School's Cheerleaders Can't Use Bible Verses at Football Games
A church-state battle is brewing in a small town in Georgia, where a public school's superintendent has stopped cheerleaders from using banners emblazoned with Bible verses.Since 2003, cheerleaders at Lakeview Fort Oglethorpe High School have painted a different Bible verse on a huge banner, and players would then burst through the banner as they ran onto the field for a game. No one in the small, heavily Christian town of Fort Oglethorpe objected.
But last month, Donna Jackson, who is the mother of a student at the school, and who had just taken a law school class, called the superintendent. Jackson said the banners were against First Amendment separation of church and state provisions, "and it needed to be stopped." In a statement, Jackson said she wanted the school to be "protected from potential lawsuits" and wanted to head off "community division."
Superintendent Denia Reese reluctantly agreed and ordered the school to stop using the banners. Reese told the Los Angeles Tmes that she regretted the move: "I rely on reading the Bible daily," she said. But the law was the law.
Community reaction is decidedly one sided -- against the superintendent's decision. Phyllis Cabe, resident of the Georgia town, said the signs were "probably" unconstitutional. "But then there's laws and there's what I would call 'heart laws,' " Cabe said. "The Bible tells us we should witness to people if we are Christian... And God tells us to be bold. That is a way of being bold."
To fellow resident Denise Yates, the issue is freedom of speech, not church-state separation. "If they wanted to put a big Buddha doll up there, I'd say let 'em do it," she said. "If that part of the game offends you, go turn around and buy you a Coke."
Rena Lindevaldsen, an associate law professor at Liberty University, where Jackson took her law course, said the cheerleaders might have a strong free speech case if creating the banners was their idea.
However, if teachers and faculty were very involved in drafting the messages, the courts would be more likely to see the banners as being officially sanctioned by the public school, and thus in violation of church-state separation.
While there are signs all over town supporting the cheerleaders, and even parents from opposing high schools showing up at games wearing the colors of Lakeview, no one has launched an official challenge to the ruling.
School's Cheerleaders Can't Use Bible Verses at Football Games
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
bold
"Phyllis Cabe, resident of the Georgia town, said the signs were "probably" unconstitutional. "But then there's laws and there's what I would call 'heart laws,' " Cabe said. "The Bible tells us we should witness to people if we are Christian... And God tells us to be bold. That is a way of being bold.""
I love this comment... if we can disregard the Constitution because of our beliefs then the document becomes meaningless.
The free speech aspect is rather interesting though... I'd say that since as cheerleaders they are acting as official representatives of the school , and are thus bound by church / state separation.
- MrBook
October 12, 2009 6:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lets see
The free speech aspect is rather interesting though...I'd say that since as cheerleaders they are acting as official representatives of the school ,and are thus bound by church /state separation
What town do come from where your cheerleaders act as official representatives of the school?
- countryboy
October 12, 2009 7:16PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
team
They are wearing the schools uniform, they are selected for their task by a faculty member... but which town do you come from where they are not officially sanctioned representatives of the school ?
- MrBook
October 12, 2009 7:28PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Which document becomes meaningless?
You seem to be talking about the Constitution. Which part of the Constitution bars a school from quoting bible verses?
Separation of church and state , originally, was to protect churches from federal interference and to protect government from religious interference. Not to ban one from the other completely.
If there were a complete ban, wanting churches to pay taxes would be as much a violation as would having the 10 commandment on the wall of a courthouse.
I point you to brighter legal minds than us:
The establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference.
~Justice Rehnquist
The metaphor 'church and state separation' is a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.
~Justice Scalia
- SolarSanitizer
October 13, 2009 7:00AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
sports team
“You seem to be talking about the Constitution. Which part of the Constitution bars a school from quoting bible verses?”
I believe that it is implied by the establishment clause that bars public schools from officially endorsing religion .
“Separation of church and state , originally, was to protect churches from federal interference and to protect government from religious interference. Not to ban one from the other completely.”
The problem is that you cannot just restrict the government from interfering in religious practices, you have to keep the government (at any level) from showing favoritism to a give belief set because that act marginalized other belief systems.
“If there were a complete ban, wanting churches to pay taxes would be as much a violation as would having the 10 commandment on the wall of a courthouse.”
The point of the ban is to prevent the government from granting special status to religion over other groups within a population. This is a problem that the founders would have been aware of due to their knowledge of European History (state churches and such).
I point you to brighter legal minds than us:
“The establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference.
~Justice Rehnquist”
But surely you agree that the establishment clause is also intended to protect the local population from interference by religion?
{ that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possesses their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. }
~Thomas Jefferson “First Inaugural address” March 4th, 1801
“The metaphor 'church and state separation' is a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.
~Justice Scalia”
As it should be! I look forward to the day when ones religious preference is of no more public consequence then ones support for a sports team.
- MrBook
October 14, 2009 6:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The school district was in the right, regardless of whatever message they were saying.
Furthermore, this could be viewed as a promotion of religion by the school district so they should restrict it.
- caelum
October 12, 2009 11:48PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If the cheerleaders came up with
The sayings on their own accord, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier would not lessen the First Amendment protection of their speech .
"Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988) was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression."
If it was a staff member who decided which, if any, verses were painted, then it would be a different story.
- SolarSanitizer
October 13, 2009 6:50AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Confused
I disagree with your interpretation.
Let's say this was regulated by the district, then that have the full right under this ruling to restrict it, you seem to agree with that. Your objection seems to come from that if the students did this by their own accord the administrators cannot regulate it because it is outside their control. That is not correct in my view. The problem is this speech is being prominently displayed at school -sponsored events done by a school-sponsored group and the ruling specifically said that at any time the school administration "need not tolerate speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission" or , regardless if its established as a medium of free expression, the school can "disassociate itself" with such speech at any time - in this case the disassociation was removing their ability to make that speech on a school-sponsored stage. The court went further to say that even "the determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in a school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school boards." All the school has to prove is that this was a school sponsored event and this line in the ruling will immediately force the lower courts to take their side. The court even granted the right of educators to exercise control over student expression during any school sponsored event or activity that could "erroneously be attributed to the school." The ruling doesn't even establish the speech has to be attributed to the school - only the potential that it could be must exist, which it clearly does here.
The ruling goes even farther in pushing back students rights when it leaves behind school-sponsored events, speeches, and things that could be erroneously attributed to the school by saying that students cannot be punished for their views "in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours" - unless school administrators believe that the expression will "substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of the students." The school can argue that the banner could be erroneously attributed to the school that it was sponsoring Christianity, possibly impinging on the rights of some students causing an interference with their "basic educational mission"; and that, regardless, they have the right to regulate and disassociate sponsorship of any speech it finds contradicts it mission - in this case religious speech by a school-sponsored group / club.
The school clearly has the authority under this ruling, in my view anyway.
- caelum
October 13, 2009 12:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your interpretation of my interpretation
No, I am not arguing that the school admin didn't have the power to ban the banners. I didn't even opine on that issue as there are too few facts left untold at this point.
I suggested that the case law you cited would possibly not have applied in this case because it seems that it was the cheerleaders, not the staff, who made the banners and that they were an expressive media of the group, as opposed to an expressive media of the school. Does it make more sense now?
- SolarSanitizer
October 13, 2009 2:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.