Church, State, and the Ambiguity of Banquets

When a school endorses, even tacitly, a religious viewpoint, they send a message of coercion to students and the community.  This is a tribalistic coercion, one that religious institutions thrive upon — those who aren't inclined to be chastised, embarrassed, or shunned are alternatively inclined to feign agreement with others.  This is why religion and government must be completely separated.  If you doubt this notion, or wish for further background on my thoughts, please read my previous post on school-sponsored prayer.

At our soccer banquet a few weeks ago, just before the event officially began, the head coach was speaking to a parent and I was standing nearby.  They turned to me and asked if I would deliver the opening prayer.

"Isn't this a school-sponsored event?" I asked.  They looked puzzled.  "If this is officially a school-sponsored event, that would be illegal."

"Well, the school didn't arrange this, we organized it ourselves," said the parent.  The banquet was hosted by a local church.

I don't remember my next statement as clearly, but the question of organization did punch a dart-sized hole in the sails of my argument.  "I understand, but I'm still not sure if we can do that," I responded, referring to the entire group being led in prayer.

Upon hearing the head coach's next statement, my heart sunk and my blood boiled: "It doesn't matter anyway, we're doing it."  They walked away.

I did nothing and the prayer was led by one of our players.  While irrelevant, he spoke well and thoughtfully.  More relevantly, he did not ramble about Jesus, but otherwise spoke directly and explicitly to God.

Lee v. Weisman is of vital importance here.  The Supreme Court determined that a school-endorsed, even nonsectarian, prayer at a public high school graduation ceremony is unconstitutional.  The decision uses strong language in opposition to such school endorsement (emphasis always mine):

The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees at a minimum that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise...

...supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places subtle and indirect public and peer pressure on attending students to stand as a group or maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction. A reasonable dissenter of high school age could believe that standing or remaining silent signified her own participation in, or approval of, the group exercise, rather than her respect for it. And the State may not place the student dissenter in the dilemma of participating or protesting.

However, there are aspects of the decision that indicate it does not apply 100% to such athletic banquet situations:

Petitioners' argument that the option of not attending the ceremony excuses any inducement or coercion in the ceremony itself is rejected. In this society, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions, and a student is not free to absent herself from the exercise in any real sense of the term "voluntary."

Lee's decision that prayers should be given and his selection of the religious participant are choices attributable to the State. Moreover, through the pamphlet and his advice that the prayers be nonsectarian, he directed and controlled the prayers' content.

While our banquet had no pamphlet, no direct control over the prayer, no clergy involved, and is surely considered more voluntary than graduation, the wording regarding pressure and coercion seem to readily apply.  Maybe there's more...

Ah, yes, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe.  As a conclusion to a debacle in which a school district twisted themselves into knots in order to support an invocation at their football games (the prayer was argued to be "student-led," and "private speech,"), the Supreme Court decided that even at this extracurricular, athletic event, and even with a student-body-elected student speaker, such endorsed prayer is unconstitutional. Some choice quotes:

The second part of the District’s argument–that there is no coercion here because attendance at an extracurricular event, unlike a graduation ceremony, is voluntary–is unpersuasive. For some students, such as cheerleaders, members of the band, and the team members themselves, attendance at football games is mandated, sometimes for class credit. The District’s argument also minimizes the immense social pressure, or truly genuine desire, felt by many students to be involved in the extracurricular event that is American high school football.... The Constitution demands that schools not force on students the difficult choice between whether to attend these games or to risk facing a personally offensive religious ritual.

...the District has established a governmental mechanism that turns the school into a forum for religious debate and empowers the student body majority to subject students of minority views to constitutionally improper messages. The award of that power alone is not acceptable.

There isn't much in this decision that can't be argued applies completely to our banquet, but there is a catch in the use of the term, "official,"

A conclusion that the message is not “private speech” is also established by factors beyond the policy’s text, including the official setting in which the invocation is delivered....

Where is the "official" line drawn?  At administrative endorsement?  At a coach's introduction?  At some degree of involuntary attendance?

---

A few days after our banquet, I spoke to our Athletic Director.  We had a very good discussion regarding the gray areas involved, as well as the nature of our community and, frankly, the desire to retain quality coaches.  We both agreed that if a significant challenge to this prayer were to be made, it would be much more effective if a student or parent initiated it.  A court might even say that as a teacher, I am above the kind of social pressure discussed in the cases above, and therefore am not harmed and have no standing to complain.  Ultimately, however, in a community where invocations are expected, challenges aren't made, and retainment of key coaches may depend on their ability to run banquets as they please, what student would dare step up?  Perhaps I should try to convince Jessica Ahlquist to move here and join the soccer team.

In the end...I hope it's the end...the AD spoke to the Superintendent and decided to send an email to all head coaches.  He asked that instead of inviting prayer, they lead a "moment of reflection" instead.  While the ardent crusader of principles in me is tempted to dig into Wallace v. Jaffree and the possibly contradictory Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act in Illinois, I'm satisfied for now...

...and a little nervous about our spring soccer season.  I've had no contact with the head soccer coach since that email was sent.

Three Stories of School-Sponsored Prayer

Dear Citizens of the USA,

The separation of church and state is a vital concept that is used to protect the secular foundation of our government.  Having (and applying) a secular government prevents abuse of religious power and prevents discrimination of many kinds.  Any attempt to infuse governmental agencies with religious agendas, motivations, or exemptions is an affront against this vital concept and all of those whom it protects.

---

Since the 60's, courts have consistently ruled against school-sponsored prayer at graduations and otherwise.

At a high school in Louisiana, the traditional Christian prayer at graduation was challenged by a graduating atheist, Damon Fowler.  He pointed out the illegality of the prayer and the superintendent agreed and removed it from the program.  The remainder of this story plays out as a complete debacle, with educators and community members directly insulting Damon and presenting themselves as clueless about American law and philosophy.

Importantly, at the graduation rehearsal the night before, the student who was to lead a moment of silence also led a Christian prayer, specifically stating, "I would like to give thanks to the god that has made the class of 2011 a success."  At graduation, almost identical events took place.

(For the record, the atheist community pulled together to fund a scholarship for Damon, who has been disowned. Organized by Hemant Mehta, they raised over $30,000.  Awesome.)

In the most kind terms I can possibly muster, the way that this played out, with its moments of silence and its no-approval-needed student speeches, presents us with the question of exactly what qualifies as endorsement by a school.  It seems currently (barely) legal for a school to say, "We won't require speeches to be approved ahead of time, and students can therefore say whatever they want and we won't get in the way."  However, when it is completely clear that a student is going to lead an audience in prayer, it is transitively clear that anyone in the audience who is not a part of that tradition will be singled out and likely considered inferior to the majority.  When a school does nothing to prevent such things, doesn't that seem to endorse the discriminatory viewpoints involved?  Yes, it does.

---

I attended a high school in a rather conservative and Christian area for one year.  I was involved in choir, of course.  The choral department hosted an annual banquet toward the end of the year for its students and their families.  I heard that a friend's father, a pastor, had been asked to lead the prayer at the banquet.  Knowing that since this was to be a school-sponsored event such a prayer would be illegal, but also knowing that the faculty involved wouldn't be receptive to any discussion, I went to the principal.  I brought him printouts of Supreme Court decisions to prove my point and within days, the prayer was cancelled.  I had disappointed a number of friends but had done the right thing.

Alas, as the event approached, I heard through the grapevine that one of my religious friends intended to stand at her table and lead the audience in a prayer.  I would be shocked if the choral faculty did not also know about this ahead of time.  At the banquet, she stood and led prayer, and I watched a room of bowed heads speak their "Amen."

What if, at Damon's school, a Muslim student had spontaneously led a prayer?  She could have said, "I would like to give thanks to Allah, the god that has made the class of 2011 a success."  How would the school administration have reacted?  What if a Buddhist had spoken?  A Wiccan?

I now daydream of what could of been had I asked that question in high school before the banquet.  My friend would have stood and led a Christian prayer, and I would have promptly stood to introduce a Jewish friend to lead the audience in prayer.  Immediately after that prayer, I would have introduced a Muslim friend to lead a prayer.  Immediately after that, I would have introduced a Buddhist friend to lead a prayer, one accompanied by Tibetan chant that we would've played from a boom box.

I can't imagine how the audience would have reacted, but I feel like that's what it takes to actually make a point.  I suspect the news media would have been engrossed in such a story.  Unfortunately, I did not have such a collection of friends of various faiths, nor the guts to do what needed to be done.

---

A similar story is occurring in Texas right now.  This one went to court and the agnostic family of plaintiffs won, but then the ruling was overturned yesterday at a federal appeals court.

Update: This Texas graduation was reportedly rife with prayer. This serves as a poignant, though frustrating, example of why this entanglement of school and religion must stop.

---

When governmental agencies present a message, such as by a speaker they select, that is religious in nature or purpose, they are separating the recipients of the message into those who agree and those who do not agree.  When such a separation is created in the minds of the people there is at best an implication, at worst a declaration, that those who are not included in the group of agreement are inferior citizens and people.  Such presentations imbue the government with religious perspective that by its very nature divides a people against each other.

In more straightforward terms; every time a school sponsors a prayer, even if it is non-denominational, every non-religious citizen and I are being sent the message that we are inferior to those who agree with the beliefs presented.  This is abhorrent and should cease immediately.