The recent demolition of Texas Stadium saddened me for reasons I could not explain. What I can admit, though, is that now I have football in my mind. As I now live in Georgia, I reflect on Georgia football—specifically the Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School football program and its cheerleaders. Located somewhere in north Georgia (I admit I have not bothered to look it up), this high school endured public scrutiny last October, 2009 when someone complained about the cheerleader practice of holding up large signs decorated with Scripture for the team’s break-through on the field. A Ph. D. education student at Liberty University alerted the school about possible Constitutional problems associated with this practice. The school principal mused about the “flap and the amount of attention it’s gotten nation wide.” Apparently, this practice is not new and has been going on for six years. The cheerleading coach, Susan Bradley, mentioned her familiarity of the practice from as far back as 2001 in response to 9/11 and the nation’s efforts to rally toward God. The community definitely rallied behind the school. Nearly 12,000 supporters signed a Facebook page created by a local youth pastor. Students attending games peppered the stands with Scripture-bearing signs, some students painted Bible verses on their bodies and players gathered at midfield to pray. One cheerleader commented that this practice seemed so benign when compared to the cheerleaders in one Atlanta suburb who were recently accused of licentiously provocative dancing in front of football players at a pep rally.
Just how benign is a 30 X 15 foot sign painted with Scripture for the football team to burst through on their way to brutal and violent play? Bradley offered that this could not be illegal because the girls fundraised the money for the signs and it was a student-led activity. The school class president declared that the cheerleaders just wanted to inspire and motivate the players and the fans. The Lemon test, hard to die since it is so simple to apply, might allow that (1) the secular purpose is as the class president claims—motivation and inspiration for players and fans; (2) it apparently does inspire and motivate the fans—they attend games—and maybe the players, it is difficult to say since they seem to lose a lot; and (3) the girls did raise the money for the signs, but then they displayed the signs on school district property lit up by lights paid for by the school district (read taxpayers). Or we could stick to O’Connor’s Endorsement test: Is this an invocation of religion and does it cause outsiders discomfort? Has the school been neutral to religion? What is a reasonable accommodation of religion for this community? In a small north Georgia community of less than 10,000, a community that most likely has a long history of religion in the public school despite Supreme Court rulings may very well want their boys to punch through a Scriptural blessing on their way to possible glory. There may be a newcomer in town that may feel uncomfortable with this overtly obvious public display of religion. People interviewed admitted that only Christian verses would be acceptable and other religion’s philosophies would not be received well. Is it, under this circumstance, possible for the school district to be neutral? There seems to be two realities here. First, I cannot see how this practice could be declared Constitutional as it fails every Supreme Court test. Second, taking something endeared by this community, something clean and wholesome (if slightly sacrilegious), and something important to the students away to be replaced by something safely secular is profoundly sad. Whether a matter of state endorsement of religion or of free exercise of religion, the people of this community lose something fundamental to their community’s identity. Too much and too obvious religion may be bad, but to a certain extent, too much and too obvious secularism may be bad too.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I did do some research and found out this is a public school so I hope that helps out my argument. I understand that the practice has been going on for six years and the cheerleaders were only trying to raise spiritual awareness to lead their team to victory, but constitutional law still needs to be respected. I believe that the O’Connor Endorsement test dealing with making someone feel uncomfortable will be the primary focus as rival teams and new student might feel offended by these religious scriptures surrounding them. The school may have the best intentions but the constitutional law must still be respected football team or no football team.
I'm not sure this is an issue of constitutionality and may be more in line with graduation ceremonies where the speaker is student chosen. In this case especially, since a football game is voluntary for non-students it is a very gray area. Likely this type of display would come under the heading of Free Speech vs. Establishment since the school is not directly involved in either the promotion or funding of such activities. While distasteful to some, it would likely not be ruled unconstitutional should the question arise. Anything done by people in the stands is likewise Free Speech, so the school seems to be insulated from any legal entanglements.
In some ways this case reminds me of Sante Fe v. Jane Doe. In that case, it was ruled that it was a violation of the Establishment Clause for a prayer to be said over the intercom by a student before a football game. Here, as pointed out in the other posts, it seems a little different. Since the money was raised independently by the cheerleaders there is no official "endorsement" by the school. Like in Sante Fe, it would most likely come down to the details and require a great deal of scrutiny on behalf of the Court to find out whether the practice was being endorsed by the school in any way. I am inclined to think, based on the Sante Fe case, that there will be no unconstitutionality found here.
This reminds me of all the times that I have walked through the local mall and been given a little book with a smiley face on it that says "Jesus loves you, Smile." As soon as the person turns the corner i throw the book away. I am religious. I am Catholic and I go to mass on Sunday and to confession at the least once a month. I will also be the first to say that I feel very uncomfortable when people hanf me those little books. I feel uncomfortable a services that are not of my religion. For this reason I did not attend my graduation Baccalaureate because it was at a Baptist church. I will not criticize anothers religion (do what you do) but I also have the right to not have to look at signs that advocate something that I do not believe in. In the south we have a saying that I take to heart and believe in very much. "At the dinner table there should never be talk about money,politics and religion." for the obvious reason that it makes people heated and uncomfortable. I understand that this takes place in the heart of the south and I assume the the people feel passionate about football and about religion. Trust me being Central American I know what it is like to go to church and pary before a soccer game and cry during the national amthem of your country (South Africa here I come.) but in the end much like the others are saying. The law is the law and the constitution itself, I agree that this should not be allowed because you have a large group of people that are witness to something that potentially makes them uncomfortabl. I feel that it is in fact the duty of this government to protect the rights of it's citizens to go to a High School football game and enjoy it without feeling like they are at Sunday service.
Post a Comment