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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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”?

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.

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.

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.

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.