Religion & American Law

The cheerleaders at Kountze High School in Southeast Texas sparked controversyunder the Friday night lights. They painted the run-through banners with Bible verses such as “I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me,” and “If God is for us, who can be against us?” The words on the banners were intended to inspire the football team, but following an anonymous complaint, the district superintendent banned the use of religious themes. Superintendent Kevin Weldon explained, “My personal convictions are that I am a Christian as well. But I’m also a state employee and Kountze ISD representative. And I was advised that such a practice would be in direct violation of United State Supreme Court decisions.” The school district has always been in opposition to the use of Biblical messages on the banners, despite the support the cheerleaders have received from the court.

            Just a few days after news about the ban broke, the cheerleaders took legal action and were granted a temporary order allowing them to continue using the religious language on their signs at football games in the fall of 2012. The case was later brought to court, and in May 2013, the state district judge decided that the cheerleaders’ banner was constitutionally permissible and that no law “prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed banners at school sporting events.”

 However, Thomas Brandt, the school district's attorney, pointed out that Judge Steven Thomas ruled that the district can permit the banners under the establishment clause but is not required to do so, and that the banners are the speech of the school, not private speech, so the school has a right to have editorial control of the banners. Initially, the district banned the religious messages, but after a public meeting, the board of trustees issued a resolution in which it decided that the district was not required to prohibit messages on school banners that displayed "fleeting expressions of community sentiment solely because the source or origin of such messages is religious." Judge Thomas did not think the banners violated the establishment clause, and that the school district does not have to permit or deny the use of such language on banners—in other words, they don’t have to express an opinion about the banners, but it’s in their power to do so. The ACLU has since stated, “Although the banners are prepared by the cheerleaders, school officials review and approve the messages.”

 In a more recent development, various civil rights groups have begun to appeal the decision. The Americans United for Separation of Church and State expressed its opposition to allowing Christian messages at a public school sporting event, arguing that students “have the right to take part in school activities without being pressured to participate in religious exercises…and the school has an obligation to protect the religious freedom of all its students, not just those in the majority.” So, in the eyes of the AUSCS, the school district is violating the rights of the minority—precisely what the Establishment Clause is supposed to protect against. They argue that the banners are an imposition on the rights of the minority students attending the school—this group includes Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs. Further, because faith is “profoundly personal, and that students should be able to attend our public schools without being marginalized or feeling pressured to conform to the majority's religious beliefs,” they stand firmly by the position that banners should be kept off the field.

The ACLU filed Amicus Curiae that also focused on the rights on the non-Christian students at the school, rather than the freedom of speech and free exercise of the Christian cheerleaders. The ACLU, in conjunction with an interfaith coalition, argued that because the school has control over the banners, and gives the cheerleaders exclusive access to the field, that the banners are school-sponsored and thus violate the Establishment Clause. The group claimed that just to attend a football game, the non-Christian students are subject to unfair “school-sponsored evangelizing.”

It seems to me that the court made an error in deeming the signs as constitutionally permissible. At a public, non-religious high school, religious messages cannot and should not be displayed, regardless of how many students follow a given tradition. The cheerleaders are representatives of the school and the district, and by allowing the Christian beliefs on the banners the court is establishing a support for the Christian tradition where it does not belong. While I can concede that the district and the court need not be hostile to the religious beliefs of the cheerleaders, I don’t believe that prohibiting the banner is oppressing religion. There are plenty of ways to encourage and support the football players without reference to God and Jesus Christ. By banning the Biblical ideas from the signs, the district and the court would merely be protecting the minority from the Establishment of religion.