``Pray that God will lay a burden on people's hearts for
this.''
``Pray for the food drive,'' says someone.
``There's one teacher goin' psycho because kids are not
turning in their homework and stuff. She's thinking of
quitting, and she's a real good teacher.''
``We need to pray for all the teachers in the school who
aren't Christians.'' comes a voice from the back.
And they do, Clad in wristbands that read w.w.j.d. (``What
Would Jesus Do?'') and T shirts that declare upon this rock I
will build my church, the kids sing Christian songs, discuss
Scripture and work to memorize the week's Bible verse, John
15:5 (``I am the vine and you are the branches'') Hours pass.
As night falls, the group enjoys one last mass hug and
finally leave its makeshift chapel--room 133 of Patrick Henry
High School. Yes, a public high school. If you are between
ages 25 and 45, your school days were not like this. In 1963
the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling banning compulsory
prayer in public schools. After that, any worship on school
premises, let alone a prayer club, was widely understood as
forbidden. But for the past few years, thanks to a subsequent
court case, such groups not only have been legal but have
become legion.
The club's explosive spread coincides with a more radical
but so far less successful movement for a complete overturn
of the 1963 ruling. On the federal level is the Religious
Freedom amendment, a constitutional revision proposed by
House Republican Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, which would
reinstate full-scale school prayer. It passed the Judiciary
Committee 16 to 11, last month but will probably fare less
well when the full House votes in May. One of many local
battlefields is Alabama, where last week the state senate
passed a bill mandating a daily moment of silence--a response
to a 1997 federal ruling voiding an earlier state pro-school
prayer law. Governor Fob James is expected to sign the bill
into law, triggering the inevitable church state court
challenge.
But members of prayer clubs like the one at Patrick Henry
High aren't waiting for the conclusion of such epic
struggles. They have already, brought worship back to public
school campuses, although with some state-imposed
limitations. Available statistics are approximate, but they
suggest that there are clubs in as many as 1 out of every 4
public schools in the country. In some areas the tally is
much higher, evengelicals in Minneapolis-St. Paul claim that
the vast majority of high schools in the Twin Cities
region have a Christian group. Says Benny Proffitt, a
Southern Baptist youth-club planter: ``We had no idea in
the early `90s that the response would be so great. We
believe that if we are to see America's young people come
to Christ and America turn around, it's going to happen
through our schools, not our churches.'' Once a religious
scorched-earth zone, the schoolyard is suddenly fertile
ground for both Vine and Branches.
The turnabout culminates a quarter-century of legislative
and legal maneuvering. The 1963 Supreme Court decision and
its broad-brush enforcement by school administrators
infuriated conservative Christians, who gradually developed
enough clout to force Congress to make a change. The
resulting Equal Access Act of 1984 required any federally
funded secondary school to permit religious meetings if the
schools allowed other clubs not related to curriculum, such
as public-service Key Clubs. The crucial rule was that the
prayer clubs had to be voluntary student-run and not convened
during class time.
Early drafts of the act were specifically pro-Christian.
Ultimately, however, its argument was stated in pure civil-
libertarian terms: prayers that would be coercive if required
of all students during class are protected free speech if
they are just one more after-school activity. Nevertheless,
recalls Marc Stern, a staff lawyer with the American Jewish
Congress, ``there was great fear that this would serve as the
base for very intrusive and aggressive proselytizing.''
Accordingly, Stern's group and other organizations challenged
the law--only to see it sustained, 8 to 1, by the Supreme
Court in 1990. Bill Clinton apparently agreed with the court.
The President remains opposed to compulsory school prayer.
But in a July 1995 speech he announced that ``nothing in the
First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-
free zones or requires all religious expression to be left at
the schoolhouse door.'' A month later Clinton had the
Department of Education issue a memo to public school
superintendents that appeared to expand Equal Access Act
protections to include public-address announcements of
religious gatherings and meetings at lunchtime and recess.
Evangelicals had already seized the moment. Within a year
of the 1990 court decision, prayer clubs bloomed
spontaneously on a thousand high school campuses. Fast on
their heels came adult organizations dedicated to encouraging
more. Proffitt's Tennessee-based organization, First
Priority, founded in 1995, coordinates interchurch groups in
162 cities working with clubs in 3,000 schools. The San
Diego-based National Network of Youth Ministries has launched
``Challenge 2000,'' which pledges to bring the Christian
gospel ``to every kid on every secondary campus in every
community in our nation by the year 2000.'' It also promotes
a phenomenon called ``See You at the Pole,'' encouraging
Christian students countrywide to gather around their school
flagpoles on the third Wednesday of each September; last
year, 3 million students participated. Adult groups provide
club handbooks, workshops for student leaders and ongoing
advice. Network of Youth Ministries leader Paul Fleischmann
stresses that the resulting clubs are ``adult supported,''
not adult-run, ``If we went away,'' he says, ``they'd still
do it.''
The club at Patrick Henry High certainly would. The group
was founded two years ago with encouragement but no specific
stage managing by local youth pastors. This afternoon its
faculty adviser, a math teacher and Evangelical Free Church
member named Sara Van Der Werf, sits silently for most of the
meeting, although she takes part in the final embrace. The
club serves as an emotional bulwark for members dealing with
life at a school where two students died last year in off-
campus gunfire. Today a club member requests prayer for
``those people who got in that big fight [this morning].''
Another asks the Lord to ``bless the racial-reconciliation
stuff.'' (Patrick Henry is multiethnic; the prayer club is
overwhelmingly white.) Just before Easter the group
experienced its First Amendment conflict: whether it could
hang posters on all school walls like other non-school-
sponsored clubs. Patrick Henry principal Paul McMahan
eventually decreed that putting up posters is off limits to
everyone, leading to some resentment against the
Christians. Nonetheless, McMahan lauds them for
``understanding the boundaries'' between church and state.
In Alabama, the new school-prayer bill attempts to skirt
those boundaries. The legislation requires ``a brief period
of quiet reflection for not more than 60 seconds with the
participation of each pupil in the classroom.'' Although the
courts have upheld some moment-of-silence policies, civil
libertarians say they have struck down laws featuring pro-
prayer supporting language of the sort they discern in
Alabama's bill. In the eyes of many church-club planters,
such fracases amount to wasted effort. Says Doug Clark, field
director of the National Network of Youth Ministries: ``Our
energy is being poured into what kids can do voluntarily and
on their own. That seems to us to be where God is working.''
Reaction to the prayer clubs may depend on which besieged
minority one feels part of. In the many areas where
Conservative Christians feel looked down on, they welcome the
emotional support for their children's faith. Similarly, non-
Christians in the Bible Belt may be put off by the clubs'
evangelical fervor; members of the chess society, after all,
do not inform peers that they must push pawns or risk eternal
damnation. Not everyone shares the enthusiasm Proffitt
recently expressed at a youth rally in Niagara Falls, N.Y.:
``When an awakening takes place, we see 50, 100, 1,000,
10,000 come to Christ. Can you imagine 100, or 300, come to
Christ in your school? We want to see our campuses come to
Christ.'' Watchdog organizations
[[Page H3238]]
like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
report cases in which such zeal has approached harassment of
students and teachers, student prayer leaders have seemed
mere puppets for adult evangelists, and activists have tried
to establish prayer clubs in elementary schools, where the
description ``student-run'' seems disingenuous.
Nevertheless, the Jewish committee's Stern concedes that
``there's been much less controversy than one might have
expected from the hysterical predictions we made.'' Americans
United director Barry Lynn notes that ``in most school
districts, students are spontaneously forming clubs and
acting upon their own and not outsiders' religious agendas.''
A.C.L.U. lobbyist Terri Schroeder also supports the Equal
Access Act, pointing out that the First Amendment's Free
exercise clause protecting religious expression is as vital
as its Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from
promoting a creed. The civil libertarians' acceptance of the
clubs owes something to their use as a defense against what
they consider a truly bad idea: Istooks's school-prayer
amendment. Says Lynn: ``Most reasonable people say, `If so
many kids are praying legally in the public schools now, why
would you possibly want to amend the Constitution?' ''
For now, the prospects for prayer clubs seem unlimited. In
fact, the tragic shooting of eight prayer-club members last
December in West Paducah, Ky., by 14-year-old Michael Carneal
provided the cause with martyrs and produced a hero in
prayer-club president Bob Strong, who persuaded Carneal to
lay down his gun. Strong recalls that the club's daily
meetings used to draw only 35 to 60 students out of Heath
High School's 600. ``People didn't really look down on us,
but I don't know if it was cool to be a Christian,'' he says.
Now 100 to 150 teens attend. Strong has since toured three
states extolling the value of Christian clubs. ``It woke a
lot of kids up,'' he says. ``That's true everywhere I've
spoken. This is a national thing.''
____________________