n Katy, Texas, the battle lines are being drawn in what may be the latest ruse to sneak prayer and other religious rituals back into the public school classrooms. Forget the "moment of silence" or "moment of silent prayer" or the "moment of silent meditation," which generally courts have struck down as a cloak for impermissible and unconstitutional worship. Forget about teacher- led prayer, or student led prayer -- the latter being a provision of the recently defeated Religious Freedom Amendment.

    No, the name of the game now is "solemnization," and high school students in Katy are promoting the term as a way to "formalize and dignify schools events and activities," according to a recent edition of the Houston Chronicle.

    Exactly what is "solemnization," anyway? That remains unclear for now, and the calls for "solemnization" seem to deal more with the idea of having students decide on whether or not the practice should be implemented, rather than exactly what it is they intend to implement. A Houston attorney hired by a group of Katy students says that he wants school officials to permit a referendum, and "stand aside" so that students can vote on the issue. So far, three petitions have been presented to school officials with about 500 signatures, gathered from the district's three high schools.

    One student who is behind the effort to introduce "solemnization" told reporters that any policy would have to be broad and even permissive, so that diverse groups could have "their time, too."

   According to Houston attorney Kelly Coghlan, who represents the "solemnization" students, the school board can presumably avoid any legal complications over First Amendment issues if it simply "stands aside" and permits students to "take charge of the whole affair," noted the Chronicle. This would include allowing students to decide what form of activity the "solemnization" is to take. But already, religious students admit that their ideas about "solemnization" include prayer; one informed the paper, "I think our students would be pretty mature about this," and select a spiritual smorgasbord that included "Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish prayers."

American Atheists Spokesperson RON BARRIER charges that the intent of the "solemnization" movement is to put prayer back into the public schools. "Does anyone really believe that non-Christian 'solemnization' would last for very long?"

    School Board officials, though, are described as "antsy" over the issue, and the law firm representing the district is warning that the "solemnization" plan is really an effort to permit proselytizing on campuses. In a letter to officials distributed in late September, the school administration attorney warned: "The district is concerned that the real purpose (of the student resolution) appears to be to allow students to proselytize their religious beliefs through school-controlled, school-sponsored mediums, such as school loudspeaker systems, school sport events or school assemblies."

The MURRAY v. CURLETT case was a landmark in helping to end prayer and Bible verse recitation in public schools. It was also the first explicit case of its kind filed by an Atheist demanding freedom FROM religion. Learn more about MURRAY v. CURLETT.

   In fact, the "solemnization" effort -- especially if it involves religious content or activities of any kind, and of any denomination -- is just a new costume on an old, and unconstitutional proposal, namely, "student led" or "student initiated" religious activism. Courts have generally ruled against students using school property and facilities in the course of the regular school day for religious proselytizing. Major court cases in the 1960s such as MURRAY v. CURLETT and ENGEL v. VITALE struck down various forms of teacher or administration orchestrated school prayer, of course. Courts have not been favorably disposed to the notion that select students will suddenly be permitted to essentially take over that role.

    "It's just the old 'student initiated' school prayer ruse," noted Ron Barrier, National Spokesperson for American Atheists. "They're already admitting that religion is going to be part of this 'solemnization,' so they really can't argue that it is a purely secular activity, can they?

    Mr. Barrier also noted that in the course of the regular school day, most students would still constitute a "captive audience" who would be subjected to the "solemnization" rituals. "And they say that they would allow all sorts of different kinds of 'solemnization,'" noted Barrier. "Does anyone really believe that non-Christian 'solemnization' would last for very long?"

    And what about the argument that students should "vote" on such proposals? Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists, told aanews, "how would people react if the majority of students voted, say, to discriminate against female students, or fellow students who happened to be black? A majority vote doesn't make something right, proper and especially constitutional." Johnson also suggested that in many cases, possibly including the one in Katy, Texas adult religious groups become involved in manipulating youngsters for their own sectarian agenda.

    "We haven't had any atheist students lately stepping forward asking for 'solemnization,'" Johnson noted. "Most of this seems to involve Christian students attempting to make school prayer and religion an issue of voting and majority rule. It isn't."

    Johnson cited the historic MURRAY v. CURLETT (1963) case where the Supreme Court struck down prayer and bible verse recitation in public schools. The Supreme Court justices noted:

"Finally, we cannot accept that the concept of neutrality, which does not permit the State to require a religious exercise even with the consent of the majority of those affected, collides with the majority's right to free exercise of religion. While the Free Exercise Clause clearly prohibits the use of state actions to deny the rights of free exercise to anyone, it has never meant that a majority could use the machinery of the state to practice its beliefs. Such a contention was effectively answered by Mr. Justice Jackson for the Court in WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, 638, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 1185, 87 L.Ed 1628 (1943): 'The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by courts. One's right to freedom of worship and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'"

    Other constitutional and practice problems may plague the "solemnization" scheme as well. Even if a majority of students approves the practice and receives a thumbs-up from administrators, who decides what form of "solemnization" is to be permitted? If a Christian religious song is part of this activity, what happens when a student wishes to "solemnize" an activity by playing a cut from "Anti-Christ, Superstar" by the controversial grunge rock group Marilyn Manson? What about participation by Wiccans, Scientologists, Black Muslims, Satanists? Who decides what, if any limits will be placed on this activity? And would any limits mean that certain religious practices or beliefs are thus being discriminated against?

   The practice of "solemnization" really cannot be successfully be defended as giving some students a badly needed opportunity to pray. Even in the course of the regular school day, religious students can engage in prayer, Bible student or some other activity on their own time, and in private. Besides, the existence of some 16,000 religious clubs in schools and universities across the nation testifies to the fact that such students have adequate opportunity to engage in their respective rituals, and fraternize with like-minded comrades.

    While descriptions of what would constitute "solemnization" remain sketchy (perhaps deliberately), the origins of the term suggest religious roots. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word is defined as "The action of solemnizing or celebrating in a ceremonial manner." The first use of the term was in 1447, "Wych tyme as shuld the solemnyzacyous Been of that cherce." In 1555, the reference was made in connection with the celebration of the mass. Subsequent references point to the word being used in relation to funerals and coronations of monarchs.

    "Student initiated" religious activity is not automatically constitutional, simply because teachers, administrators and other officials are not -- or do not appear to be -- involved. In Alabama, Federal Judge Ira DeMent has struck down a state law permitting student-led prayer in classrooms, and has issued an injunction against any student-initiated religious activities in connection with official school events such as athletic contests. In JAGER v. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (1989), the 11th Circuit Court let stand a lower ruling which found that pre-game invocations by coaches, officials or students at high school football games were unconstitutional. In 1996 in Mississippi, U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate struck down a state law which gave students in public schools the right to lead or initiate classroom prayers. That same year, U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers ruled on behalf of Lisa Herdahl and her sons who had complained about harassment by religious students, and daily prayers organized by students using the school public address system.

   And "solemnization" threatens to disrupt and divide students -- especially those in grade school or high school -- along denominational lines as well as belief - nonbelief. Ms. Herdahl's children were subjected to violent intimidation, and charges that they were "atheists" and "devil worshippers." Indeed, schools are volatile enough without introducing a disruptive and divisive element, namely, religious belief or the lack of it.

    None of this seems to be discouraging advocates of school prayer, though. "The real goal here is to find a way to sneak prayer back into the public schools," warned Mr. Barrier. "Think about it. There are 350,000 churches, mosques, chapels and temples in this country. Religious parents and students can pray just about anywhere. Why do they want to put their beliefs back into the classroom?"

    The Supreme Court has already ruled against prayer, whether led by teachers or students. The campaign to "solemnize" the public school classrooms appears to be another end-run around the First Amendment, and our freedom FROM religion.

[text only]