WASHINGTON—The Senate has given symbolic support to the view that Littleton, Colo., residents have a constitutional right to include religious references in memorials to the students slain at Columbine High School.

The Senate on May 18 voted 85-13 in favor of a non-binding amendment to a child crime prevention bill. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., was scheduled to introduce a House version of the amendment by June 17.

The measures are being treated as amendments to the crime prevention bill being pushed by both chambers of Congress in the wake of the April 20 shootings.

Most of the 46 amendments offered by the Senate dealt with limiting access to firearms. Others, such as the amendment on religious references, tried to address problems faced by families and communities after a large-scale juvenile crime is committed.

The amendment was sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo. The first part of it states that Congress finds no constitutional bar to “the saying of a prayer, the reading of a scripture, or the performance of religious music, as part of a memorial service that is held on the campus of a public school in order to honor the memory of any person slain” at a school such as Columbine.

The Senate finding also applies to permanent memorials containing religious symbols or motifs that are placed on the campus of a public school.

The second part of the amendment would protect schools from lawsuits brought against it by parties claiming offense at the permanent memorials. Districts may seek the assistance of the attorney general in such cases, and, more significantly, are under no obligation to pay plaintiff attorney fees, a prospect that has dissuaded schools from holding services or erect monuments which contain religious elements.

“The Senate has said, by an overwhelming majority, that local communities should have the final say in how they would like to honor the memory of any student of teacher,” Allard said following the vote. “This amendment simply empowers the local community, and does not tamper with the constitutional separation of church and state.”

Allard told the Register that he believes that local communities should be free to determine, without fear of lawsuits, what constitutes an appropriate memorial for its fallen sons and daughters.

He cited a letter sent to him by the parents of Cassie Bernal, the teen-ager who was shot dead in the Library of Columbine High School after affirming her faith in Christ. Allard said that the concern of Bernal's parents figured prominently in his decision to introduce the bill.

Parents' Plea

In the letter, Brad Bernal wrote, “My wife Misty and I both believe any Columbine incident memorial should memorialize each individual in a personal way. Everyone knows ... that Cassie was a very strong Christian. To leave out this facet of her persona would be to mismemorialize her and others.”

Allard asked, “Why is it that we can speak honestly about sports interests or favorite movies of other slain students ... but for students like Cassie, we must omit the most important part of her life?”

But Robert Boston, of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, objected to both the terms of the bill and the intentions of its author.

“The Allard amendment may make people feel good, but it doesn't do anything else,” Boston told the Register, noting that the language of the amendment is non-binding.

He said that political opportunism was the real driving force behind the measure, and accused Senate Republicans of diverting attention from their initial opposition to gun restrictions by adding amendments like Allard's to the Juvenile Justice Bill.

“The students who did the shooting felt isolated from their peers,” Boston said. “Erecting memorials and holding services which contain religious matter only adds to the divisiveness. ... Such things should be turned over to the churches and synagogues.”

Responding to the charge that the amendment lacked force, Allard aide Sean Conway called it “an opportunity for Congress to express an opinion on the Constitution.”

He acknowledged that if lawsuits are filed, they will be settled by courts, not Congress. But he added that “as a co-equal branch of the national government ... Congress is entitled to interpret the Constitution just as the other two branches do. With the Allard amendment, Congress is interpreting the First Amendment consistent with the best traditions of the American republic and the good sense of the American people.”

Regarding the allegation of political opportunism, Conway said, “Senator Allard raised this issue as a response to a real and pressing concern of the people in Littleton, to call this bill opportunistic is itself the height of political opportunism.”

Clinton Support Expected

Allard expressed confidence that Rep. Tancredo's similar measure would win support in the House, and that President Clinton would sign the bill into the law.

“When the president visited Colorado to console the community out there, he was approached by several people who asked him not to veto it,” Allard said. “The president assured them then that he wouldn't.

“Until then, everyone out there has the good word of the Senate that there is nothing to fear in putting up appropriate memorials or holding suitable ceremonies.”

Conway said that the senator saw the need for a bill while attending memorial services in Colorado.

“One of the services had to be held in the parking lot of a movie theater because authorities at the local park were fearful of facing lawsuits over violations of the First Amendment,” Conway said. “There is no reason for people to have such a fear.”

Eric Treen of the Beckett Fund agrees. He said his organization, an inter-faith bipartisan public interest law firm based in Arlington, Va., sees nothing unconstitutional in Allard's measure.

Public entities are only found guilty of violating the First Amendment when coercion is involved, he said. “The court also assumes that someone entering Columbine High School is informed ... they assume, for instance, that people have the sense to know what's in front of them, and that a memorial to a particular student is appropriate to that person and not an official school endorsement of a particular faith.

“All that Senator Allard's bill tries to ensure is that parents and others will not be deterred from responding in an appropriate way to these tragic events by a fear of having to answer for their actions in court.”

Brian McGuire writes from Washington, D.C.