Last October I reported that cheerleaders in Kountze, Texas, were displaying Christian banners, with slogans from the New Testament, at high-school football games. The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) brought suit against the school district, maintaining, correctly, that such displays violated the First Amendment, which prohibits government endorsement of religion. The case was then working its way through the courts after the displays were first rejected and then reinstated by a higher court.
ABC News reports this week that a state district court has ruled, however, that the banners are legal:
State District Judge Steven Thomas determined the Kountze High School cheerleaders’ banners are constitutionally permissible. In the ruling, Thomas determined that no law “prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed banners at school sporting events.”
The Kountze school district had initially said the banners could not be displayed after receiving a complaint about them in September from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The foundation argued the banners violated the so-called First Amendment Establishment Clause that bars government — or publicly funded school districts in this case — from establishing or endorsing a religion.
Thomas ruled that the establishment clause does not prohibit the use of such religious-themed banners at school sporting events.
“This is a great victory for the cheerleaders and now they’re going to be able to have their banners,” said Hiram Sasser, a lead attorney for the Liberty Institute, a Plano, Texas-based nonprofit law firm that represented the cheerleaders.
. . . The cheerleaders in Kountze, located about 95 miles northeast of Houston, were supported by various state officials, including Gov. Rick Perry and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who filed court papers seeking to intervene on their behalf. A Facebook group created after the ban, Support Kountze Kids Faith, has more than 45,000 members.
Abbott praised the court’s ruling on Wednesday, calling it a “victory for religious liberties.”
Perry in a statement said the cheerleaders “showed great resolve and maturity beyond their years in standing up for their beliefs and constitutional rights.”
Constitutional rights? What reading of the Constitution allows such rights?
It is, of course, settled law that schools cannot have official prayers broadcast before sporting events. The cheerleaders are representatives of the school, wearing school uniforms. I don’t get the difference.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s co-president, Annie Laurie Gaylor, was disappointed with the ruling, saying the banners “carry the appearance of school endorsement and favoritism, turning Christians into insiders and non-Christians and nonbelievers into outsiders.”
The Anti-Defamation League also criticized the ruling, calling it “misguided” and saying it “flies in the face of clear U.S. Supreme Court and other rulings.”
Curiously, attorneys for the school district advised the schools that these displays violated constitutional law:
Attorneys for the Kountze school district, in initially advising the superintendent to ban the religious statements on the cheerleaders’ banners, argued there have been several precedent-setting rulings by the Supreme Court.
In one of the more well-known cases, the court ruled in 2000 that a practice of allowing student-led prayer ahead of high school football games in Texas’ Santa Fe Independent School District violated the Constitution. In 1992, the Supreme Court made a similar ruling in a Rhode Island case that argued a rabbi’s prayer at a middle school graduation ceremony also violated the Constitution.
But public sentiment, combined with the pro-religion stance of state officials, was too strong. And the judge is wrong. Let’s hope that the FFRF appeals.
The forces of religion are ever busy feeding in America, and don’t care about the Constitution. What would happen if the cheerleaders displayed banners with verses from the Qur’an?
Really, who can argue that this is legal?:
J-E-S-U-S Jesus! Jesus! He’s the best!
Will the opposing team’s banner proclaim “OUR JESUS IS BETTER THAN YOUR JESUS”?
Gott mit uns!
I wish I could surreptitiously influence the cheerleaders to put this up because it would be so devilishly meaningful 🙂
Yeah! The explosion of political correctness would be wonderful and Bill O’Reilly would have apoplexy. Sure you can’t sneak into the cheer room and spray paint one of their banners or something? :).
Give me a G .. Give me an O .. Give me a D!!!
Does that spell? DOG!
BEAST!!!!
I’m sorry, but even if it is a public high school, I don’t see how cheerleaders holding up a banner is even remotely government endorsement of religion.
Does music played at the school dance after the game imply government endorsement of the values in the music? No.
Now if Hindu cheerleaders at that school wanted to do a Hindu banner and were not allowed to while the Christian cheerleaders get to do theirs, then there’s a problem.
Of course it’s government endorsement of religion because the public schools are a branch of the government, and cheerleaders are representatives of the schools. If students can’t lead prayers before games, why should student cheerleaders be able to display religious banners?
But what about when they play “We will Rock you” – is that government endorsement of Queen? Or “Another One Bites the Dust” – is that government endorsement of violence?
Of course not.
I think these banners are stupid and I think the school should have a policy against religious banners being displayed like that, but it is not a violation of the first amendment.
What? Nobody in their right mind would interpret the music titles you cited as an endorsement of anything. The school would not allow inappropriate music for school organized dances. If the music at the school dance was violent, proselytizing, racist or jihadist music that would be ok? No. This is the analogy that is more appropriate here.
In this case Christianity is given a special exemption for proselytizing within a public institution.
If only we got to recite the lyrics to “We Will Rock You” instead of the Lord’s Prayer in my school when I was a kid – maybe I wouldn’t have gotten so many headaches when I was forced to do something that I didn’t believe in but to afraid to protest because I didn’t want to be singled out and bullied.
*too afraid to
Even being a Christian, I think it is a violation. Public funding goes into the school district. The school’s name and logo are on the uniforms. Without a doubt it associates Christianity with the school and is a violation in the most obvious way.
The other thing is what if there are cheerleaders who don’t hold the beliefs expressed on the banners? It is Texas so its unlikely, however, how would a Muslim feel holding up a Jesus banner? Would the school allow a banner for Mohammed? What about an atheist? Would people like that be allowed to say they do not agree with the routines and not take part?
This is the key issue, the implicit coercion that is involved. To be a cheerleader you have to endorse a Christian message? And the fact that the majority there will be Christian is all the more reason to enforce the bill of rights. If the school were half jewish, Muslim, or atheist already it’d be harder to be coercive just as a matter of local politics. It’s when there are only a few of you that you need protection.
Oddly, given that I’m a nonbeliever, what chaps me most is how terribly offensive the whole attitude is to the kind of Christianity I was brought up with. If they are “Christians”, I judge that they are doing it wrong. I know, I know, Jesus said awful things, Christianity is operationally defined, etc. Still, the Christianity I was raised with emphasized, right after no dancing or drinking ;-), the idea that Christianity was about putting everyone, even your enemies, before yourself. This was the key message of my childhood Christianity and, I’d wager, the key message these kids hear in their churches also. But clearly, it is pure selfishness to consider only your own religious feelings and to ignore the feelings of even few people in your school who may not share your religion. To not consider how it might be to be a Jew, Hindu, Muslim, or Athiest who would like to become a cheerleader, player, or other participant who must operate under your banner is just selfish and shows them to be not crusaders for an ideal but garden variety self-serving hypocrites.
The first amendmendment says congress shall pass no law… The establishment clause specifically has to do with the passing of law, law that either sets up a religion or inhibits the free practice of religion.
What is happening here is something worth being upset about, but again, it is not a violation of the first amendment.
When Congress sand “God Bless America” on the steps after the 9/11 attack, was that a violation of the establishment clause?
Of course it wasn’t.
The dj at the school party is not espousing an ideology, let alone a religious ideology. You may recall that the constitution expressly bars the endorsement of religion; there is no prohibition against endorsing Queen. Also, the phrase make no law has been interpreted to mean persons acting on behalf of the government. Do you really think there’s no 1st Amendment problem if persons acting on behalf of the government intimidate people with their religious beliefs just as long as they don’t go to the trouble of actually passing a law to do it?
I’m sorry, but you are flying in the face of settled law. If there is “no law passed,” then is it okay for schools to teach Christian views in science classes? For courthouses to erect crosses on their lawns? The First Amendment has always been interpreted, as it was intended by its framers, as a way to keep government disentangled from religion: to erect the famous church-state wall. So you think the courts were mistaken in disallowing public prayer by school officials or students before games because there was “no law passed”? I’m sorry, but your interpretation of the first amendment is unique–and wrong. According to you, every activity of the FFRF is a big mistake.
Teaching christian values in a class is vastly different scenario than a banner and an extra-curricular activity and you know it.
For starters, students are required by law to go to school. Secondly, students have to learn the material in order to pass tests that allow them to succeed in school which is necessary to succeed in life.
The First Amendment has always been interpreted, as it was intended by its framers, as a way to keep government disentangled from religion.
Never understood how the ‘framers’ who in later 1700s had authorized prayer before congressional meetings, chaplains for the military, national days of prayer, thanksgiving and fasting, bible sponsorship and publication etc would compose a First Amendment that they themselves would be directly guilty of violating?
It’s fairly clear that the Framers intended to avoid the English experience (or for that matter, the earlier experience of some American colonies) and avoid the establishment of an official state religion, with the resulting oppression, religious wars, etc. They did not intend to restrict the exercise of religion in either public or private spaces.
It’s long been a chestnut of US History that the Establishment Clause forbidding a national church was the product of tolerance and foresight. In the book Founding Faith: Providence, Politics and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America, author Stephen Waldman presents quite a different picture. The Congregationalists hated the Methodists, the Methodists hated the Presbyterians, the Anglicans (who became the Episcopalians to shed their royalist associations with the Church of England) hated the Baptists (who could be jailed for preaching in Virginia) and almost everyone hated the Quakers and Catholics who were lucky to have states of their own (Pennsylvania and Maryland, respectively) and Jews were not held in very high esteem, either. Waldman reports that the sentiment ran so high, that some would rather see a “Mahometan” or a “heathen” occupy public office rather than let the papists or the Puritans have the upper hand*.
*If you want to find the source for this information, go to your public library and get Waldman’s book. I’m not going to reread the entire thing for the sake of one comment.
I am all for the heathens taking over!
Another chestnut is the notion that the freedoms – Speech, Press, Religion, Assembly, Redress – were so important that they were put into the first amendment to highlight their primacy. This is not true. The Bill of Rights originally had twelve articles, but only the last ten of them became the first amendments to the US Constitution.
What we now call the First Amendment was originally the Third. The original First Amendment dealt with congressional apportionment and was never ratified. Technically, it is still pending, 224 years later. The original Second Amendment dealt with congressional pay raises and was finally ratified in 1992 as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, after a delay of only 203 years (and you thought this congress was do-nothing).
This is one of the reasons that newly proposed amendments commonly carry a clause that lets the matter expire if not ratified within seven years (which is how Schlafly and the Republicans were able to kill the ERA).
I wonder if other religions can ask for equal time on the banners?
The Church of Scientology could offer free personality tests.
I’ll bet Westboro Baptist has a few things they’d like to say too.
Ha! I usually try very hard to see both sides and be sensitive to all involved, but even I would find it pretty funny if the FFR Foundation showed up at every game various random banners. Zoroastrianism, Wiccan, etc. Ok, ok, that would probably not be helpful in building bridges and I don’t actually endorse such a thing. But I would find it pretty funny. No matter what your feelings on religion, the law is the law, and I am more inclined to feel a bit outraged when I see what (appears to be) our courts doing a dubious job of upholding it.
But that’s exactly what they should do if this activity is allowed to proceed.
You might remember that the entusiasm for nativity scenes on public property was defeated with this tactic. Atheists entered the bidding and obtained most of the permits and beat the religionists at their own game.
Anyway, good luck with the bridge building.
How about this banner with help from the Koran:
Destroy Jefferson High!
Hell blazes fiercely enough. We shall send those who reject Our revelations to the Fire. When their skins have been burned away, We shall replace them with new ones so that they may continue to feel the pain: God is mighty and wise.
Go Franklin High!
Or…
We deal out such days among people in turn, for God to find out who truly believes, for Him to choose martyrs from among you—God does not love evildoers—for Him to cleanse those who believe and for Him to destroy the disbelievers.
Yeeaaaah! *pom-pom shake…jumping split kick*
Wow, that is a Christopher Guest movie waiting to happen. Can you not see Eugene Levy standing there as the bumbling dad, saying “So, ah, well, after that final lawsuit we had to be sensitive to all religious groups, so… ah, yeah, but it’s great, you know it’s great!! Been a really positive experience for all the kids in, you know (fist swing) getting to know all God’s different children – groups of his children, I guess and…” Cue football team trying to tear through the banner before running on to the field as offended fans in the stands threaten to riot… “Oh, oh no guys, no, remember, we talked about this, we run through the green banner when the game starts, the green banner…guys, guys</i)!!"
I really do think they have a Lemon v. Kurtzman problem.
Intended or not, the actions of the cheerleaders have the primary effect of not only advancing religion, but a particular religion to the exclusion of others.
Saying that they are doing so as private citizens while wearing school uniforms during school events is disingenuous.
I see two avenues for relief: stop the action or allow equal access to the forum.
“Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Fhtagn! We’ll be eaten first!”
There will be a minority of atheists and people of other religions at these events. Do you think they’d feel comfortable expressing their beliefs in a similar fashion under such circumstances?
How about everyone making up their own banners for display at games: For atheists, “godless & proud”; For hindus & buddhists, “I’ve been doing the split for my last 3 lives”, etc.?
With a few exceptions, school officials are very concerned over the music played at school dances. Parents will complain about content and behaviors like grinding.
Of course, the more offensive the song, the more the kids will request it. They know the words, so school dances don’t teach them anything. But the officials have to answer to the parents if they permit it at the dances.
It is government endorsement and even sponsorship, big time! Hell every bit of that game is likely government funded–the field, grounds keeping, cheerleading uniforms, football equipment. They probably got the markers used in making the banners from the art classroom. The soda and hotdogs they sell probably go to a school fund. Obviously this is a public school event. obviously holding up these religious banners shows a preference for Christianity. The banners clearly violate the first amendment. This thing doesn’t stand a chance in a real court room, with a real judge. The judge in this case was a Bible thumping jackass.
Isn’t having an extra player on your side cheating?
…not if the extra player doesn’t exist.
Careful, young Christians!
Phil. 4:12, 1 verse before their quote.
As for ‘victory’ from 1 Corinthians, seems a bit hyperbolic to compare victory over death with a college gridiron game.
Simultaneous humility and conceit on these Christians’ part; pride comes before a fall, as I suspect some sanctimonious biblical author proselytizes somewhere.
I brought this problem up on Brayton’s blog: the position it places the football players in. Apparently these banners are held up so that the football team can run through them — thereby signalling to one and all that Jesus gives them strength.
So what happens if and when a player who is Muslim, pagan, atheist, or simply a Christian who feels this is wrong refuses to run with the rest of the team? The school has now set up a situation where the coach, the players, the fans, the students, the school and the entire damn community can see and note that hey hey hey — look at the infidel! He doesn’t love Jesus! He’s disrespecting God right in front of us and offending our values! He refused to join in. He is publicly ‘outed.’
That would not end well.
No public school should ever be responsible for allowing a situation like that to happen. It’s a set up which will create a religious litmus test for public approval and team spirit. And of course any girl who wants to join the cheerleader squad and says “since I’m not Christian I wouldn’t want to participate in the standard, normal, school approved routine with the Bible verses” — well, she can kiss off any possibility of qualifying no matter how well qualified she is. She won’t be sufficiently pious.
The Christians who applaud this ruling either haven’t thought it through or really, really don’t care what happens nonchristian students. My guess is a combination of both — with an accent on the last alternative.
Exactly – it forces conformity with religion that makes those who do not agree stand out so they can be ridiculed.
American Atheists should hand out pamphlets during the game so that equal time is given to atheism too. 😉
Personally, I think having government money issued with “In God We Trust” should be prohibited too. It’s just as offensive as those German military belt buckles that said “Gott Mit Uns”. You should just send all of that offending U.S. currency to me and I’ll dispose of it for you.
And by the way, who cares if German soldiers have mittens or not? Let their hands freeze!
LOL
I hope you understand the consequences of stealing my joke. Got mittens. If you send me all your money now, I will withhold legal action.
I think the argument is that the banners are the sentiments not of the school but the personal religious expression of the student cheerleaders.
It is interesting that these *religious* free speech rights of students are being held as protected, because free speech rights of students are generally limited – especially if they denigrate The Anointed Savior, as in Morse v. Frederick, where the free speech right of a student to publicly display a banner which proclaimed “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” was over ruled by school policy against drug use.
Once again, we see that religious free speech is the most privileged speech of all.
Disclaimers: my degrees are in Economics and Mathematics; second, I am a hard core skeptic and atheist; third, I am a libertarian and firmly believe the government that governs least governs best.
What it comes down to is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”.
The Courts have consistently held that these restrictions and rights are neutral. Neither for or against. And neither are restricted as to place. What is clear is the state may neither sponsor nor restrict religion and it definitely cannot restrict free speech.
So whether or not I agree or disagree with someone I can’t shut them up.
The question here is whether cheerleaders cheering at a school event are representing the school/state … or just themselves. If it’s the former then the state is sponsoring a religion. It’s not about whether we agree with or like the message.
I think they’re clearly representing the school. They are a school organization, they wear school uniforms, etc. They are just as much a representative of the school as are the sports teams themselves.
Remember, in the U.S., at least, cheerleaders are a school ORGANIZATION, representing the school at both home and away games.
Exactly.
One can only HOPE for other banners from different religions (Judaism, Islam, Hindu, and most definitely Satanism, Voodoo and Pastafarianism) .. I bet that that would immediately expose the incredible hypocrisy here .. and they will definitely shut up about ‘freedom of religion’ (well, except for the usual few that wouldn’t get the irony and the ones who interpreted ‘religion’ exclusively as ‘MY religion’)
LOL. Hey, at least you didn’t have to press #1 for English!
I’m a non-bleiver, so perhaps my opinion is moot. But why would god or Jesus give a flying f**k who wins a high school football game, anyway?
Well, if Jesus doesn’t think football is just the most important thing, he can just fV<|< o##
My favorite sports banner of all time:
When Sparky Lyle was the closer for the New York Yankees back in the 1970’s, some clever fan would hold up a banner reading “Sparky Saves” every time he came in to close the game.
My favorite graffiti of all time: Some clever dude in Boston c. 1970 or so, was defacing all the bank ads in subway stations and on the Green Line trolly cars with “Jesus Saves.”
And when the team loses? I guess that means Jesus was angry with them for being sinners?
Or it means that one team member is secretly a gay atheist socialist.
You forgot Kenyan Muslim Nazi commie.
Perhaps they think Jesus wants to teach them humility? Ad hoc hypotheses are not so hard to find when you are in magical thinking mode.
Desnes Diev
This judge may be a local hero now, but when this gets overturned on appeal, as is likely, and if FFRF gets awarded costs, as they often are, it should become obvious that he’s done the school district a tremendous disservice with this ruling.
Using Pascal Boyer’s handle on the appeal of religious belief, that is, it is a familial extension onto the supernatural sphere, I interpret these banners basically as a means to keep the kids feeling psychologically supported and secure. Losing matters less if you feel you were doing the best for your family, and they were rooting for you. Religious belief is embraced for the emotional comfort it gives, not because it offers intellectual coherence and honesty.
Allowing the cheerleaders’ behaviour–wearing uniforms issued by a governmentally funded school while screaming their Christian sentiments–has caused a few bricks in the wall separating church and state to crumble. Each nod to the comfort religious belief brings further weakens this wall.
Neither freedom of religion and speech would be violated if they were not allowed to chant Jesus–they could pray silently or together in private before making their public appearance, they could express their religious sentiments as individuals to any journalist covering the event, on and on.
Yeah, Jesus knows what’s in your heart, you don’t ned no friggin’ banners proclaiming it!
These high school banners, I think, are not meant to be prayerful requests for divine favor on the gridiron, but, rather, they’re inspirational and exuberantly proselytizing as well. So, similar banners held up by the opposing team’s cheerleaders would be welcome. It’s all about “Play hard, lads, and may the best Christians win.” The victory belongs to Jesus either way.
But I think it takes all the fun out of it to know that Jesus is intervening! And what if one team hired a “ringer” (a priest or other holy person)? What if one team had the foresight to pray to Pope John (now in heaven) and who is credited with healing a woman with Parkinson’s? Giving a team victory in a basketball game would be a piece of cake for the deceased Pope! But what if one team decided to enlist Satan’s help like the Haitians did to gain their freedom from the French? Wow! A preview of Armageddon! “And in this corner…dressed in Black, Satan Mephistopheles — “The Horned Harrier”! And his opponent in this corner… in the white robes, Jesus the Just, Savior of the World!” I think there should be a separation of religion and athletics.
Impossible. Sports is a religion.
Wrong. Sports IS religion.
So what’s the difference?
Texas as a whole may soon find itself with more pressing concerns.
Sydney Australia as well. But I don’t know what they did to deserve it.
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/man-who-ate-slug-critically-ill-20100513-v0lz.html
Turns out the poor snail was falsely accused: http://bit.ly/YxhpAd
Ah, good that the FFRF is still on the case, then.
While I don’t care a figure about high school football (if I’m not mistaken, the only thing a high school football game decides is who gets to screw the cheerleaders) and, of course, approve of all the suggestions for hindu, muslim, and atheist signs (although we don’t really want atheism to be thought of as yet another religion, do we?), might it not be more effective to have our fellow rationalists hold up signs with bible verses on them? Here are a few suggestions:
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones” (Psalm 137.9).
“So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14.33).
“Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two. At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar” (1 Chronicles 26:17-18).
Or, if paraphrasing and abridging are OK, then a simple “bats are birds!”
figure –> fig
sub
It’s not going to happen, but it’d be pretty funny if an opposing school’s team decided to ride out onto the field in iron chariots…
I don’t think citizens in the far right corner have any ground to complain about liberal activist judges. This poor deluded man brought a decision that is so obviously in violation of the Separation Clause that a fourth grader could have made the call. Talk about activism and judgment error….
What happens when they lose?
Would God Almighty be so kind as to do something about malnutrition and the AIDS epidemic in Africa instead of wasting his time giving victory to one college football team over another? Priorities, for pity’s sake!
Gee, before I flushed tis morning. I saw a sign of Geebus… This is just some more sh*t!