In certain parts of the south and southwest, it is hard to distinguish football from religion. Some high school cheerleaders in Texas have tied them together too closely for the taste of the Washington Post editorial board. Applying the journalistic version of the Supreme Court’s endorsement test, the editorial argues as follows:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has weighed in, unhelpfully. “We’re a nation that’s built on the concept of free expression of ideas,” he said, according to the New York Times. “We’re also a culture built upon the concept that the original law is God’s law, outlined in the Ten Commandments.”
And if a student in the stands doesn’t believe that? Or an aspiring cheerleader happens to be a Hindu? Or a wide receiver is a Christian who is offended by the notion that God cares about the outcome of a high school football game? The cheerleaders’ backers say that the school doesn’t have any policy that implies endorsement of the banners’ content and that students, even cheerleaders, who disagree with it are not required to participate in anything banner-related.
Yet the cheerleading squad is a campus organization with faculty oversight, and it represents the school, wears its uniform and occupies a privileged space on the playing field. Its banners are part of a pregame ritual that involves the football players, for whom the school buys uniforms and provides other kinds of support. Since the squad and the team carry the school’s imprint, students should not have to choose between tacitly endorsing a sectarian message and participating in a cheerleading routine or taking the field with their teammates. Likewise, spectators shouldn’t have to choose between cheering on their team and avoiding the cheerleaders’ proselytizing.
The [pick an adjective that expresses your distaste] Freedom From Religion Foundation is looking for a plaintiff to sue in federal court. They’re likely to win, which is unfortunate. We live in a pluralistic society. There are two ways to manage to live peacefully together under these circumstances. One is walk on eggshells in a vigilantly policed public arena, where the hypersensitive dictate the character and content of public expression. The other is to encourage everyone to be broadly tolerant of views with which they disagree, relying on conversation for persuasion and having a thick skin for passionately voiced disagreements.
In the name of a certain kind of inclusivity, our judicial and journalistic elites have chosen the first option. Its effect is either to drive authentic religious expression underground (as the inclusion is also an exclusion) or to persuade people (not so much by reason as by intimidation and coercion) that a religion that calls itself catholic really isn’t. Neither consequence is good; the first harms civil society, while the second eviscerates genuine religion.
The second option requires that we be grown-ups. High school students are grown-ups in training. Aren’t there opportunities for conversation here that will actually advance the prospects for pluralism and mutual understanding? But not if the courts, prompted by the FFRF, intervene.
October 24th, 2012 | 11:43 am
Is public school the whole of the “public arena”?
October 24th, 2012 | 12:08 pm
What does the banner actually say?
October 24th, 2012 | 12:13 pm
I wonder how many Americans go to India and then are offended by public displays of Hinduism there.
October 24th, 2012 | 1:23 pm
I wonder if India has a constitutional guarantee against religious establishment that its highest court has decided applies to cases like this.
October 24th, 2012 | 1:26 pm
And I wonder what it feels like to be a religious minority in your own country–not as a visitor to, say, India.
October 24th, 2012 | 1:56 pm
A third way is to an open public arena where all views are allowed, but ask the government to remain neutral on issues of religion. This is exactly what the Constitution asks and exactly what the cheerleaders in Texas do not understand.
Your description of a ‘vigilantly policed public arena’ mixes the notion of a true public arena where every view should be allow and the government-controlled arena of public schools in the US.
October 24th, 2012 | 2:31 pm
[Brantley] And I wonder what it feels like to be a religious minority in your own country–not as a visitor to, say, India.
There are a whole bunch of issues related to this topic, but I just want to offer a few comments: Unless somehow the numbers exactly equal out, there will always be a ‘religious minority’ and a ‘religious majority.’ It’s how we next respond to our neighbor – both the minority and the majority – that’s the important issue. A majority is not an injustice.
Our current culture tends to assert – though it isn’t said this way – that coming to an actual conclusion about anything at all is an act of intolerance. The further mistaken position that groups like Freedom From Religion Foundation continue to hold is that allowing no religious beliefs at all in the public sphere is a neutral position.
October 24th, 2012 | 3:14 pm
The further mistaken position that groups like Freedom From Religion Foundation continue to hold is that allowing no religious beliefs at all in the public sphere is a neutral position.
JDD,
What is the public sphere?
I think for many the real belief is that this is a Christian country, and that if Christians want to use government-funded activities to promote Christianity, that is their right.
October 24th, 2012 | 4:31 pm
[David Nickol] “I think for many the real belief is that this is a Christian country, and that if Christians want to use government-funded activities to promote Christianity, that is their right.”
David, I’m actually not sure where I finally stand on this particular iteration of the “prayer at football game” issue. But what is clear is that a Christian message has not been treated equally as other messages. If I’m a student, and I freely use my turn to pick a phrase that ‘offends’ because others don’t share it, then it cannot be said that the ‘government funded my speech.’
Not the mention the difference – not discussed enough – between ‘government funded’ and ‘government promoted.’
If I’m a Christian, and the ‘govenment’ chooses to fund my right to choose a banner motto, then choosing a Scripture verse is ME making a decision – not the government.
October 25th, 2012 | 6:35 am
Brantley comments, “…I wonder what it feels like to be a religious minority in your own country?”
Peter Berger, writing some time ago, provided an answer: Such a person is a member of a “cognitive minority”. These people are “psychologically isolated,” a stance that is unnatural for human beings and very difficult to maintain. For young people it can be impossible to maintain.
This describes the status of those living in certain sections of our country who regard the wisdom of the ages as an important category to be considered as one struggles to find a right path.
October 25th, 2012 | 1:39 pm
“They’re likely to win, which is unfortunate”
It would be unfortunate for the law to be upheld and applied? After all, the only way they win is if the law is on their side.
“One [way to coexist] is walk on eggshells in a vigilantly policed public arena, where the hypersensitive dictate the character and content of public expression. The other is to encourage everyone to be broadly tolerant of views with which they disagree, relying on conversation for persuasion and having a thick skin for passionately voiced disagreements.”
If the FFRF wins, that means this was NOT a case of a public arena, but a public school function, where the school can’t play religious favorites.
Part of tolerating other views (particularly views that the majority may dislike) is to allow everyone to have their day in court to see if the law is being properly followed. But you’ve already decided that would be unfortunate. How unfortunate.
October 25th, 2012 | 4:18 pm
I’m with the dissenters in the string of decisions likely to produce a federal judicial victory for the FFRF, which would like not just to scrub the public schools, but the public square altogether of religion.
I agree that public school authorities have no business preaching any religious position to a captive audience, but that is hardly the issue in this case. These are signs, made by students, from which anyone present can avert his or her eyes. You really have to want to do so to read the signs as the officially endorsed position of the school in question.
A less strained reading of the Establishment Clause, one that didn’t adopt Sandra Day O’Connor’s endorsement test (which does great violence to any sort of reasonable or traditional understanding of establishment) would permit a great deal more religious expression in the public square, which surely includes high school football stadia and even commencement exercises. Would some people be offended by this? Perhaps. But the measure of whether something is an establishment of religion is not whether a particular person is offended.
As I said in my post, healthy pluralism requires a thick skin. And when people can speak openly, there’s at least a chance that they can reach an understanding and an informal accommodation.
October 25th, 2012 | 4:58 pm
[Brian Westley] “It would be unfortunate for the law to be upheld and applied? After all, the only way they win is if the law is on their side.”
No, you’re criticising an argument that hasn’t been made. Christians would see that outcome as unfortunate because we see a pattern of misapplication of law in these cases. i.e. poorly reasoned judicial decisions.
[Brian Westley] “If the FFRF wins, that means this was NOT a case of a public arena, but a public school function, where the school can’t play religious favorites.”
Precisely one of the criticisms would then be the idea that a school is ‘playing religious favorites’ by offering decision-making to students, and then balking at some (the ‘religious’ ones) of their choices.
October 25th, 2012 | 7:14 pm
Joseph Knippenberg,
Would you support the right of students to display anti-religious messages in the same manner? Or messages that were denominational rather than generically Christian? Say, “Religion is the opiate of the masses,” or “Jesus was not the true messiah,” or “The Papacy is the anti-Christ,” or “The Baptist ‘church’ is not a church in the true sense of the word”?
October 26th, 2012 | 10:29 am
David Nickol,
I think your question is completely legitimate and I’m interested in Mr. Knippenberg’s response as well.
But I would point out that the context is one of encouraging messages for the football team to win – not statements of faith per se. The three alternate messages you’ve suggested are negative, divisive statements by their very wording. They invite conflict immediately and unconditionally. That’s a lot different than saying, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” It does NOT follow that this is an exclusionary statement suggesting that, if Christ doesn’t strengthen you, then sorry, you can’t do all things.
Now if the cheerleaders decided upon a sign that said, “I can do all things through Vishnu who strengthens me,” then I’d roll my eyes – but I wouldn’t feel suddenly proselytized with no way out, or that my rights had been taken away or something – particularly if I was aware of how the mottos were selected. In other words, there is the second option, as suggested by Mr. Knippenberg. FFRF chooses instead to attempt legislated silence.
October 27th, 2012 | 7:09 am
Surely, the issue is a simple one. On the one hand, the secularism of state schools is not restricted, in the case of pupils, to respect for their freedom of conscience: it essentially consists in excluding religion from state schools and it therefore imposes a duty of restraint on pupils in their behaviour, since they find themselves in a place pertaining to the public sphere of the state and its administration. On the other hand, pupils’ freedom of conscience, which is an internal freedom, in no way gives them “the right to express and manifest their religious beliefs” in educational institutions, for that involves external acts which improperly introduce religion into the public domain of the school.
We would not allow pupils or teachers to wear a crucifix or a kippah or a hijab on school property; how is this any different?
October 27th, 2012 | 11:32 am
I guess I need to respond to two comments at least.
First, I can’t really improve upon JDD’s response to David Nickol.
Second, with respect to Michael PS’s comment, I take that there’s a difference between the U.S. and our European cousins in this connection. Whatever might be the case with public school teachers (and even there I’d argue that the Free Exercise clause would likely protect a teacher’s right to dress in accordance with his or her religious obligations), students have to be free to wear their religious sentiments on their sleeves, so to speak.
October 28th, 2012 | 11:45 pm
@JDD:
“[Brian Westley] “It would be unfortunate for the law to be upheld and applied? After all, the only way they win is if the law is on their side.”
No, you’re criticising an argument that hasn’t been made.”
Hardly. The ONLY way the FFRF wins cases is if the courts decide the law is on their side.
“Christians would see that outcome as unfortunate because we see a pattern of misapplication of law in these cases. i.e. poorly reasoned judicial decisions.”
At the moment, it looks like the majority religion gets to put religious messages on school banners, and nobody else. That’s hardly religious neutrality.
“[Brian Westley] “If the FFRF wins, that means this was NOT a case of a public arena, but a public school function, where the school can’t play religious favorites.”
Precisely one of the criticisms would then be the idea that a school is ‘playing religious favorites’ by offering decision-making to students, and then balking at some (the ‘religious’ ones) of their choices.”
Messages that aren’t religious don’t have the problems that religious messages raise.
October 29th, 2012 | 2:15 pm
[Brian Westley] “At the moment, it looks like the majority religion gets to put religious messages on school banners, and nobody else. That’s hardly religious neutrality.”
Why have you said “nobody else”? Who is saying “nobody else”? Is the local school or the government saying “nobody else”?
[Brian Westley] “Messages that aren’t religious don’t have the problems that religious messages raise.”
Indeed, you’ve exactly highlighted the non-neutrality. Both types of messages are free speech, in this case freely voted on by a group of students specifically given the responsibility. But one type of speech is being fought by FFRF based on a supposed Constitutional argument that no one seems to be able to lock down.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact