Florida Law Allowing Prayers Before A Game

On March 17th, the Florida House Secondary Education & Career Development Subcommittee voted 13-4 to approve a bill that would require the Florida High School Athletic Association to give each competing team an opportunity to address the crowd over a public announcement system before each game. This would be for no more than two minutes each, but according to Republican Rep. Webster Barnaby this address could include prayer. This law would apply to public and private schools. 

 

The two main sponsors for this bill are Republican Rep. Webster Barnaby and Republican Rep. Clay Yarborough. Rep. Barnaby’s main argument in support of this bill centers around the fact that in many other governmental institutions, such as the House of Representatives, prayers are commonplace. He is even quoted saying “I recall the first day that when all of us sat in that House, we opened the House of Representatives with what? Prayer. No one objected to the prayer that was said in the House of Representatives. If it's good enough for us as representatives it ought to be good enough for our children.” Rep. Yarborough, in agreement with Rep. Barnaby, said the bill “was filed because several years ago two Christian schools faced each other in a football championship game were told by the state athletic association that they couldn't deliver a prayer to the crowd before the game”. The language of the bill is such that the Florida High School Athletic Association “may not control, monitor, or review the content of the opening remarks and may not control the school’s choice of speaker”. This was done to show that the association was not responsible and that whatever was said during this period of free speech was not reflective of the views of the state, as to not excessively entangle the state with religion if this time was used for prayer.

 

Many who oppose this bill have raised concerns about the lack of control over the student’s messages and claim this would inevitably lead to issues such as teams delivering negative messages about other teams and the entanglement of state and religion if employees of the state, such as teachers, were delivering these messages. Additionally, they claim that if this message was allowed to include prayers this would lead to students of different faiths competing for the time and their message. Democratic Rep. Susan Valdes, a former Hillsborough County School Board member, said “I’m concerned that maybe these freedoms might be taken to a different level and create a problem. The intent of the bill, I get it. I’m concerned more about the practicality and the processes of how these policies would be taken into effect.” This bill still needs approval from one more committee before being passed.

 

The key issue in this case is whether or not the speech given by the team would be considered private speech, during which they could choose to say a prayer, or public speech where what they say would be representative of the government. If the students choose to pray, this raises the issue of if this speech means that the government is simply allowing individuals the choice to exercise their free speech rights. Additionally, this would also raise concerns regarding if this can be considered indirect aid to religion.

 

Two cases that deal with similar issues are Marsh v. Chambers and Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe. In the Marsh case, a Nebraska lawmaker challenged the states chaplaincy practice in federal court. This practice involved the offering of a prayer at the beginning of each legislative session by a chaplain chosen by the state and paid out of public funds. The court ruled 6-3 to uphold the chaplaincy practice because of the “historical custom” of this practice, and Justice Burger went on to say that because this practice was “part of the fabric of our society” it is not an establishment of religion. This is important to this case because it shows the court has a history of upholding prayers as not an establishment of religion, and that the historical precedent and significance of these sorts of prayers weighs heavily in the court’s decision. However, it is also important to point out that the court ignored the Lemon test in reaching their decision in this case. The Sante Fe Independent School District case was a challenge against the practice of an elected student delivering a prayer of the schools PA system before each home varsity football game. In this case, the court ruled 6-3 that student-initiated prayers at a football game violated the Establishment clause. They reached this decision because they decided that the policy involved both perceived and actual government endorsement of the delivery of prayer at important school events, due to the prayer being part of a government policy and taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events. 

 

In regard to Florida Bill, I believe that this law should not be passed or at least upheld if challenged in the courts. This is primarily because I believe this law is an establishment of religion. It can be seen from the ruling in the Sante Fe Independent School District case that governmental policies, even if they only allow religious speech, violate the Establishment clause if this speech is on governmental property during a governmental sponsored school event, which is exactly what the proposed law would allow to happen. Furthermore, I disagree with the part of the law that prevents this speech from being regulated because it could open an opportunity for hate speech and could lead to issues where students of various faiths compete for the ability to have their prayer heard. I specifically see this as an issue for minority religions that may be coerced or prevented from speaking by the majority. Lastly, while it is important to recognize that prayer is well integrated into our governmental practices and its historical significance should be acknowledged, as shown in the Marsh case, I do not think it should be used as justification for this law as Rep. Webster Barnaby suggests. Just because something is an accepted practice in a legislature does not mean that in a different context it should still be upheld. Specifically, to this case because this prayer is being delivered at a school during a school sponsored activity and this can be viewed as an establishment of religion because it utilizes the state’s compulsory education system and finances a religious exercise, which were shown to be unconstitutional in cases such as McCollum v. Board of Education and Engel v. Vitale.