Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion,net.flame
Subject: Re: implication of a recent bill
Message-ID: <2228@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Apr-84 12:48:58 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.2228
Posted: Mon Apr  9 12:48:58 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Apr-84 01:44:08 EST
References: <2683@rabbit.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 37

>
>My first reaction was that this [Equal Access] bill was a good idea.
>I didn't see any good reason that students should not be allowed to do
>whatever they please on school property before or after hours, provided
>that the logistics could be adequately arranged and the pupils didn't
>do anything criminal.
>
>On second thought, though, I see a trap door in the bill.  Suppose that
>this bill passes and I am the principal of a public school.  Suppose further
>that I am one of these people who has long wanted to force religion on
>everyone, but my hands were tied until now.
>
>What is there to stop me from decreeing that all extra-curricular activities
>(such as sports, drama club, glee club, whatever) must begin and end with a
>prayer?  My rationale would be this:  I am now required to permit religious
>extra-curricular activities, but I CAN PROHIBIT ALL OTHERS!  Thus, I will
>allow prayer+football, prayer+swimming, prayer+drama, and so on.

What is to stop you?  How about the angry protests of parents?  There is a
difference between permitting and requiring.  Requiring religious influence
goes against the separation of Church and State.  I would see no problem
with saying that religious activities must be restricted to the meetings of
specifically religious clubs.  I think the bill specifically requires this.
It also rules out organized evangelism on the school grounds.

Recently the principal of a school in Florida had pictures of the school
Bible Club cut out of their yearbook after a threatening phone call from
an ACLU lawyer.  It is protection against this kind of harassment that
the bill seeks to invoke.  A student club should not be prohibited from
having the same priviledges of other student clubs just because it is
religiously oriented.

The way I see it the existence of any club cannot be made mandatory.  Clubs
come into existence because there is sufficient interest umong students
to form one.  If the interest isn't there, no club is formed.

Paul Dubuc