Public prayer before football games is unconstitutional
– even when the prayer is composed and led by a student, the U.S. Supreme
Court has ruled.
Public prayer before football games is unconstitutional
– even when the prayer is composed and led by a student, the U.S. Supreme
Court has ruled.
The much-anticipated ruling does not ban all prayers
at public schools, but it still has been cause for concern and criticism from
some Christian leaders and religious liberty groups. Others consider it a proper
decision that maintains the delicate balance between government and religion.
In a 6-3 decision announced June 19, the high court
ruled against a policy in a Galveston County school district in Texas – the
Santa Fe Independent School District.
The policy allowed the high school student body to
determine if it wanted a student to speak over the public address system before
football games. If so, students elected the speaker, who then decided whether
to pray or give some other message.
The school district argued the resulting prayers
were private speech and deserved constitutional protection.
The nations high court disagreed, saying the
policy violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. That clause
prohibits government from acting to establish religion. The amendments
free exercise clause forbids government from preventing the free exercise of
religion.
The balance between the clauses has been a much-debated
one – and the recent case was the latest ruling in that area.
In the decision, a majority of high court justices
declared the school districts policy does not qualify as private speech.
“The delivery of such a message – over the schools
public-address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the
supervision of school faculty and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly
and implicitly encourages public prayer – is not properly characterized as private
speech,” Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.
The policy also violates the rights of students who
do not wish to pray and of minority faith groups, Stevens continued. It does
nothing “to protect minority views but rather (placed) the students who
hold such views at the mercy of the majority. … The districts elections
are insufficient safeguards of diverse student speech.”
Stevens made it clear the ruling does not ban all
religious activities in public schools.
“Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted
by this court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at
any time before, during or after the school day,” he noted. “But the
religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the state affirmatively
sponsors the particular practice of prayer.”
There is little doubt the school district policy
was drafted as a means of endorsing school prayer, Stevens said.
“Regardless of the listeners support for,
or objection to, the message, an objective … student will unquestionably perceive
the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her schools seal of approval.”
And while not all students are required to attend
football games, some are, such as team members, band members and cheerleaders,
Stevens wrote.
Not all justices agreed with the view.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist sharply criticized
the decision, which he said “bristles with hostility to all things religious
in public life. …
“Although the court apparently believes that
solemnizing football games (with prayer) is an illegitimate purpose, the voters
in the school district seem to disagree,” he noted. “Nothing in the
Establishment Clause prevents them from making this choice.”
The majority ruling was wrong and premature, Rehnquist
said. Indeed, the school district had shown a willingness to comply with constitutional
restrictions, he noted.
The vote by students could have resulted in not having
a pregame speaker or in having an election focused on something other than prayer,
such as public speaking ability or social popularity, Rehnquist said.
Any pregame speech that resulted from the policy
would be private, not government, speech, he emphasized.
Justices Sandra Day OConnor, Anthony Kennedy,
David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined Stevens on the issue.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Rehnquist.
So did Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission President Richard Land in his view of the ruling.
The Supreme Court is “dangerously adrift from
the peoples will,” he said. “At this point, I think we have
to ask ourselves the question: Do we still have government of the people,
by the people and for the people, or have we surrendered our liberties to six
lawyers in black robes who constituted the court majority in this case?”
Land said he was disappointed but not surprised at
the ruling. He said it seems that the only remedy left is for the American people
to follow constitutionally-provided avenues for correcting the high court.
There are two avenues for such correction – to amend
the Constitution and to elect leaders who will install justices “who will
correct the damage done in this egregious decision,” Land pointed out.
Land was joined in his dissent regarding the ruling
by others as well, including American Center for Law and Justice chief counsel
Jay Sekulow, who represented the school district before the high court.
“The opinion blurs the distinction between government
speech and private speech,” Sekulow said. “It is the free speech of
the students that has been censored.”
However, not all religious liberty groups disagreed
with the ruling. For instance, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs
hailed the Supreme Court decision.
“The court correctly recognized that precious
individual liberties like religious freedom arent up for a vote. They
shouldnt depend on the outcome of an election,” general counsel Melissa
Rogers said.
“The court has been faithful in distinguishing
between private religious expression, which the Constitution protects, and government-endorsed
religious expression, which the Constitution forbids.”
Rogers noted that students still may pray at football
games by gathering voluntarily in huddles or by praying during a neutral moment
of silence. “The thing students cant do is insist that government
facilitate and endorse prayers,” she said.
(This article includes information from Associated
Baptist Press and Baptist Press)