As if it weren’t offensive enough that a constitutional amendment on flag burning was seriously considered by the House Rules Committee last night, Republican lawmakers will soon have another culture war amendment to consider exploit this year.
Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) is expected to introduce a constitutional amendment to protect religious expression in schools and on other public property soon after the Supreme Court decides two landmark cases about the displaying the Ten Commandments on public grounds. The court is expected to announce its decision by Monday. […]
The Pledge and Prayer Amendment “would allow the display of the Ten Commandments and other historical religious documents on public property,” “allow greater freedom for students who wish to pray” and “allow students to recite the entire Pledge of Allegiance” — including the line “one nation, under God” — according to bullet points put out by Istook’s office.
Before anyone gets too nervous about this, Istook has tried to generate support for this amendment in every Congress for the last decade. If memory serves, it’s only come up for a vote twice, and in both instances, it wasn’t even close to the two-thirds majority needed for constitutional amendments. Chances are, it won’t do much better now.
Still, the amendment is ridiculous and the fact that it’s been introduced is a bad joke. What’s worse, the bill already has 45 co-sponsors, which is likely to increase as Republicans look for initiatives that will drive attention away from their policy failures.
One really has to wonder why Istook and his GOP cohorts find this necessary in the first place. What exactly does he mean that he wants to “allow greater freedom for students who wish to pray”?
It’s always been an odd canard for the right anyway, considering the right of kids to pray in schools is already protected. Conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, our schools are not “religion-free zones.”
In 1995, a joint statement of current law regarding religion in public schools was published by a variety of religious and civil liberties organizations. This statement served as the basis for U.S. Department of Education guidelines intended to alleviate concerns about constitutional religious activities in schools.
These guidelines, which were sent to every public school in the nation, stressed that students have the right to pray or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. But the guidelines went on to state that public schools are prohibited from sponsoring worship or pressuring students to pray, meditate, read religious texts or take part in other religious activities.
All the law requires is school neutrality on worship. That’s it. If a student wants to pray in school, before an exam, in the cafeteria, alone or in a group, that’s perfectly legal. So long as the school doesn’t interfere, prayer is permissible.
But for Istook and lawmakers like him, neutrality isn’t good enough, and neither is the First Amendment. They’re not satisfied leaving religious lessons up to families and pastors, they want teachers and school administrators to intervene. When the law won’t let them, they demand a constitutional amendment.
Istook wants the biggest of all possible governments — the state as religious instructor.