ACLU after Gate City High School

[pvfan]

GATE CITY ? A prayer delivered prior to a high school football game last week resulted in Gate City High School receiving a letter Tuesday from the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In the letter, the ACLU informed the school that it believed a prayer said during a student-led memorial service prior to Gate City?s Sept. 11 home game against Sullivan South High School was unconstitutional.

It also asked for the practice to cease immediately.

?We heard from someone who attends these football games ... that the game last Friday was opened with a prayer and that they had seen this happen last season as well,? said Rebecca K. Glenberg, legal director for the Virginia ACLU. ?The Supreme Court has made it quite clear that public high school football games cannot be opened with an official prayer.?

That holds true even if the opening prayer is done by students, she said.

The prayer was delivered by a student member of the school?s Fellowship of Christian Athletes during a ceremony that included a moment of silence for a Sullivan South football player who died earlier this season and a remembrance of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Both high school and school system officials acknowledged that the prayer occurred but disputed the claim that they took place before every football game.

?It was (the ACLU?s) understanding that a similar prayer was delivered at many of the home games last year,? Scott County School Superintendent Jim Scott said. ?Of course, (Gate City Principal Greg) Ervin said not, and he?s been in contact with them. Naturally, though, we?ll abide by the law.?

The prayer Friday night was completely student-led, Scott said, and was not sanctioned by the school.

The point of the service, officials said, was to simply pay respect to victims of the terrorist attacks and to the loss Sullivan South experienced.

?We were just trying to reach out and honor (Sullivan South),? Ervin said. ?This was a special case ? we wanted to honor our neighboring community and the memory of 9/11, and I was proud of my students for doing so.?

Glenberg said the ACLU was satisfied with the response it received from Gate City?s principal and the steps the school plans to take in the future.

?He did indeed call and said we did not have prayers at games last year, and it is not their policy and the students had acted alone,? Glenberg said.

There are no plans to file a lawsuit on the matter, she said.

?We try to contact the officials and try to determine exactly what the facts are and if there?s some other way to resolve it,? Glenberg said. ?Obviously, in this case, it was very simply resolved.?

The ACLU and the person who filed the complaint did not object in any way to the memorial services themselves, she said, just the prayer.

The letter cited the U.S. Supreme Court?s 2000 ruling in Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe.

In that case, the court found that prayers at public high school football games were, in certain instances, unconstitutional and could amount to a ?school-sponsored religious message.?

But according to the U.S. Department of Education?s Web site on constitutionally protected prayer in public schools, prayer is not attributable to a school and cannot be restricted when a student has ?primary control over the content of their expression.?

?Of course individuals are free to pray before, during and after a game,? Glenberg said. ?But when it becomes part of the official opening of the game and carries those (signs) of school sponsorship, that?s when it becomes impermissible.?

Scott said the school system might seek an opinion from Virginia?s attorney general in order to get a clear interpretation on what exactly can and can?t be done in regard to prayer and school events.

[pvfan]

This is completley ridiculous on numerous levels. I really question as to how something that is student lead is illegal. These people go on and out about offending somebody, and while I think we all should respect each other I really fail to see how a prayer could offend anyone. Furthermore, the wording of the Constitution states for the general welfare, it would be impossibe for someone to convince me that the general welfare was not served at Gate City High School last Friday. A young man had just lost his life, two communites with strong roots in Christianity prayed, each side showed their respects and the game was played. If there someone in the stadium that didn't chose to worship God, Jesus, or anything for that matter they were not forced to do so. This is just staggering to me that our country has gotten to this, the groups who try to protect freedom of speech will try to prohibit it. For all the degrees, studies, and scholary awards some of the members of the ACLU have received I really have to question just how smart this group is. More so than ever, this country needs areas like these for more reasons than one.

[Jason]

This is completley ridiculous on numerous levels. I really question as to how something that is student lead is illegal. These people go on and out about offending somebody, and while I think we all should respect each other I really fail to see how a prayer could offend anyone. Furthermore, the wording of the Constitution states for the general welfare, it would be impossibe for someone to convince me that the general welfare was not served at Gate City High School last Friday. A young man had just lost his life, two communites with strong roots in Christianity prayed, each side showed their respects and the game was played. If there someone in the stadium that didn't chose to worship God, Jesus, or anything for that matter they were not forced to do so. This is just staggering to me that our country has gotten to this, the groups who try to protect freedom of speech will try to prohibit it. For all the degrees, studies, and scholary awards some of the members of the ACLU have received I really have to question just how smart this group is. More so than ever, this country needs areas like these for more reasons than one.

I agree completely. The way I see it the young lady was using her freedom of speech. I feel the person slapped not only that young girl in the face but Sullivan South and their loss also. It was very inconsiderate of this person and group to bring this up on that night. Not only was South morning their loss but the country was remebering their loss(9-11-01) as well. That was just heartless and gutless to bring it up about that night.

[PVVikings2006]

Nothing like the AMERICAN CLASSLESS LOWLIFES for our countrys UNDOING to come up with something like this. Oh... and this is my 1st Amendment right by the way... its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH .... and it comes from a PRIVATE opinion that does not REPRESENT any school or organization that will infringe on your beliefs or on anyone elses.

Here is the thing that started it all: (and oh by the way... the people believed in THEIR CAUSE SO MUCH... they asked not to use their names for fear of HARASSMENT... by WHO? By the MAJORITY who pretty much BELIEVE)............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 29, 2000
Decided June 19, 2000
Full case name Santa Fe Independent School District, Petitioner v. Jane Doe, individually and as next friend for her minor children, Jane and John Doe, et al.
Citations 530 U.S. 290 (more)
Holding
Student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist

Associate Justices
John P. Stevens ? Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia ? Anthony Kennedy
David Souter ? Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ? Stephen Breyer

Case opinions
Majority Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (IN FAVOR OF)
Dissent Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Thomas (AGAINST THE RULING)
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were heard March 29, 2000. The court announced its decision on June 19, holding the policy unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision. School prayer is a controversial topic in American jurisprudence.





Background of the case
The Santa Fe Independent School District (SFISD), a school district in Texas between Houston and Galveston, allowed students to offer Christian prayers over the public address system at home football games. These prayers were given by an elected student chaplain.

Two sets of current or former students and their respective mothers?one Mormon, the other Catholic?objected to this practice and filed a suit on the basis of a violation of the Establishment Clause. Judge Samuel B. Kent of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas allowed the plaintiffs to remain anonymous to protect them from harassment. They are referred to as the Does.

During the litigation, the school changed its policy: they would hold two elections under students, the first deciding if "invocations" should be held during football games and the second to elect the student to deliver them. The students elected in favor of prayer; therefore, they were given this right.

The district court allowed this policy, though it required that they be nonsectarian and non-proselytizing. The judge's main authority was Jones v. Clear Creek ISD (Clear Creek ISD being another Houston-area school district), which allows certain school prayers. The district court's final judgment was in December 1996.

Both the SFISD and the Does appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The SFISD appealed because it claimed the words 'nonsectarian and non-proselytizing' should not be necessary. The Does wanted the football prayers found unconstitutional altogether.

In a 2-1 decision, Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., and Carl E. Stewart, ruling for the court, decided that "the words 'nonsectarian, nonproselytizing' are constitutionally necessary components" of a policy governing prayer. Moreover it also decided that these student-led prayers were only acceptable at graduation, not during football games. The majority opinion was written by Wiener.

E. Grady Jolly dissented, objecting that now "the majority expressly exerts control over the content of its citizens' prayers."

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, limited to the following question: "Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause."


The Court's decision
The Court held that the policy allowing the student led prayer at the football games was unconstitutional. The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens depended on Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577. It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."

A dissenting opinion was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. His dissent asserted that the majority opinion "bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life". His material objections were, first that the policy on which the Court has now ruled had not yet put in to practice. "[T]he question is not whether the district's policy may be applied in violation of the Establishment Clause, but whether it inevitably will be." Second, Rehnquist also stated that the speech in question would be private, chosen and delivered by the speaker, rather than public, school-sponsored speech.

[3ydsandacloudofdust]

I agree, rediculous. The American Legal system is totally messed up. The problem lies in and of the interpretation. America is a country of religious freedom. Christian prayer at this event is not unconstitutional. Although the prayer was probably Christian by nature, which I'm sure not a single one of the 10 K fans at this event were offended by, it also was not a mandatory event. If by that nature, prayer is unconstitutional, so is the National Anthem. Isn't prayer held at every single NASCAR race? Perhaps this involves the seperation of church and state in public schools vs. NASCAR, but apparently common logic and sense is unconstitutional also.

All we can do I suppose is fight for what we believe. After all, this is OUR country, and we have the responsibility to stand up for our beliefs.

[CoeburnCane]

America is a country of religious freedom.

Interesting take. Most people around here would tell you that America is a country of Christianity, not religious freedom. Well...freedom for Christianity anyways.

The ACLU's in the wrong here for even speaking up, but people (esp. around here) need to remember that it's just as right for someone to practice Bhuddism, Islam, Confucianism, or any other religion as it is for Christianity to be practiced.

[Biggin]

NASCAR is a corporation, in no way similiar to an educational institution.

This is one of those times I am just gonna peace out, if I post, everyone will hate me.

[collegetrumpet2010]

If it was student led then there should be no problems.

[Biggin]

If it was student led then there should be no problems.

That's not true.

The article plainly said that student led prayers have been found unconstitutional. Did you not read the original post?

[UTVols2]

I don't have a problem with the prayer and it happened at more places than just Gate City. I am glad they did it and hope all schools continue to do it each and every week. JMO