After reading the online articles posted in this week’s Learn section, what legal concepts would you need to take into consideration if you were a Christian c

Consider the cheerleaders: Religious expression

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT The problem is that the Lions have, perhaps, posted these gains after making illicit use of performance-enhancing prayer. Since the start of the year the school's cheerleading squad has been displaying banners painted with Bible verses (like the one pictured above). FULL TEXT   Should a public school's cheerleading squad be allowed to display banners painted with Bible verses? THE Kountze Lions, a high-school football team from east Texas, are having a good season. Their all-time win percentage is 38%. Thus far this year, they're five for seven. The problem is that the Lions have, perhaps, posted these gains after making illicit use of performance-enhancing prayer. Since the start of the year the school's cheerleading squad has been displaying banners painted with Bible verses (like the one pictured above). It's common at high-school football games for the team to run onto the field by bursting through such banners like the Kool-Aid man, but it's not common for the banners to carry religious messages, because public schools aren't supposed to promote religion. Last month, accordingly, the district's superintendent banned such banners, but on October 18th a district court ruled that the school can't enforce the ban for the time being. At a press conference in support of the cheerleaders last week Rick Perry, the governor, and Greg Abbott, the state's attorney-general, were looking like Christmas, and I do mean Christmas, had come early. America's constitution separates church and state, as indeed does the Texas version. But Texas's contemporary political leaders have notably declined to give the principle much respect. The controversy had given them a chance to stand up for Texas, high-school football, cheerleaders, God, and the constitutionally enshrined right to free expression, all in one go, against the interference of–as Mr Abbott put it, in an incredulous tone–"an atheist group from Wisconsin". The speech rights of students are often debated, because if a student is in public school, as most American students are, a lot of their self-expression happens under the auspices of a governmental entity. Broadly speaking, it's probably constitutionally correct to say that students have the right to put Bible verses on banners, just like all Americans do. And if the complaint is that an outside observer would assume that any student doing so is working under the auspices of school authority, Mr Abbott and Mr Perry would probably still be on firm footing. The exercise of rights shouldn't be curtailed simply because of other people's perceptions and preferences. A wrinkle here, though, is that courts have already taken the position that cheerleaders are representatives of the school, even agents of the school's authority. Ian Millhiser, at ThinkProgress, notes that this point was considered legally relevant in another recent case in Texas: in 2010 a cheerleader in Silsbee was kicked off the squad after refusing to cheer for one of the players. The girl had accused the boy of raping her; he later pled guilty to simple assault. She sued the school, arguing that by kicking her off the squad, it had violated her rights to free expression. The Fifth Circuit court ruled against her, and its reasoning was that as a cheerleader, she was supposed to speak on behalf of the school, not on behalf of herself. A less directly relevant example, which nevertheless suggests that cheerleading is serious business, would be the case of Crystal City, where the high school's discriminatory policy

against Mexican-American girls who wanted to be cheerleaders led to several years of protests, starting in 1969, on behalf of Chicano rights. (One of the young activists who organised those protests, JosE Angel GutiErrez, would go on to co-found and lead La Raza Unida.) In other words, courts have held, and Texans believe, that cheerleaders are a special subset of students, and not just for the reasons dramatised in John Hughes movies and Taylor Swift songs. They're not people who happen to be standing on the football field, exercising their right to free speech. They're deputies of the school administration; they speak for the school, not themselves. That was the point of the Fifth Circuit's ruling, anyway. So which is it? Do cheerleaders speak as themselves or not? It's unsurprising but significant that Mr Perry and Mr Abbott would argue otherwise. Neither of them can get through a press conference lately, including the aforementioned one, without deflecting a question about whether he's running for governor in 2014. Mr Abbott is also a Republican, and might be willing to challenge Mr Perry in the primary; a widespread opinion among Texas politicos is that should Mr Perry stand for another term, Mr Abbott has a better shot of beating him than anyone else, in the primary or the general. Polls have shown that a large majority of Texas voters support the separation of church and state, and everyone knows that the state's changing demographics could mean trouble for Texas Republicans. But if Texas's leadership is going to continue to dabble in the culture wars, it's a solid sign that the shift isn't afoot just yet. DETAILS

Subject: Cheerleaders; Church &state; Students; Bible; Football; Press conferences; Federal court decisions

Location: Texas; United States–US

Publication title: The Economist (Online); London

Publication year: 2012

Publication date: Oct 24, 2012

Publisher: The Economist Newspaper NA, Inc.

Place of publication: London

Country of publication: United Kingdom, London

Publication subject: Business And Economics

Source type: Magazine

Language of publication: English

Document type: NEWS

ProQuest document ID: 1115286158

LINKS Get It At Liberty

Database copyright  2024 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

Document URL: https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazi nes/consider-cheerleaders/docview/1115286158/se-2?accountid=12085

Copyright: (Copyright 2012 The Economist Newspaper Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Last updated: 2022-11-16

Database: ProQuest Central

Texas Churches Sue FEMA For Tax Aid In Wake Of Hurricane Anonymous

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) Three Texas churches are suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency, demanding taxpayer aid to help them rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. The conservative legal group the Becket Fund on Sept. 4 filed a federal lawsuit, Harvest Family Church v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of Rockport First Assembly of God, Harvest Family Church in Cypress and Hi-Way Tabernacle in Cleveland. The suit calls for federal aid to rebuild a church steeple and restore flooded church sanctuaries. AU Legislative Director Maggie Garrett noted on AU's Wall of Separation blog that disaster aid is available for houses of worship in certain cases. FULL TEXT Three Texas churches are suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), demanding taxpayer aid to help them rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. The conservative legal group the Becket Fund on Sept. 4 filed a federal lawsuit, Harvest Family Church v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of Rockport First Assembly of God, Flarvest Family Church in Cypress and Fli-Way Tabernacle in Cleveland. The suit calls for federal aid to rebuild a church steeple and restore flooded church sanctuaries. To protect the constitutional principle of religious freedom by ensuring taxpayers aren't compelled to pay for religious entities they don't support, there are limits on government money being used to fund houses of worship. AU Legislative Director Maggie Garrett noted on AU's "Wall of Separation" blog that disaster aid is available for houses of worship in certain cases. For example, houses of worship can be reimbursed for emergency services they provide to local governments, such as serving as shelters for people displaced by disasters. They also are eligible for government loans to rebuild after a storm, as are most nonprofitsand businesses. They're not usually eligible for direct government grants, however. In fact, most nonprofits aren't eligible for these grants – only those that perform emergency, essential and government-related activities and are open to the general public are eligible. These grants are not available to most, let alone all, businesses, nonprofits, private residences and other buildings. "The government is not in the business of building churches, synagogues and mosques – even after a terrible disaster," Garrett wrote. "That is at the core of the First Amendment, and we must stand by it in good times and in bad." That logic didn't stop politicians from weighing in. Days after the lawsuit was filed, President Donald Trump tweeted, "Churches in Texas should be entitled to reimbursement from FEMA Relief Funds for helping victims of Hurricane Harvey (just like others)." About two weeks later, U.S. senators led by Texas Republicans Ted Cruz and John Cornyn introduced the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act, a bill that would make houses of worship eligible for FEMA Public Assistance grants. Then Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, both Republicans, sent a letter to Trump requesting that churches be made eligible for more FEMA aid. The letter insists the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer should pave the way for houses of worship to be eligible for more FEMA funding. AU Associate Legal Director Alex Luchenitser explained

to The Washington Post that the politicians are misinterpreting the Trinity decision. Luchenitser noted that the decision allowed a Missouri church to get funding for a nonreligious purpose (playground improvements), whereas the Texas churches are seeking money for "core facility" repairs that will support religious activity. "We know a lot of people in Texas are suffering, and we are sympathetic," Luchenitser said. "But the fact that something bad has happened does not justify a second wrong. … Taxpayers should not be forced to protect religious institutions that they don't subscribe to." DETAILS

Subject: Government grants; Displaced persons; Politics; Religious organizations; Church &state; Disasters; Litigation

People: Trump, Donald J

Publication title: Church &State; Silver Springs

Volume: 70

Issue: 10

Pages: 17-18

Publication year: 2017

Publication date: Nov 2017

Section: PEOPLE &EVENTS

Publisher: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Place of publication: Silver Springs

Country of publication: United States, Silver Springs

Publication subject: Religions And Theology, Political Science

ISSN: 00096334

e-ISSN: 21633746

Source type: Magazine

Language of publication: English

Document type: News

ProQuest document ID: 2075506711

LINKS Get It At Liberty

Database copyright  2024 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

Document URL: https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazi nes/texas-churches-sue-fema-tax-aid-wake-hurricane/docview/2075506711/se- 2?accountid=12085

Copyright: Copyright Americans United for Separation of Church and State Nov 2017

Last updated: 2019-02-08

Database: Social Science Premium Collection,ProQuest Central

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrd20

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance

ISSN: 0730-3084 (Print) 2168-3816 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ujrd20

Prayer 101: Deciphering the Law — What Every Coach and Administrator Should Know

Jennifer Beck Willett, Bernie Goldfine, Todd Seidler, Andy Gillentine & Scott Marley

To cite this article: Jennifer Beck Willett, Bernie Goldfine, Todd Seidler, Andy Gillentine & Scott Marley (2014) Prayer 101: Deciphering the Law — What Every Coach and Administrator Should Know, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 85:9, 15-19, DOI: 10.1080/07303084.2014.958252

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2014.958252

Published online: 27 Oct 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2063

View related articles

View Crossmark data

JENNIFER BECK WILLETT

BERNIE GOLDFINE

TODD SEIDLER

ANDY GILLENTINE

SCOTT MARLEY

Jennifer Beck Willett ([email protected]) is an associate professor in the Department of Exercise Science and Sport Management, and Bernie Gold- fi ne is a professor in the Department of Health Promotion and Physical Education, at Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, GA. Todd Seidler is coordinator of the graduate program in Sport Administration at the Uni- versity of New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM. Andy Gillentine is a professor and associate dean of the Department of Sport and Entertainment Manage- ment at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC. Scott Marley is an associate professor in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University in Tempe, AZ.

Successful high school administrators and coaches wear many hats and perform numerous tasks related to their jobs. Finances, hiring, scheduling, and com- plying with Title IX often take the forefront. More recently, administrators have also had to address the

issue of prayer at athletic events. Not only is prayer a risk-man- agement issue, it is often the topic of hot debate and has been a source of controversy and confl ict (Gillentine, Goldfi ne, Phillips, Seidler, & Marley, 2004). Schools that are not compliant with the

Prayer 101:Prayer 101:Prayer 101:

What Every Coach and Administrator Should Know

DECIPHERING THE LAW —

JoPerD 15

16 Volume 85 Number 9 NoVember/December 2014

law could face lawsuits and legal costs that would be detrimental to already-strapped school district budgets.

According to Coakley (2011), “Athletes and coaches use reli- gion, religious beliefs, prayers, and rituals in many ways” (p. 535). Proponents of prayer believe that it provides many positive bene- fits in athletic settings, such as building team unity and helping ath- letes to deal with the uncertainties of sport. Opponents of prayer contend that it can divide a team and alienate some team members.

Even though 73% of the United States population considers them- selves Christian, 20% of Americans are “atheist, agnostic, or unaf- filiated with a religion” (The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life [Pew], 2012). Additionally, almost 5% of the U.S. public affili- ates with a non-Christian religion (e.g., Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.). Since religious affiliation in the United States is clearly diverse and fluid (Pew, 2013), it is not surprising that the use of prayer in sport events is a hotly debated topic.

Table 1. Prayer and Public Schools

Year Court Case Case Summary 1962 Engel v. Vitale Prohibits the recitation of school-sponsored, nonsectarian prayer. The rationale of the court was

that it was a violation of the Establishment Clause because government cannot be involved with creating and sponsoring religious activities.

1985 Wallace v. Jaffree Prohibits teachers from setting aside time for prayer activities. The rationale of the court was that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.

1992 Lee v. Weisman Prohibits school-sponsored prayer at commencement delivered by an invited clergy. The rationale of the court was that students were being forced to participate in a religious ceremony.

Table 2. Interscholastic Sport-related Cases

Year Court Case Case Summary 1989 Jager v. Douglas Prohibits clergy from conducting invocations prior to football games. The rationale of

the court was that pre-game invocations were unconstitutional. 1995 Doe v. Duncanville

Independent School District Prohibits coaches from leading prayer before practices and games. The rationale of the court was that the school was endorsing religion by allowing one of its employees to lead prayers.

2000 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe

Prohibits school officials, administrators, and employees (coaches) from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at interscholastic athletic events. In addition, school officials cannot allow prayer over a school public address system. The rationale of the court was that prayer violated the Establishment Clause because it was delivered over the public address system.

2008 Borden v. East Brunswick School District

Prohibits coaches from endorsing student-led prayer by kneeling and bowing their head with the team. The rationale of the court was that, observers could conclude that a coach who does so is not merely showing respect but is instead endorsing religion.

2009 Marszalek v. Fadlallah & Dearborn School District

The principal of Fordson High School (Fadlallah) did not renew the wrestling coach’s (Marszalek) contract because of his association with a Christian volunteer coach who converted a student-athlete to Christianity. Marszalek was a renowned coach with over 35 years of experience and numerous awards. He claimed that Fadlallah and the school district violated the U.S. and Michigan constitution and statutes. The lawsuit was settled and Marszalek was awarded $24,500; however, the district admitted no liability and instead claimed they wanted to eliminate the costs associated with litigation (Associated Press, 2010).

2013 Matthews v. Kountze Independent School District

Cheerleaders from Kountze High School have had a tradition of displaying Bible verses on run-through banners as the football team enters the field of play. In June 2013, the District Court decided that banners that included religious messages such as “If God is for us, who can be against us? Romans 8:31” were permitted under the Constitution (Carcamo, 2013). The rationale was that the display of Bible verses was protected by the cheerleaders’ free speech rights.

JoPerD 17

In 2012, a fan who self-identified as an atheist complained about the traditional pregame prayer at the University of Tennes- see–Chattanooga (UTC) football games. This complaint compelled the university to place a ban on all future prayers at sporting events (Garrett, 2012). Such pre-game prayer had been a traditional part of the game experience at UTC Finley Stadium football games, as well as at many other universities in the south. However, af- ter the UTC decision, the University of Georgia and University of Mississippi have both eliminated prayer before football games in the past two decades (Garrett, 2012). Although these universities have voluntarily discontinued pre-game prayers, the courts have upheld the right of schools at the university level to continue the practice of prayer at graduation and before games as long as they are nonsectarian or generic. The rationale for this decision is that college-age students are old enough to know that a prayer does not equate to a state endorsement of religion (Chaudhuri v. State of Tennessee, 1987). Although many universities have stopped prayer at athletic events, the main focus has been at the scholastic level.

Administrators at the interscholastic level must address the issue of prayer at athletic events, balancing the desires of students and stakeholders with the institution’s legal obligation under federal law. The religious makeup of our country is ever changing, as evi- denced by the fact that 72% of the millennial generation considers themselves to be more spiritual than religious (Grossman, 2010), and students’ attitude toward pre-game prayer is different today than it

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.