Texas Top Court Sides With Cheerleaders in Bible Banner Suit

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Texas Top Court Sides With Cheerleaders in Bible Banner Suit

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
HOUSTON — Jan 29, 2016, 1:32 PM ET

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled in favor of high school cheerleaders who argued that their free speech was trampled by their school district when it ordered them not to display banners emblazoned with Bible verses at football games.

The court in its opinion Friday acknowledged that the Kountze (koontz) school district, northeast of Houston, later allowed the banners. But the justices determined their ruling was necessary to protect the display of religious-themed signs in the future because the district has argued it retains the right to restrict them.

A state district judge in 2013 ruled the banners were constitutionally permissible, but an appeals court later sided with the district in rejecting the cheerleaders' argument.

The case now goes back to the same appeals court for further review.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-top-court-sides-cheerleaders-bible-banner-suit-36601885

[Hoppy]

1. If their team loses, will they be pissed at Jesus and burn the banners.

[Fumesucker]

4. Don't know many fundies, eh?

If their team loses it will be Satan's fault.

[Hoppy]

5. No, we don't do much in the way of fundies in my neck of the woods aa N.E., New Jersey.

Thanks for clueing me in.

H

[TexasProgresive]

2. I don't have fond memories of Hardin County, Tx.

Near Koonze in the city of Lumberton is the site of the only cross burning I ever witnessed. It has marked me my whole adult life. Yeah these are Bible believing people, NOT! Hardin county is 90% white and why is that? It's enough to make one think that it's a Sunset County-"Don't let the sun set on your b___k a__"

Sorry for the rant but these people make me sick.

[Goblinmonger]

3. I'm sure others can comment, but that doesn't seem inline with SCOTUS rulings

They are school district cheerleaders and, as such, are an extension of the school district. The school district couldn't put up the bible verses, so I'm not sure why an extension of the school district can. Now if it were parents in the stands, I don't think the district can restrict that.

ETA: or students in the stands.

[Major Nikon]

55. All 9 of the Texas Supreme Court justices are Republicans

Obviously had they been holding a banner that said "Praise Allah" the result would have been dramatically different.

[Leontius]

6. Finally some common sense, a student is not a government official or employee.

[LiberalAndProud]

7. Good.

Then you'll welcome the expression of disbelief in the middle of your next public school event.

I truly wish religious people would have the good sense to observe their religion in ways that don't trample on every single other belief system except for theirs wherever strikes their fancy.

It is your prerogative to believe whatever your pick from the great big book of multimultiple choice. It is not kind or helpful to foist those verses on others uninvited.

[Leontius]

8. I have no problem with anyone expressing their view on belief or non-belief

I do have a problem with those who want to stop people from expressing those views because they disagree with them. I also find it childish to cry oppression or coercion when those views are simply expressed in public.

[LiberalAndProud]

9. Public institutions receive tax dollars.

It isn't public expression that is at question here, it is whether public institutions should provide the venue for religious expression. I beg, I plead, I would even pray for you all to keep your religion in your church. Bring it to the public square if you must and broadcast it all over out airways, but don't send me the bill.

[3catwoman3]

26. Both of our sons attended a college that is...

...in the same athletic conference as Wheaton College in Illinois. Wheaton is famous for suing over the ACA's expectation of covering hormonal medication(which, unbeknownst to them, they had already been doing before challenging the ACA).

Our sons played college soccer together. Whenever they played Wheaton, after the game, the Wheaton soccer players would "invite" everyone into the center of the field for a post-game prayer circle. They would do this not only on their home field, which is certainly their prerogative, but also when they were the away team. I found this infuriatingly presumptuous.

[LiberalAndProud]

27. If they are going to bang their Bible, I wish they would read Matthew 6:6.

I really, truly wish it.

[Goblinmonger]

28. This will surprise some here, but I don't have a problem with that.

I have known a lot of people from Wheaton College over the years (competed in and coached college debate in the midwest). I have found everyone I met from Wheaton to be a wonderful person. They knew my attitude toward religion and were fine with it. They are a private religious college; if they want to pray after a game--have at it. I have not witnesses the invitation you speak of, but I am sure that the people I knew from there would have done so out of respect and an attempt at inclusion not from some superior mindset or for conversion.

This, of course, is based only on my experience with people from Wheaton College. N = 1 and all.

[3catwoman3]

29. Everyone at Wheaton is Christian.

That was not true for the other colleges in the conference, and I think it is inappropriate to presume that everyone wishes to engage in the same after-game Christian ritual.

[Goblinmonger]

32. I fully understand that.

One of the main differences I see here in comparison to the OP is that this is college.

Also, I freely admit I don't know the spirit in which the invitation was given in your instance, but I know that the dozens of people I know that attended Wheaton would have extended it in a very positive manner and had no problem with someone declining. They would be doing it to be nice and inclusive, not presumptuous. Again, N = 1 and I'm fully aware of that.

[nil desperandum]

36. They must have missed this part of their scripture:

Matthew 6:5

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Mathew 6:6

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Always entertaining to wonder how many of these religious folk actually read their great big book of instructions...


My apologies if this offends not my intent, just pointing out that according to their bible christians don't actually need to pray in public but they like to anyway....

[Leontius]

37. Your lack of understanding does not offend.

[trotsky]

49. See, you even have (allegedly) liberal Christians who don't think those verses apply to them.

They find ways. They all do. They pick what they want to follow, and reject what they don't. And not one of them can give any justification for why what they accept and reject are the correct ones. You'll just get anger and insults thrown your way. But rejoice - at least they can't burn you at the stake anymore!

[Leontius]

50. Your lack of understanding does not offend.

[immoderate]

51. Neither does yours.

--imm

[Leontius]

53. That's were I have a distinct advantage over you, I do understand.

[Goblinmonger]

10. That's not the SCOTUS ruling.

And a random student at a game is not a government representative, but one that is competing on a school sponsored activity is. A student could yell "The refs suck" and they may get talked to but if a cheerleader started yelling that, they would likely be off the team. Because they are an extension of the district and the district needs to make sure that what they say represents what the district can/would say.

Religion doesn't get a pass on this. If anything, because of the First Amendment rulings, it is even more important for them to make sure that those things they support are not violating the First Amendment. This is. And the ruling should be scaring the shit out of you.

[trotsky]

11. Well, as long as it's HIS religion, it's OK.

See?

[Leontius]

13. You must have posted this before my post #8.

Oh that's right you didn't did you, so you're lying about my view on this aren't you?

[Goblinmonger]

14. Nevermind.

Thought this was a reply to me.

[trotsky]

22. Nope, I posted exactly what I meant to say.

You keep on acting like a Christian should. You haven't disappointed me yet, Leontius.

[Leontius]

23. At least you admit you are a liar, that's a start.

[trotsky]

24. I told no lies.

Does Jesus approve of you calling names?

[Leontius]

31. Twice, one more for a quarter.

Sorry your alert didn't work.

[trotsky]

33. Sorry but I didn't alert on anything.

I much prefer to have your Christian behavior on display for all to see. You'll do far more to discredit your religion than any atheist ever could. Thanks Leo!

[Leontius]

34. Your quarter is now in the mail I guess.

Telling the truth won't discredit any religion, you should try it sometime.

[trotsky]

35. Now who's lying? n/t

[Travis_0004]

30. Results of Jury Service

On Mon Feb 1, 2016, 05:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

At least you admit you are a liar, that's a start.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=222518

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling another poster a "liar" is a personal attack

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 1, 2016, 05:40 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm guessing that this may be the first of many alerts and juries tonight.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rug]

18. Yet another palpably ignorant statement on the First Amendment.

Oh wait, you were attempting sarcasm. At least you didn't waste any exclamation points in the effort.

[Leontius]

12. Common sense and the Supreme Court don't always align.

Corporations are really people, right?

[Goblinmonger]

15. So you want the current 1st Amendment restrictions

regarding religion to go away? It's fine for the school and an extension of the school to engage in religious speech? This would include teachers, too.

[rug]

17. You should complain to the school district.

The intermediate appeals court denied the appeal of the parents on mootness grounds because the school district now allows it.

The District later supplemented that plea to assert mootness in light of its subsequent adoption of Resolution and Order No. 3, which provides that the District is “not required to prohibit messages on school banners . . . that display fleeting expressions of community sentiment solely because the source or origin of such message is religious,” but “retains the right to restrict the content of school banners.”

The Texas Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case to the lower appeals court for a decision on the merits.

[Leontius]

19. What part of commonsense do you not understand?

Students are not agents of the state.

[Goblinmonger]

20. They are when they are using the state's platform

Santa Fe v Doe. Which, not ironically, is also about football games.

Cheerleaders are using the state's platform. They are representatives of the school. Their activity is paid for by the school.

[rug]

21. It's about an entirely different set of facts.

The Santa Fe Independent School District (SFISD), a rural school district in Texas between the cities of Houston and Galveston, promoted the dominant Baptist religion in its public schools. Members of the school board claimed that separation of church and state was a "myth." Gideons International was allowed to distribute Bibles in the public schools. A teacher handed out flyers in class for a revival meeting and then harangued a Mormon student for belonging to a cult. Prayers were offered before graduations and at home football games, led by an elected student chaplain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_District_v._Doe

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/290/case.html

To coin a phrase, "This kind of misinformatiobn is what makes DU suck more."

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Way to dodge the relevant bit.

Supreme Court decision[edit]

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.[3] 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 been 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.

DU Dodgeball champion extraordinaire.


The only difference in this case, is that the school district actively opposed the religious signs at school events. In Santa Fe, the school tacitly approved/allowed it, wink wink nudge nudge.

But what Stevens penned in Santa Fe holds true here.

"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."

that single turn of fact, the hostility of this particular school district to the religious speech on school grounds, will also probably need to go before the Supreme Court to resolve.

And predictably, Thomas and Scalia will dissent, claiming that it is hunky dory for a school to go ahead and endorse, and impermissible for the school district to ban it.

[Goblinmonger]

39. Yeah, anyone who wants to spin Santa Fe as not applying here

is selling something. Something smelly.

Sure, the court sent it back down for different reasons, but the specifics of Santa Fe would hold true here. As much as Leo would love them to not. Cheerleaders are the voice of the school.

[rug]

40. Way to miss the basic facts.

Is there something about the phrase "student-led" that you miss?

Had you read the opinion, and not simply the syllabus, you'd realize the Santa Fe school district had a policy that allowed students to make statements, including prayers, as part of the regular ceremonies of the football games.

As opposed to, say, some cheerleaders in the bleachers holding signs.

Tell you what, AC, since you appear to be incapable of discussing any issue that touches on religion without attempting personal insult, if you refrain from referring to me again as "DU Dodgeball champion extraordinaire", I promise never to refer to you as "DU blithering legal analyst extraordinaire". (ETA this offer is not transferable to other candidates for the title.)

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Speaking of missing facts, the cheerleaders in this case stand on the field and hold a banner for

the friendly team to crash through as they take the field.

Clearly part of the 'program', and not mere bystanders in the stands.

[rug]

42. That fact is missing because it's not stated anywhere in the opinion.

Surely you can supply it from one of the two lower court decisions.

In the meantime, don't get your hopes up. Destroying paper banners with Bible verses on them (an activity I think you would otherwise applaud) is not the same as leading a prayer to a captive audience.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. The Coach here in Washington, leading a post-game prayer on the 50yd line wasn't

praying with a captive audience either. District fired him for it. Filed a Federal EEOC Complaint. Hasn't gone anywhere yet.

I've seen the 'crash through banner' bit reported across multiple unrelated news agencies. They were, at least at one point, on the field.

[rug]

44. He should have been.

But, assuming it's true, this wasn't prayer, student-led or otherwise.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Indistinguishable.

[rug]

46. That;s why lawyers are jdges are well paid. They can distinguish.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Indeed they can.

1. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs. (also known as the Entanglement Prong)

Factors.
1.a Character and purpose of institution benefited.
2.a Nature of aid the state provides.
3.a Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.

2. The statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (also known as the Purpose Prong)

What secular purpose does adding 'if god be with us, who can be against us' to a welcoming banner on the field at a school function, have?

You already know how that test was applied in Santa Fe.

[rug]

48. Provide the facts and I'll apply the law.

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. They are also selected by the school, are they not?

Don't cheerleaders and athletes need to try out to be on the team or cheerleading squad?

[rug]

16. The decision was procedural, not substantive.

The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the defendant’s voluntary cessation of challenged conduct rendered the plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief moot. The court of appealsheld that it did. ___ S.W.3d ___, 2014 WL 1857797, at *4-8 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2014) (mem.op.). Because the challenged conduct might reasonably be expected to recur, we reverse and remand.

http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1284936/140453.pdf

[Humanist_Activist]

52. Even when participating in and representing the school during an event? N/t

[goldent]

56. Yep, I think the courts are shifting on this

as they reflect on what the 1st amendment really means.