"Christians Furious After GA School Bans Loudspeaker Prayers at Football Games"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who paid taxes? Whose kid in the school? Yours?

AFAIK, every public school in the US gets a share of federal money, which gets paid in taxes by every taxpayer in the US.

 

[74x12]

Not sure why that matters, since I have zero role in this other than commenting in this forum. As I noted earlier in this thread, the precedent-setting SCOTUS case (Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe) was initiated by Catholic and Mormon families who lived in the Santa Fe district.

Government for the people; by the people. Power to the people. That's what I'm all about. Decentralize the government.

 

[74x12]

AFAIK, every public school in the US gets a share of federal money, which gets paid in taxes by every taxpayer in the US.

Which is a problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which is a problem.

Taxpayer funding of public schools is a problem?

 

[Jose Fly]

Government for the people; by the people. Power to the people.

And the "people" would include the Mormon and Catholic plaintiffs, correct?

 

[Milton Platt]

.​

View attachment 32883

"For years now, the football team at Lowndes High School in Georgia has opened its games with a student-led prayer, but after a complaint from an atheist group, those prayers are ending and the community is furious.

At least that’s what a couple of news headlines this week have suggested.

But they all miss a critical point: Even the Freedom From Religion Foundation doesn’t have a legal issue with student-led prayers. If the athletes and fans choose to pray before a game, that’s their right. But at Lowndes, the students use the loudspeaker system to preach Christianity.

Here’s an example of it from 2017:

That’s why FFRF had a problem with it, as attorney Chris Line pointed out when he sent the district a letter on behalf of a parent who lives in the community.

“I couldn’t go to the football game and say, ‘hey, there is no God,’ to everybody at the game, use the school’s microphone for that. In the same way that a Christian can not come up and deliver a Christian prayer for everyone when the crowd probably has Jewish people, Muslims, obviously atheists, and tons of other minority religions,” said Chris Line, Freedom From Religion Foundation Attorney.
​

It’s not just FFRF either. The Supreme Court ruled on this very issue in 2000 in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe and said the loudspeaker prayers were illegal.

And yet the response has included district officials blaming FFRF for the change, and locals whining because they’re too ignorant to understand the problem.

Prayer has “always been done, and we live in an area where God is put above a lot of other things,” [senior Taylor] Slocumb said. “To have it taken away from us, it’s something I wanted to fight for.”
…

“It’s time for Christians to stand up for what is right and to stand up for God,” [parent Joe] Copeland said. “When you quit talking to God, it’s going to go bad.”
…

“South Georgia is in the middle of the Bible Belt,” said Darrell Presley, the Viking Touchdown Club President. “Religion is a very strong thing in this part of the country and it’s one of the things that you do.”

Presley says if the prayer does not get added back to the program, fans will say their own from the crowd.
​

I’m no attorney, but Presley’s not very smart, so I’ll go ahead and say it with confidence: No one cares if the fans say their own prayers. No one is challenging their right to pray. Hell, they can pray to their hearts’ desires. Christian fans are free to turn the games into makeshift church services, and tell Jews they’re going to Hell unless they repent, and whatever else they want.

But they can’t use the school’s equipment to amplify their message. This isn’t that complicated.

Maybe if the fans spent more time in school and less time praying, they would realize that."
source


.​

This is quite common in east Texas. Although I think it is wrong (at least at public schools) I have never been bothered much by it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As long as no one is forced to participate I don't see the big deal.

But you're suggesting that a group that is the majority has more freedoms and rights than a group that is in the minority.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As long as no one is forced to participate I don't see the big deal.

Why would you say that nobody is being forced to participate?

If the school is okay with breaking the law to promote Christianity, I expect that there's a good chance that there would be some sort of reprisal for a student caught not praying.

I mean, the message of this prayer to any non-Christian is "we care more about our religion than your rights." I would never trust someone who thinks this not to force a student to participate in some way.

 

[Ponder This]

In the article in the OP, it states that the school reviewed and approved the prayers.

I don't see where in the article it says that the school reviews and approves prayers. Maybe I missed something? Or you have another source? Please link.

That said, you should also specify the manner in which the screening of the prayer is inappropriate. What are they screening for? If the school's intent is to proselytize, then I agree that that would be inappropriate.

The school is the government, so by pre-approving a Christian prayer, providing a PA system for the prayer to be broadcast, at a government event....all that gives the impression that the government is endorsing and promoting Christianity.

Really?
Endorsement is not establishment, but if it was as you say... then disapproving a Christian prayer would indicate the government's rejection of Christianity!
School: "Sorry, we can't accept this because it is Christian."
Isn't that basically conveying the message that it is not okay to be Christian?

It's about all of the factors.

I agree that there can be many factors... but
Is the use of the loudspeaker really a factor here? I don't think so, but the article calls out the use of the loudspeaker as important.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't see where in the article it says that the school reviews and approves prayers. Maybe I missed something? Or you have another source? Please link.

I can't find a specific statement to that effect, so I could be wrong on that point. But THIS article implies it when it states regarding the new policy, "It was part of a new proposed policy that will allow students to determine a presentation for pre-game activities", and "Earlier this week, the county school board heard the first reading of a proposal allowing students to speak during pre-game ceremonies without interference from the school administration".

Together, those imply that prior to the new policy, the school was involved in determining the pre-game activities.

That said, you should also specify the manner in which the screening of the prayer is inappropriate. What are they screening for? If the school's intent is to proselytize, then I agree that that would be inappropriate.

If the school pre-approved the prayer, that means the government is actively approving, and helping to spread, a religious belief.

Really?
Endorsement is not establishment

The courts have consistently ruled otherwise.

but if it was as you say... then disapproving a Christian prayer would indicate the government's rejection of Christianity!

Only if they simultaneously approved a different religion's prayer. If the prohibition applies equally to all religions, the government is being neutral as it should.

Is the use of the loudspeaker really a factor here? I don't think so, but the article calls out the use of the loudspeaker as important.

Yes, that is government equipment paid for by taxpayers.

 

[Ponder This]

I can't find a specific statement to that effect, so I could be wrong on that point. But THIS article implies it when it states regarding the new policy, "It was part of a new proposed policy that will allow students to determine a presentation for pre-game activities", and "Earlier this week, the county school board heard the first reading of a proposal allowing students to speak during pre-game ceremonies without interference from the school administration".

Together, those imply that prior to the new policy, the school was involved in determining the pre-game activities.

What was the school administration doing prior to that proposed policy? If they were doing something they shouldn't have, then the journalists who wrote that article were remiss in not pointing it out.

If the school pre-approved the prayer, that means the government is actively approving, and helping to spread, a religious belief.

Not necessarily so, as it depends on the criteria used to approve the speech.

The courts have consistently ruled otherwise.

As I've pointed out, it's insufficient. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who proposed the Endorsement Test in Lynch vs Donnelly stated that:

"Government can run afoul of that prohibition... [by] endorsement or disapproval of religion."​

I understand your point about the courts rejecting endorsement, but they should also beware of affirming disapproval when they apply the Endorsement Test.

Only if they simultaneously approved a different religion's prayer. If the prohibition applies equally to all religions, the government is being neutral as it should.

If the prohibition only applies to religions, then how is the government not explicitly targeting religion to prevent the free exercise thereof?

Yes, that is government equipment paid for by taxpayers.

I think you are going to have to explain your objection more clearly. Obviously, the students are using school equipment paid for by tax payers... to play football... Is that a problem? What exactly is the problem with students using school equipment?
(And will the FFRF continue to press the school about allowing students to use the school's loudspeaker despite the school's policy change)?

 

[Jose Fly]

What was the school administration doing prior to that proposed policy? If they were doing something they shouldn't have, then the journalists who wrote that article were remiss in not pointing it out.

I don't know the specifics.

Not necessarily so, as it depends on the criteria used to approve the speech.

If government officials reviewed, approved, and then provided a public platform for the prayer to be broadcast over government equipment at a government event, that's illegal.

As I've pointed out, it's insufficient. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who proposed the Endorsement Test in Lynch vs Donnelly stated that:

"Government can run afoul of that prohibition... [by] endorsement or disapproval of religion."​

I understand your point about the courts rejecting endorsement, but they should also beware of affirming disapproval when they apply the Endorsement Test.

Again, in these situations the government is to remain neutral.

If the prohibition only applies to religions, then how is the government not explicitly targeting religion to prevent the free exercise thereof?

First, I'm pretty sure if a student wanted to give a pregame speech that contained offensive material (e.g., swear words, sexual content) the school wouldn't allow that either.

But more importantly, you're conflating two things here. Yes, you have the right to freely exercise your religious beliefs. But you do not have the right to have the government help you do it, or to help you spread your religious message at government events.

I think you are going to have to explain your objection more clearly. Obviously, the students are using school equipment paid for by tax payers... to play football... Is that a problem?

Um......since football isn't a religion, it's obviously not a problem. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

What exactly is the problem with students using school equipment?

I've already explained that to you in this thread. Basically, you do not have the right to use government resources to promote and spread your religion at government events.

(And will the FFRF continue to press the school about allowing students to use the school's loudspeaker despite the school's policy change)?

I suspect the issue will continue. And on that front, I do sympathize a bit with the people who work at the school. Obviously this is a community largely made up of Christians who have grown accustomed to their faith being intertwined and intermingled in public activities (as evidenced by the comments made by locals). It's illegal, but it's also "the way it's always been", and that sort of privilege is hard to give up. The school must follow the law, but in doing so they're going to anger most of the community that they serve. So they're trying to find a middle ground, and I appreciate their reasons for doing so. But eventually the school needs to do what the government is supposed to do.....remain neutral on religious issues.

 

[MikeDwight]

Why don't schools ban Korean culture awareness work?

Just another day in Canada.

 

[Ponder This]

If government officials reviewed, approved, and then provided a public platform for the prayer to be broadcast over government equipment at a government event, that's illegal.

No, it's not. It must be shown to be done for the purpose of establishing religion.

First, I'm pretty sure if a student wanted to give a pregame speech that contained offensive material (e.g., swear words, sexual content) the school wouldn't allow that either.

But more importantly, you're conflating two things here. Yes, you have the right to freely exercise your religious beliefs. But you do not have the right to have the government help you do it, or to help you spread your religious message at government events.

There are two things here:
1. establishment clause
2. free exercise clause
They are part of the same amendment. Both must be considered.

Um......since football isn't a religion, it's obviously not a problem. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Loudspeakers are not inherently a religious item. You should know that.

I've already explained that to you in this thread. Basically, you do not have the right to use government resources to promote and spread your religion at government events.

So now you are claiming proselytizing is taking place? I thought we made it clear that that wasn't the case.

I suspect the issue will continue. And on that front, I do sympathize a bit with the people who work at the school. Obviously this is a community largely made up of Christians who have grown accustomed to their faith being intertwined and intermingled in public activities (as evidenced by the comments made by locals). It's illegal, but it's also "the way it's always been", and that sort of privilege is hard to give up. The school must follow the law, but in doing so they're going to anger most of the community that they serve. So they're trying to find a middle ground, and I appreciate their reasons for doing so. But eventually the school needs to do what the government is supposed to do.....remain neutral on religious issues.

Hopefully, the government continues to remain neutral on this issue, neither establishing religion (as some may desire to do) nor preventing the free exercise thereof (as some others may desire to do).

 

[Jose Fly]

No, it's not. It must be shown to be done for the purpose of establishing religion.

You can repeat that all you like, but the courts have consistently ruled otherwise. If you disagree with their rulings, I suggest you take your arguments to court.

There are two things here:
1. establishment clause
2. free exercise clause
They are part of the same amendment. Both must be considered.

Irrelevant to the point I made (you do not have the right to have the government promote your religion for you).

Loudspeakers are not inherently a religious item. You should know that.

Nobody said they were.

So now you are claiming proselytizing is taking place? I thought we made it clear that that wasn't the case.

Again, not at all related to what I stated ("you do not have the right to use government resources to promote and spread your religion at government events").

Hopefully, the government continues to remain neutral on this issue, neither establishing religion (as some may desire to do) nor preventing the free exercise thereof (as some others may desire to do).

Agreed.

 

[Ponder This]

You can repeat that all you like, but the courts have consistently ruled otherwise. If you disagree with their rulings, I suggest you take your arguments to court.

Irrelevant to the point I made (you do not have the right to have the government promote your religion for you).

Nobody said they were.

Again, not at all related to what I stated ("you do not have the right to use government resources to promote and spread your religion at government events").

Well... I've already responded to these remarks.

Agreed.

It was a pleasure discussing this topic with you.