Mississippi's religious liberty bill only protects freedom for a few

Christians all over Mississippi surely are celebrating the passage of the Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberties Act by the state legislature. While the two existing versions of the bill must be reconciled into one bill before it can be sent to Republican Gov. Phil Bryant, I would say supporters' excitement is premature, at best. The bill, as it's written, is blatantly unconstitutional and is likely to face a court challenge as soon as it's signed. Chances are, it will never actually be enforceable. It's just another waste of time by fundamentalists desperate to insert school-sanctioned prayers back into Mississippi's classrooms.
   The Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberty Act is being sponsored by state Republican Rep. Mark Formby, who has introduced a similar bill every year since 2009. He says his bill is intended to clarify existing law and to dispel confusion about whether students are allowed to discuss religious themes in their school work or wear religious clothing at school. Both concerns are currently protected under federal law. Supporters of the law say it will protect students' religious freedoms, ensure that students can talk about spiritual beliefs and guarantee that they aren't deprived of their rights.
   Under the bill, gatherings such as graduations, football games, and even mornng announcements, would be defined as "limited public forums." Under the bill, certain groups of students, such as those who won honors, would be allowed to speak during those occasions. The bill specifies that the school won't dictate the message and will publish a disclaimer sayng that they are not sponsoring prayer. The school will be responsible for prohibiting vulgarity and making sure the message is appropriate to the occasion.
   I don't know Mark Formby. I don't live in Mississippi. And while I'm sure he's earnest about wanting to "clarify" his state's law regarding students' religious rights, his proposal contains many pitfalls and unintended consequences.
   Formby says his law is intended to "clarify" existing law, to make sure that students have the right speak openly about their spiritual beliefs. A noble goal, for sure. But the reality is, it will only serve to open events such as graduation ceremonies and Friday night football games to student-led (and presumably, school-santioned) prayers. That, in turn, will open school systems up to time-consuming and costly litigation. It's just not worth the risk.
   The problem with the Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberties Act, as with every law that seeks to "protect" students' religius rights, lies not with the stated intent, but with how the law will realistically be applied. Does anyone really believe that students of differing faiths, such as Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or even atheists, will be given the same freedom to speak about their spiritual beliefs as their Christian counterparts? That's not likely, without a great deal of protest from offended parents. How about students who follow lesser known faiths such as Rastafarianism, or even Satanism? Both are recognized religions, and both would have the right to ask that their views be heard under this bill. But it will never happen.
   The truth is, the Schoolchildren's Religious Liberties Act is intended  to protect only one type of religous expression:  Christian. It is a thinly veiled attempt to allow Christian students to preach to their contemporaries, who in effect, become a captive audience. That's not fair, and it goes against both the spirit and the intent of our nation's founders.
   When James Madison and the other constitutional delegates guaranteed religious freedom, they did not, as some believe, intend to create a Christian nation. Most of them, in fact, were not what you would call traditional Christians, but Deists. Our founders wanted to protect us from the tyranny of a state religion. In fact, they wanted government to stay completely out of the debate. To Madison and his contemporaries, freedom of (and from) religion should be a private matter of conscience for each individual. They wanted each person to have the right to believe and worship as he or she chose, not have one set of beliefs shoved down our throats at the exclusion of all others.
   It really is this simple. If supporters of the Schoolchildrens' Religious Liberty Act want to do the right thing, they would make sure that students of all faiths -- not just Christians -- and students of no faith have an equal opportunity to be heard. Open the floor to all, or ban religious expressions of all kinds. Simple.
   Our founders never intended America to be a theocracy. And it's not freedom if students are only allowed to be exposed to one point of view. Do we want to protect students' religious freedoms? Then, allow them to be exposed to various religous viewpoints and ideas and let them choose for themselves. That is what freedom means, and it's what our founders intended.