How long to sing this song? Audible sigh.

How often, during GetReligion’s nearly 20 years online, have your GetReligionistas critiqued church-state stories about public schools, libraries and other state-funded facilities in which officials were wrestling with “equal access” guidelines — but it was clear that journalists didn’t know (or didn’t care) that they were covering an “equal access” story?

That was the Big Idea that loomed (once again) over this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). Before we jump into this new case study, let’s do a flashback into a few recent “equal access” headlines at GetReligion:

* “Washington Post looks at 'school choice' bills, and (#surprise) omits 'equal access' info.”

* “Another SCOTUS win for 'equal access,' whether most journalists realized this or not.”

* “Fellowship of Christian Athletes wins an 'equal access' case, even if LATimes missed that.”

* “Reminder to journalists (again): Private schools — left, right — can defend their core doctrines.”

For starters, what are we talking about here? Let’s flash back to a summary that I have used in posts more than once. Sorry for the echo-chamber effect, but that’s kind of the point of this post:

What we keep seeing is a clash between two different forms of “liberalism,” with that term defined into terms of political science instead of partisan politics.

Some justices defend a concept of church-state separation that leans toward the secularism of French Revolution liberalism. The goal is for zero tax dollars to end up in the checkbooks of citizens who teach or practice traditional forms of religious doctrine (while it’s acceptable to support believers whose approach to controversial issues — think sin and salvation — mirror those of modernity).

Then there are justices who back “equal access” concepts articulated by a broad, left-right coalition that existed in the Bill Clinton era. The big idea: Religious beliefs are not a uniquely dangerous form of speech and action and, thus, should be treated in a manner similar to secular beliefs and actions. If states choose to use tax dollars to support secular beliefs and practices, they should do the same for religious beliefs and practices.

At some point, it would be constructive of journalists spotted these “equal access” concepts and traced them to back to their roots in the Clinton era (and earlier). But maybe I am being overly optimistic.

Once again, the Bill Clinton era wasn't about throwing red meat to the Religious Right. Instead, you had old-school First Amendment liberals trying — more often than not — to find ways to prevent “viewpoint discrimination” in the use of public funds and facilities.

The bottom line: Religious speech was not a uniquely dangerous form of activity. Officials should strive to hold secular and religious programs to the same standards. If a school had a voluntary environmental club for students, it could have — well — clubs in various schools to study Dante, C.S. Lewis, Jane Austen or even (#triggerwarning) the Bible. The rules that applied to one would apply to the other.

Here is a key point: Public officials could choose to ban all of these voluntary clubs and activities, thus treating them the same. But the rules that applied to one group would apply to others.

This brings us to the following headline from The Memphis Commercial Appeal: “This Memphis elementary school is poised to hold first 'After School Satan Club' in TN.” Read the overture carefully:

Chimneyrock Elementary, part of Memphis-Shelby County Schools, has multiple afterschool clubs and extracurricular activities for its students. Listed on its website are strings, beta club, Girl Scouts and piano lessons.

But early next year, an entirely different kind of club meeting is slated to be held at the Cordova-based elementary school. On Jan. 10, students will have the opportunity to attend an “After School Satan Club.”

If a reader clicks that embedded school website link, there isn’t much there (to be honest).

What is missing? What other voluntary religious clubs have been approved at this school and by the local and regional educational powers that be? Have any other religious groups — or cultural groups focusing on material with strong religious content — applied for use of school facilities? Were they approved or denied?

Will there be parents who freak out about “After School Satan Club”? Obviously, yes.

Do they have a right to ask questions? Yes, they have right to ask the same questions that, oh, parents active at a Satanic Temple ( or the local Unitarian Universalist congregation, etc.) have the right to ask about evangelicals or conservative Christians sponsoring an after-school “Chronicles of Narnia” reading group, or a Bible study organized by a local Catholic parish.

What kind of questions? Well, what are the rules that apply to this “After School Satan Club” and are they the same as those for other voluntary clubs, secular or religious? Is a faculty or staff sponsor required? Can students attend without the permission of their parents? Do parents have a right to peruse the materials used by the club and ask about planned activities and guest speakers? You get the idea.

Let’s keep reading that Memphis story:

The event is not endorsed or sponsored by MSCS, but rather, by The Reasonable Alliance and The Satanic Temple, a Salem, Massachusetts-based nonprofit that has rented out Chimney Rock’s library for the meeting. A flyer, posted on The Satanic Temple’s Facebook page, reads “Hey Kids! Let’s have fun at the After-School Satan club.” Held from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., the event is expected to offer science projects, community service projects, puzzles and games, natural activities, arts and crafts, and snacks.

The top of the flyer also boasts the caption “After School Satan Club is coming to Tennessee,” right next to a cartoon image of a red, horned, devil with a mustache, goatee, and big grin on his face. But while the flyer touts a stereotypical devil, it maintains that the organization views the devil as a “literary figure who represents a metaphorical construct of rejecting tyranny and championing the human mind and spirit.”

Ah, Satan is merely a metaphor. This club’s focus focuses on science and literature. Have school officials accepted those claims while, let’s say, denying requests from openly religious groups?

But, wait:

The “After School Satan Clubs,” the flyer claims, emphasize a “scientific, rationalist, non-superstitious worldview,” and offer activities centered around The Satanic Temple’s seven tenets, which can be found on its website. The website also asserts that The Satanic Temple is the “primary religious satanic organization in the world,” and that its mission is to “encourage benevolence and empathy, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense, oppose injustice, and Undertake noble pursuits.”

Thus, Satan is a metaphor, but also The Satanic Temple is “the ‘primary religious satanic organization in the world.” The word “religious” is in play, here.

Does this club have “equal access” rights? I would assume so — the same rights as those of other secular and/or religious clubs in this school or educational district.

Will that make some parents uncomfortable? Yes, as uncomfortable as secular parents about their children being invited, by friends, to the voluntary Rosary Hour or a club dedicated to studying the moral and religious content of “The Lord of the Rings,” or similar works. As uncomfortable as secular parents whose children attend an evangelical club and then are baptized without permission from their family.

Will the Satan clubs show up in other schools? Of course they will (ask the ACLU).

Will there be journalists covering these religion-beat stories without realizing that there are established church-state guidelines involved in these debates that apply to believers and unbelievers of various tribes? Alas, I think we know the answer to that.

Enjoy the podcast and please pass it on to others. And don’t forget that you can subscribe at Apple Podcasts.

FIRST IMAGE: Graphic on the website of the After School Satan Club network.