s Bill Clinton trying to have it both ways when it comes to the issues of organized religion and the separation of church and state? In keeping with the prevailing ethos of citing religious faith as a political credential, the president earlier today praised the founders of the American republic as "men and women of faith," and declared that students who were "involved in religious activities are less likely to use drugs."

   The remarks were part of Mr. Clinton's weekly radio address, and were released in printed form by the White House at 10:06 this morning.

   Continuing on the theme of religiosity for youth, the president added, "Experience tells us they (children who participate in religious activities) are more likely to stay out of trouble. Common sense says that faith and faith-based organizations from all religious backgrounds can play an important role in helping children to reach their fullest potential..."

   Clinton added that for those reasons, he has always "supported individual students right to voluntarily practice religious beliefs, including prayer in school, and to engage in religious activities on school grounds, but not to have any kind of enforced such activities (sic)."

   The president then went on to discuss the guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Education in 1995 pertaining to religious expression in the nation's public schools.

   Saying that the guidelines were "for protecting religious freedom" in the classrooms, Clinton added: "We did so in response to parents and educators who asked for help in knowing what kinds of religious activities were permissible in public schools and what is not permissible..."

   Clinton also used his address to underscore another theme which has become popular in the year 2000 election campaigns, that of creating "partnerships" between government and religious groups as a way of dealing with social problems. Both Vice President Al Gore and GOP nomination front-runner George W. Bush have expressed their commitment to the idea, pledging to use public money and resources to assist faith-based groups operating social service programs.

   "Across America, schools and faith-based organizations are telling us they want to build new and effective partnerships..." said the president.

   "Our new guidelines will help them work together on common ground to meet constitutional muster, to avoid making students uncomfortable because they come from different religious traditions, while helping students make the most of their God-given talents." He also suggested that a "consensus is emerging among educators and religious leaders, and among defenders of the 1st Amendment..."

   In a letter being sent this weekend to principals in every American school -- over 100,000 -- Secretary of Education Richard Riley strikes a tone similar to the president, trying to call for "common ground" in the debate over sectarian proselytizing in classrooms. He also announces yet a new set of "guidelines" pertaining to the issue of religion in school.

   "Many Americans, unfortunately, came to believe that the 1962 Supreme Court decision disallowing state-sponsored school prayer meant no religious expression at all was permitted," Riley states. "They were mistaken... As a result, a great misunderstanding grew up over time and the issue of prayer and religious expression in public schools became increasingly divisive and polarizing."

   Riley then promotes a claim being made by some religious and political groups, that in the debate over separation, "Leaders on both sides...have lowered their voices, retreated from the polarizing language of the last three decades, and worked diligently together to find a new common ground..."

   The new guidelines are essentially a rehash of what schools, churches and other organizations have known for some time:

   ¶    Any activity in school must have a primarily secular purpose.

   ¶    Schools must remain neutral when dealing with religious or other groups, and they may not prefer the religious beliefs of one sect/group over another.

   ¶    Students must be selected without regard to their religious beliefs or affiliations.

   They also cover the same terrain that the August, 1995 document, "Religious Expression in Public Schools: A Statement of Principles" did.

   Clinton's remarks, and the "new" Department of Education guidelines, create the impression that a "common ground" or "consensus" is emerging among educators, political elites and energized faith-based groups over the proper role of religion in our schools. Is this really the case?

   Most religious right groups that want organized classroom devotionals, prayer at graduation ceremonies or sporting events, or creationism included in the science curriculum are not in agreement with the guidelines; there is no common ground, nor is one likely to emerge -- despite the surfeit of wishful thinking. The same goes for organizations seeking to display the Ten Commandments in schools, include the "teaching about religion" as history or literature in curriculums, or promote a faith-based chastity-abstinence program for teens.

   If anything, President Clinton's remarks simply encourage religious groups to find a way of becoming involved in what should be a secular haven -- the public schools. In theory, of course, churches and other faith-based groups may help with after-school programs, tutoring services and other activities; but experience shows that this often is a green light for injecting religious content, and trying to recruit students for religious activities.

   Mr. Clinton's radio address also suggests that youngsters who attend religious services presumably have fewer problems with drugs and staying out of "trouble," and have an advantage in realizing "their full potential." Even the most optimistic claims of church attendance, though, suggest that no more than 40% of Americans regularly visit a house of worship. Some studies indicate that this figure is exaggerated, and may in fact be closer to 25%. Enrollment in the mainline denominations is decreasing. By any of these statistics, Mr. Clinton is talking about a minority of families and youngsters -- those who attend religious services -- and he comes precariously close to involving himself in a constitutionally suspect role, that of being a "cheerleader" for participation in organized religion of some kind.

   Clinton also avoids the hot-button issues which many religious groups are concerned with in respect to the public schools. He suggests that students "do have the right to pray privately and individually in school, the right to say grace at lunch, the right to meet in religious groups on school grounds ... read the Bible or other religious books during study hall or free class time." As an afterthought, perhaps, he adds that students also have the "right to be free from coercion to participate in religious activity of any kind..." though he does not dwell on specifics of how religious students, teachers or school officials have sometimes intimidated and mocked those students who choose not to participate in faith-based expression.

   But praying at lunch or reading the bible at study hall are not the controversial, evocative issues that today define the battle over church and state in the nation's public schools. Display of the Ten Commandments, organized prayer in the classroom (perhaps with those objecting being given the "option" to leave or sit silently by), teaching creationism as an "alternative" to evolution, prayer over public address systems at graduation events and football games, distribution of Bibles, chastity and anti-sexuality campaigns, "values" instruction, allowing religious "counselors" on to school property and other activities are the meat-and-potatoes issues that make up the culture war now being fought.

   In addition, Mr. Clinton may be playing his role in knocking a few bricks out of the wall of separation between church and state by using his position as the nation's leader to promote the alleged benefits of organized religion. By suggesting that youngsters who go to church, mosque or temple supposedly have fewer problems with drugs and realizing their potential, he insinuates that atheist youth -- indeed, even those who might have honest doubts or questions about religion, and choose not to participate -- are disadvantaged, perhaps drug addicted, "troubled" and unwholesome.

   Millions of Americans -- perhaps as many as 10% of our nation's population -- use terms like "atheist," "agnostic," "freethinker" or a similar appellation -- to describe themselves. Tens of millions more are "unchurched" Americans who have no use for organized spirituality. By promoting religious involvement as a panacea for the problems of youth, and advancing the notion of "faith-based partnerships" as the future of our nation's public policy, Mr. Clinton sets an ambiguous and potentially dangerous precedent.

[text only]