A proposed Bill of Rights for school children and teachers who hold religious beliefs sparked a marathon debate today at the Capitol before a panel of lawmakers.  After more than five hours of discussion, it was voted down along party lines late Monday evening by majority Democrats, who said it just wasn’t necessary.

Sponsored by Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, Senate Bill 89 was originally written as a statement of the religious rights of students and teachers but was revised to instead require clarification from the attorney general of Colorado, by memorandum, on issues pertaining to religious expression in schools. Schultheis said he wanted to provide a guide for parents and teachers who are unclear about what their rights are.

“The purpose of the bill is to dispel myths,” the veteran lawmaker told the Senate Judiciary Committee.  “There is a misconception that expressing one’s religious views is somehow prohibited in public schools.”

Schultheis pointed to issues surrounding the Christmas season in public schools as a common example of confusion as to what is and what is not appropriate for those who celebrate the holiday.

“People don’t know what they can and can’t do around Christmas,” he said. “They’re very confused because it (references to Christmas) is generally squelched.”

Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, who noted she is Jewish, said public schools should not favor one religion over another and that religious holiday celebrations should not be a part of school activities at all.

“School is not the place to talk about a religious holiday,” said Hudak, who is a former schoolteacher.  “You need to be aware that there are many children who don’t celebrate Christmas. I feel like a second-class citizen during the holidays.”

Yet, Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, a supporter of the bill, agreed with Schultheis that confusion prevails in public schools as to where the boundaries lie on religion. Lundberg said he supported the bill as a way to clarify for teachers what the law says about what is permissible and not permissible.

“This bill says let’s put the legal facts on the table,” said Lundberg.

Jane Urschel, of the Colorado Association of School Boards, said school districts already have policies that address appropriate religious expression and that the bill is not necessary.  She also expressed concern about the possibility that clarifying the boundaries of religious expression may compromise neutrality by public schools.

“It appears that it promotes the exercise clause rather than remaining neutral,” said Urschal.

Jeff Knetsch of the American Civil Liberties Union said if religious expression is clarified by the attorney general, as proposed in the bill, it might encourage more religious activities in public schools and that the lines between the establishment-of-religion clause and the freedom-of-religion clause in the First Amendment will be tested.

“It (the bill) seems to be a solution in search of a problem, and I’m afraid that it might promote tyranny of the majority,” said Knetsch.

Mark Hotaling of the Christian Family Alliance of Colorado urged the panel to support the bill in the interest of protecting religious freedoms that he said should not be taken for granted in light of the firsthand religious persecution he has seen in many parts of the world.

“This bill protects religious freedom for everyone–the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim and the atheist,” said Hotaling.

Before voting against the bill, two of the four Democratic senators on committee, Linda Newell, of Littleton, and committee Chair Morgan Carroll, of Aurora, said they would be willing to join Schultheis in simply asking Colorado Attorney General John Suthers for a clarification on the issues raised in the bill.