The Cameron High School Football team in Missouri faced complaints about the head Coach, Jeff Wallace, and assistant coach, David Stucky, for holding religious prayer on the fifty yard line before and after the games with their players. The coaches were not only reading and discussing bible verses, they would often bring in outside preachers to lead the prayers. On other occasions, the opponent team would sometimes join the prayer as well. Jeff Speer, a parent of players on the team, stated that it is his children's interest to pray and they were not forced. “If it were a situation where a coach or even another student said, ‘Get over here and pray,’ and that kid didn’t want to be a part of it, I understand,” he said, “but they all want to be a part of it.” (The Blaze).
However, not everyone is a fan of this religious ceremony. A member of the community sent a complaint to The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) who ordered the school to investigate and discontinue this prayer conducted by faculty members. The FFRF is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to defend the constitutional separation between religion and government. The FFRF protested that it was illegal "for public school athletic coaches to lead their teams in prayer or religious worship..." (The Blaze). This is not FFRF’s first rodeo. They have also demanded that other schools such as Putnam City High School in Oklahoma City, follow the establishment clause by not allowing this high school to have a local pastor lead the football team in prayer before games. After the FFRF created this demand, the football team changed its ritual to now having a ‘moment of silence’ which is lead by the students.
The issue that arises in this article questions if this religious prayer with the students and coaches at the football games violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The FFRF defended the establishment clause of the First Amendment and deemed that there needs to be a separation between church and state. The act of faculty to join in and lead prayers or religious worship is illegal. In addition, the sole fact that this religious warship is being held on government property crosses the line between church and state.
Football games in Missouri is the social center of most communities. Having these prayers being a part of the event itself, many people in the community can be coerced to participate in this religious prayer as well.
To reference Lynch v Donnelly 1984, the precedent set in this case has a clear overlap. First the endorsement test proposed in this case, examines whether the reasonable observer views that government action adds to an endorsement of a religion. The public high school coaches are employed by the government. By them having anything to do with this prayer, created a sense of favor in religious activity. The fact that other schools sometimes participate in this prayer results in the coercion of that particular religion.
In addition, to reference Santa Fe Independent School v. Doe (2000), the court ruled that the school’s policies allowing student led and initiated prayer at football games does in fact violate the Establishment clause. The court's ruling was based upon the certainty that the football game prayers were public speech which was authorized by a public school which is government funded. It can be perceived that the government is endorsing the religious prayers which violates the Establishment Clause.
In my opinion, I have more of a separationalist approach on this matter, meaning that there should be no bridge between state and religion. First, the school is promoting this event by hosting it on government owned property which associates the government with these prayers. This event however, is not voluntary for everyone. The athletes made a commitment to the team to be there and coaches are getting paid to be there as well making this event not voluntary for them. If the coaches don't show up, they do not get their paycheck and if the athletes don't show up, they do not get to play. There also has to be some type of organization for this event by the coaches even after the FFRF demanded the coaches to stay away. The speech or moment of silence given by the students is not religiously neutral and favors the majority religion in Missouri which is predominantly Prodostant. There is an understanding that this has been a tradition for many years but doesn't justify the fact that it favors religion at a secular event.
Garcia, Carlos. “Atheist Group Demands Missouri High School's Football Coaches Stop Praying with Players.” TheBlaze, TheBlaze, 8 Nov. 2019, www.theblaze.com/news/atheist-org-demands-missouri-school-stop-football-prayer.
5 comments:
I both agree and disagree with the points the author made. As an accommodationist, I think that the act of prayer on public grounds is constitutional and would not be government endorsement to the reasonable observer. However, I do think that coercion plays a huge role in this scenario mainly because of the power dynamics between the coach and the players. Because of this, I would prefer if a student-led the prayer or if instead of prayer it was as they eventually allowed a moment of silence where individuals could do something or nothing. If students then wanted to have a group prayer they could also do that. The endorsement of the prayer by the coach is where my main problem aligns but as long as the prayer is voluntary with little to no coercion and is open to all religions (or lack thereof) then it should be permitted.
I agree with Jala that the issue of coercion cannot be ignored here. Although a parent argued that all of the players "want to pray" we cannot ignore the social pressures of football in this community, parental messaging, or the sheer power the coach holds over players and their pre-game rituals. Even if they all consent to the prayer, at the end of the day it is still on government property and more importantly led by a government employee or sanctioned by a government employee.
I believe that coach-led prayer should not be allowed before or after these football games. Especially if the coaches bring in outside preachers, they should not be able to do this. Just because some may think that everyone wants to be involved in this prayer does not mean that it should happen. Students could feel pressured to have to prayer along because of what their coaches and teammates are doing. They also could feel coerced by the prayers that are happening.
I agree with the author that these coach-led prayers either before or after football games is unconstitutional. Since this is taking place on government property where both the coaches and football players are required to be there, I believe that this is coercive because it is not a voluntary event. This shows many similarities to the case that Meghan referred to that we read in class Santa Fe Independent School v. Doe, where the Supreme Court decided that student led and initiated prayer at football games was an establishment of religion. For these reasons, I believe that these coach-led prayers are unconstitutional.
I agree with the author that the coach-led prayer before or after the football game is unconstitutional. I see this as an endorsement of religion by the state since the coaching staff are all paid by the state. The prayer is also being conducted on state grounds. In regards to coercion, I believe athletes and coaches are being coerced into being apart of this prayer event because although fans do not have to be at the game, players and coaches do.
Post a Comment