Last week, Clinton issued a list of guidelines to school districts across the nation clarifying what religious activities may legally take place in public schools. He has thus arrived at a golden mean between the misguided policies of a minority of America’s educators and the misguided proposals of a minority of America’s religious community.

With the publication of The Contract with the American Family, the Christian Coalition placed the passage of the so-called “Religious Equality Amendment” as the first item on its wish list. The intention would be to make “all citizens, including students … free to express their faith in non-compulsory settings and in ways that affirm their convictions without infringing upon the rights of others.”

According to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first part is referred to as the Establishment Clause, and the second, the Free Exercise Clause.

The Contract with the American Family argues that the Supreme Court (urged on by “radical left” groups like the American Civil Liberties Union) has used the Establishment Clause, intended to protect churches from government intrusion, to negate rights properly accorded by the Free Exercise Clause. In other words, the Establishment Clause became “a mandate to the government to root out religious expression from all areas of public life – especially schools,” rather than “a means of protecting religious expression from government oppression.” Thus, the conclusion is: we need the Religious Equality Amendment.

Connected with this is an argument that religion has been marginalized in the public sphere, especially in education. The Contract with the American Family cites teachers prohibiting students from reading the Bible during time set aside in class as proof.

It is true that the Establishment Clause has been interpreted in such a manner that the rights entailed by the Free Exercise Clause are limited in certain instances. It is impossible to ensure the government’s neutrality toward religion without, in certain situations, limiting the free expression of individuals. There would be an establishment of religion in an America where public school teachers could instruct their students that they should believe in Christianity or any other religion.

Of course, granting teachers the right to do this is not the goal of the Religious Equality Amendment. Nonetheless, the rights likely to be granted still involve unwarranted amounts of coercion (e.g., students forced to listen to prayers at graduation or stay home).

Students in public schools already have the right to read the Bible. The Religious Equality Amendment would not ensure individuals any rights that they do not already have.

The guidelines sent out by Clinton will probably solve the minor problems that exist in our public schools, without creating an atmosphere of coercion.

Tyler Roach is senior in English, philosophy and religious studies from Des Moines.