joint document which claims to establish a "middle ground" in the issue of teaching religion in public schools may actually encourage proselytizing of students.

   Released earlier this month under the auspices of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University and the National Bible Association in New York, "The Bible & Public Schools" was endorsed by a slew of groups ranging from the American Jewish Committee and the National Education Association to People for the American Way, Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals.

   "It encourages schools to offer courses in the Bible as literature, explain the role of religion in political and social movements such as abolition, temperance and civil rights, and expose students to the basic ideas of the world's major religions," writes Associated Press reporter Beth Harpaz.

   "The guide also steers schools away from more controversial Biblical history," she added, "saying that would require 'a great deal of preparation and sophistication.'"

   The document has been under consideration since at least January when word of the project first leaked to the media. According to the First Amendment Center, the guide promised that it "aids cooperation between schools (and) religious communities."

   "These are the articles of peace in our culture," gushed Warren Nord, a University of North Carolina philosophy of religion professor.

   Charles Haynes, a scholar at the First Amendment Center, declared that the Bill of Rights "is not intended to make our schools a religion-free zone."

   Judy Schaeffer, legal director of People for the American Way, praised the document saying that it would "go a very long way for the well-intentioned."

   "But for those school districts bent on using the Bible for Christian faith formation, it won't make a difference," she cautioned.

   "The Bible & Public Schools" promotes itself as "A Third Model of Fairness and Respect," saying that "public schools (should) neither inculcate nor inhibit religion but become places where religion and religious conviction are treated with fairness and respect." Sections of the guide outline the parameters concerning student religious expression, the right of religious students to organize clubs under the Equal Access Act of 1984, and the distribution of religious literature.

   The Guide also declares: "Educators widely agree that study about religion, where appropriate, is an important part of a complete education. Part of that study includes learning about the Bible in courses such as literature and history. Knowledge of biblical stories and concepts contributes to our understanding of literature, history, law, art and contemporary society."

"This is an open invitation for religious groups to make the claim that prayer, Bible verse reading and other faith-based activities are all permitted in public schools. These groups have a poor record of knowing when not to cross the line on violating the rights of others when it comes to religious proselytizing --Ellen Johnson, President American Atheists

   After a segue into several legal decisions pertaining to religious expression in the schools, the guide adds that any instruction must be "about religion" and avoid the appearance of sectarian indoctrination. The school's approach when using the Bible is to be "academic" rather than "devotional," and may "educate" but not "promote or denigrate any religion."

   "The school may strive for student awareness of religions, but should not press for student acceptance of any religion," adds the guide.

   Subsequent sections give brief coverage to topics such as which version of the Bible may be used, or how it can be taught as "literature" and "history."

   Despite the claim that it establishes a "middle ground," though, some separationists are wary. The American Civil Liberties Union says that it has the document "under review."

   "This is an open invitation for religious groups to make the claim that prayer, Bible verse reading and other faith-based activities are all permitted in public schools," warned Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists. "These groups have a poor record of knowing when not to cross the line on violating the rights of others when it comes to religious proselytizing."

"We've seen this type of strategy used before. The Guide discusses teaching about the Bible as history, but doing that in a fair and objective fashion is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible. A program that promotes positive contributions of religion and ignores or give short shrift to negative impacts is not neutral..." --Chris Allen, Utah State Director, AMERICAN ATHEISTS

   "Look, this problem wouldn't exist in the first place if churches and other religious groups took a 'hands off' position on the public schools. They want to exploit every venue, including school classes, to promote religious belief and ritual."

   Johnson said that the goal of having "objective" or "balanced" teaching in respect to religion, and specifically the Bible, would be difficult if not impossible in the current social climate.

   "Do you really believe that Pat Robertson, or even liberal religious groups, would allow all of the Bible to be taught fairly and openly?" Johnson asked. "There is only so much time in the school day, and students need to prepare for the twenty-first century," she added. "Religion, if it is to be taught at all, belongs in churches and homes."

   Another critic of the guide is Chris Allen, Utah State Director of American Atheists. Allen has been involved in numerous First Amendment-related suits, and says that he has seen similar attempts in Utah to "smuggle religion into the public schools under the guise of history."

   "We've seen this type of strategy used before," Allen warned. "The Guide discusses teaching about the Bible as history, but doing that in a fair and objective fashion is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible. A program that promotes positive contributions of religion and ignores or gives short shrift to negative impacts is not neutral."

   Allen added that he doubts if even religious leaders could agree or what should be taught in any course which claims to present the Bible as "history," and he warns about content bias.

   "Even if you can get agreement on teaching the Bible from a so-called 'academic' rather than devotional perspective, you've got enormous problems about the content. The First Amendment Center Guide says that the Bible has been used in conjunction with social movements like abolition, temperance and civil rights. But are they really going to tell the full story, or just whitewash the role played by religious groups?"

   Allen also warned that attempt to teach about religion in public schools often became suborned to the agenda of specific groups.

   "In Utah, the Mormon church took over the 'Religion in the Public School Curriculum' debate," he charged. We found that certain 'researchers' and 'scholars' who were called in to work on the program were biased, or just shills for the LDS religion.

   He also objected to the role being played by Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center, and traced the ideological inspiration for the latest document on "The Bible & Public Schools" back to the Williamsburg Charter movement. "Haynes was representing that group too, and the Charter was signed by a coalition of religious groups and is clearly designed to promote religion generally. Then as now, the perspective of atheists and other non-religious thinkers is excluded or largely ignored."

   Although the Guide underscores the need for token respect of non-religious students, as well as not teaching religion as fact, some groups are already interpreting the document as a green light to carry their message into the public schools.

   "This doesn't clarify anything," said Ellen Johnson. "By taking a defensive posture and masquerading under the guise of a 'Third Model of Fairness and Respect', some of the groups signing on to this agenda are encouraging the promotion of religion. The religious organizations will simply ignore or minimize the strictures that do exist on behavior in public schools, and try to exploit the situation."

   Both Johnson and Allen challenged the report's claim of "two failed models," one holding that schools should be religion-free zones, the other calling for the establishment of "sacred public schools."

   "This talk of a 'third model' is a solution to a problem that isn't there," said Allen. "The courts and the constitution have repeatedly affirmed the right of students to private religious expression, so that's a non-issue. What is at question is whether religion should be an official part of the school curriculum, whether it's prayer at a graduation ceremony or football game, or if it is disguised as a unit in 'Bible history' or 'the Bible as Literature.'"

   "Even if you had courses on Biblical history and literature," added Ellen Johnson, "they would probably not have complete and honest content. They would use selective quotes and sources to portray religion in a positive light and a source of wholesome moral guidance, while minimizing or ignoring the harm superstition has caused throughout human history."

[text only]