Moment of Silence – Bown v. Gwinnett County School District (1997) / Brown v. Gilmore (2001)

February 12, 2017June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Two cases in the early 1960s largely eliminated state-sponsored prayer from public schooling. Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington v. Schempp (1963) are to this day touted by the far right as responsible for having kicked God out of schools – leading inevitably to sex, drugs, violence, rock’n’roll, corduroy, divorce, the pill, AIDS, the Clintons, terrorism, and a Kenyan sleeper-cell Mooslim illegitimately seizing the White House for eight long, painful years.

The solution, of course, is to get God back IN our schools by requiring regimented recitation of state-approved chants. He LOVES those! Do this, we are assured, and America’s problems will vanish faster than you can say “civil liberties!”

Alabama led the way in the 1980s with a series of legislation which eventually led to Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the only “Moment of Silence” case to reach the Supreme Court to date. The Court determined that the state could mandate a “moment of silence” during the school day, but could not lead or even encourage prayer during that time.

The goals of Alabama’s legislation were no secret – state legislators ran on promises to get prayer back into schools, or as close as they could get it. That’s largely what stifled further establishment in Alabama – the Court refused to pretend the history and rhetoric associated with legislation didn’t exist while considering its constitutionality.

Legislative leaders in other states took note and began exercising greater caution as they argued for moments of silence of their own. Suddenly this 60-second period would promote non-violence and academic reflection and gluten-free living and all sorts of things.

A decade after Wallace, Georgia passed its own version of a “moment of silence.” It was challenged by a classroom teacher and ended up in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals as Bown v. Gwinnett County School District (1997). The Court determined that the Moment of Quiet Reflection in Schools Act did NOT violate the Establishment Clause.

The Court’s written opinion is unremarkable, but includes some details of note, such as this bit from what they call the Act’s “uncodified preamble”:

The General Assembly finds that in today’s hectic society, all too few of our citizens are able to experience even a moment of quiet reflection before plunging headlong into the day’s activities. Our young citizens are particularly affected by this absence of an opportunity for a moment of quiet reflection. The General Assembly finds that our young, and society as a whole, would be well served if students were afforded a moment of quiet reflection at the beginning of each day in the public schools.

It’s an absurd bit of glossy nonsense, but it’s constitutional nonsense. We could all probably benefit from drinking more water as well, but I notice no one’s mandating a moment of refreshing hydration each morning. But whatever.

Also in the ‘History of the Case’:

Senator David Scott, the primary sponsor of the Act… represented an urban district in Atlanta, Georgia. He was the Chairman of the Senate Education Committee… and a member of the State Violence Task Force Committee to prevent violence in schools. Senator Scott introduced {the Moment of Silence bill} as a part of a package of legislation aimed at reducing violence among Georgia’s youths.

I realize I’m a bit cynical, but 60 seconds of mandatory head-bowing seems a poor substitute for addressing poverty, mental health, drug addiction, sexual abuse, etc. But perhaps I assume too much.

Senator Scott had observed that after several killings on school campuses, students came together to have a moment of silent reflection. Noting that this moment of silence seemed to be beneficial and calming, Senator Scott believed that providing students with an opportunity for silent introspection at the beginning of each school day would help to combat violence among Georgia’s students.

I guess we’re lucky Georgia didn’t mandate a daily mock funeral ceremony using the same reasoning.

During debates over the bill, some state legislators liked it specifically because it was a step towards school prayer. Others opposed it for the same reason. Wisely, many in favor of the bill went on record arguing that it didn’t promote school prayer or have any religious purpose at all. That gave the Court enough cover as to the purpose of the bill that they could in good conscience consider it “religiously neutral.”

The teacher who initiated the case, Brian Brown, argued that the law violated the Establishment Clause and cited the “Lemon Test” to prove it. No surprise, then, that the 11th Circuit used Lemon to respond.

The first prong of the Lemon test requires that the challenged statute have a “clearly secular purpose” … However, the statute’s purpose need not be exclusively secular… A statute violates the Establishment Clause if it is “entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion” …
To ascertain a statute’s purpose, it is, of course, necessary to examine the language of the statute on its face… It is also appropriate to consider the legislative history of the statute and the specific sequence of events leading up to the adoption of the statute.

The Court cites both the law itself and its context and presentation by way of establishing that the law explicitly avoids promoting religious activities during this magical minute. At the same time, should a child choose to bow their head or clutch their rosary beads during the moment of life-altering focus and de-violencing, the state may not discourage them from so doing.

The Court specifically addresses the difference in dynamics between this situation and Jaffree – largely distinguished by what was said in debates leading up to passage, and contemporaneous legislation with similar goals.

Issues involving motivation or purpose of pro-religious legislation are sometimes determinative, sometimes merely a factor in the larger discussion, and (especially recently) sometimes completely ignored altogether. Nevertheless, just to be safe, lawmakers are highly encouraged to be completely disingenuous when proposing and debating such legislation in order to assure they pass judicial muster. They needn’t feel bad. It’s like Jesus said, “You must obscure the truth, because the truth will just get in the way.”

In Jaffree, the primary sponsor of the Alabama statute and the Governor of Alabama both explicitly conceded that the purpose of the Alabama statute was to return prayer to the Alabama schools, and Alabama failed to present any evidence of a secular purpose… In contrast, in this case, the primary sponsor of the Act indicated that the Act had a secular purpose.
It is true, as Bown argues, that some legislators expressed the desire to return prayer to Georgia’s schools and supported the Act for this reason. However, it is also true that other legislators felt that the Act did not involve school prayer…

You get the idea.

Under the second prong of the Lemon test, a statute violates the Establishment Clause if its primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion…
The announcement made over the school intercom by Principal Hendrix indicated only that there would be a moment of silence to reflect on the day’s activities. This announcement in no way suggested that students should or should not pray silently during the moment of quiet reflection…
There is no indication in this case that any teacher encouraged prayer in violation of the guidelines stated in the Administrative Bulletin. There is no evidence in this case that any students were exhorted to pray, favored for praying, or disfavored for not praying…

The Court then contrasts this dynamic with situations in which students may feel indirectly, if not explicitly, coerced, such as in Lee v. Weisman (1992) and finds they’re not at all similar. There’s no advancement of religion here.

The third prong of the Lemon test dictates that the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion…
We conclude that there is no excessive entanglement in this case.

Yeah, that was going to be a tough sell at best.

All that the Act requires is that the students and the teacher in charge remain silent during the moment of quiet reflection. Teachers are not required to participate in or lead prayers, nor are they required to review the content of prayers during the moment of quiet reflection…

They’re not only “not required;” they’re specifically prohibited from so doing.

The fact that a teacher must stop a student who prays audibly or otherwise makes noise during the moment of quiet reflection does not result in excessive government entanglement with religion. There are many times during any given school day when teachers tell their students to be quiet and when audible activity of any kind is not permitted. The fact that this particular period of silence is mandated statewide does not create entanglement problems.

A few short years later, Virginia took their turn. The resulting case, Brown v. Gilmore (2001), was heard and decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the outcome was basically the same. It’s notable for being the first instance I’ve come across of the specific phrasing used by many state legislatures since, including Oklahoma’s. Here’s how Oklahoma’s statute reads, in case you’re curious:

The board of education of each school district shall ensure that the public schools within the district observe approximately one minute of silence each day for the purpose of allowing each student, in the exercise of his or her individual choice, to reflect, meditate, pray, or engage in any other silent activity that does not interfere with, distract, or impede other students in the exercise of their individual choices.

But there’s more…

The Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma is hereby authorized to intervene in any legal proceeding to enforce the provisions of this act and shall represent any school district or employee named as a defendant therein.

Ha! Defensive, much?

Several similar cases have produced comparable results in other federal courts. They each have their own quirks, but the pattern is clear.

With the sudden national lurch to the right (and away from even token concern with civil liberties or the sincerity of inflicted faith), it remains to be seen what may come next. For now, however, the “moment of silence” – a pointless exercise designed only to allow legislators to walk right up to that line separating church and state and kick dirt on its trousers – is on solid constitutional ground.

Presumably this is already rolling back forty years of decadence and cultural decline. If not, we might have to up it to two minutes.

A Wall of Separation – Bown v. Gwinnett County School District (1997)

February 8, 2017June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

The Court’s written opinion is unremarkable, but includes some details of note, such as this bit from what they call the Act’s “uncodified preamble”:

The General Assembly finds that in today’s hectic society, all too few of our citizens are able to experience even a moment of quiet reflection before plunging headlong into the day’s activities. Our young citizens are particularly affected by this absence of an opportunity for a moment of quiet reflection. The General Assembly finds that our young, and society as a whole, would be well served if students were afforded a moment of quiet reflection at the beginning of each day in the public schools.

It’s an absurd bit of glossy nonsense, but it’s constitutional nonsense. We could all probably benefit from drinking more water as well, but I notice no one’s mandating a moment of refreshing hydration each morning. I’m just saying.

Also in the ‘History of the Case’:

Senator David Scott, the primary sponsor of the Act… represented an urban district in Atlanta, Georgia. He was the Chairman of the Senate Education Committee… and a member of the State Violence Task Force Committee to prevent violence in schools. Senator Scott introduced {the Moment of Silence bill} as a part of a package of legislation aimed at reducing violence among Georgia’s youths.

I realize I’m a bit cynical, but 60 seconds of mandatory head-bowing seems a poor substitute for addressing poverty, mental health, drug addiction, sexual abuse, etc. But perhaps I assume too much.

Senator Scott had observed that after several killings on school campuses, students came together to have a moment of silent reflection. Noting that this moment of silence seemed to be beneficial and calming, Senator Scott believed that providing students with an opportunity for silent introspection at the beginning of each school day would help to combat violence among Georgia’s students.

I guess we’re lucky Georgia didn’t mandate a daily mock funeral ceremony using the same reasoning.

During debates over the bill, some state legislators liked it specifically because it was a step towards school prayer. Others opposed it for the same reason. Wisely, many in favor of the bill went on record arguing that it didn’t promote school prayer or have any religious purpose at all. That gave the Court enough cover as to the purpose of the bill that they could in good conscience consider it “religiously neutral.”

The first prong of the Lemon test requires that the challenged statute have a “clearly secular purpose” … However, the statute’s purpose need not be exclusively secular… A statute violates the Establishment Clause if it is “entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion” …
To ascertain a statute’s purpose, it is, of course, necessary to examine the language of the statute on its face… It is also appropriate to consider the legislative history of the statute and the specific sequence of events leading up to the adoption of the statute.

The Court cites both the law itself and its context and presentation by way of establishing that the law explicitly avoids promoting religious activities during this magical minute. At the same time, should a child choose to bow their head or clutch their rosary beads during the moment of life-altering, the state may not discourage them from so doing.

The Court specifically addresses the difference in dynamics between this situation and Wallace. It’s largely a matter of what was said in debates leading up to passage, and surrounding legislation with similar goals.

I cannot emphasize this enough. All subsequent efforts to nudge religious rituals back into government schooling will be made with an awareness that public arguments and discussions may be factored in to any resulting constitutional challenges. Lawmakers are essentially encouraged to be disingenuous if they wish to pass judicial muster.

In Jaffree, the primary sponsor of the Alabama statute and the Governor of Alabama both explicitly conceded that the purpose of the Alabama statute was to return prayer to the Alabama schools, and Alabama failed to present any evidence of a secular purpose… In contrast, in this case, the primary sponsor of the Act indicated that the Act had a secular purpose.
It is true, as Bown argues, that some legislators expressed the desire to return prayer to Georgia’s schools and supported the Act for this reason. However, it is also true that other legislators felt that the Act did not involve school prayer…

You get the idea.

Under the second prong of the Lemon test, a statute violates the Establishment Clause if its primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion…
The announcement made over the school intercom by Principal Hendrix indicated only that there would be a moment of silence to reflect on the day’s activities. This announcement in no way suggested that students should or should not pray silently during the moment of quiet reflection…
There is no indication in this case that any teacher encouraged prayer in violation of the guidelines stated in the Administrative Bulletin. There is no evidence in this case that any students were exhorted to pray, favored for praying, or disfavored for not praying…

The third prong of the Lemon test dictates that the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion…
We conclude that there is no excessive entanglement in this case.

Yeah, that was going to be a tough sell at best.

All that the Act requires is that the students and the teacher in charge remain silent during the moment of quiet reflection. Teachers are not required to participate in or lead prayers, nor are they required to review the content of prayers during the moment of quiet reflection…

They’re not only “not required;” they’re specifically prohibited from so doing.

The fact that a teacher must stop a student who prays audibly or otherwise makes noise during the moment of quiet reflection does not result in excessive government entanglement with religion. There are many times during any given school day when teachers tell their students to be quiet and when audible activity of any kind is not permitted. The fact that this particular period of silence is mandated statewide does not create entanglement problems.

A few short years later, Virginia took their turn. The resulting case, Brown v. Gilmore (2001), was heard and decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the outcome was basically the same. Several others have produced comparable results in other federal courts. They each have their own quirks, but the pattern is clear.

With the recent lurch of all three branches to the right, and away from even token concern with civil liberties or sincere belief, it’s hard to guess what may come next. But for now, the “moment of silence” – a pointless exercise designed only to allow legislators to walk right up to that line separating church and state and kick dirt on its trousers – is on solid constitutional ground.

It remains to be seen whether the practice is sufficient to roll back forty years of decadence and cultural decline. We might have to up it to two minutes.

Wall of Separation (Supreme Court Cases & Such) – Updated

January 14, 2017June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

A few months ago, I started blogging about Supreme Court cases delineating the relationships between religion and public schooling. In order to use some of the case summaries in class, I started editing and reformatting them afterwards. Then I figured since the work was already being done, and this effort at providing classroom resources in PDF format was already underway… why not just post them as I go?

Here’s my in-progress summary of cases involving church/state issues in relation to public schooling – and a few which aren’t.

Building A “Wall of Separation” (Faith & School) – Brief background to the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists which introduced the phrase “a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Everson v. Board of Education (1947) – It’s OK for the state to reimburse parents for transportation costs of getting their children to school, whether public or private, sectarian or secular.

McCollum v. Board of Education of School District (1948) – The use of public school facilities by religious organizations to give religious instruction to school children violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This does not prohibit teaching about religion, or schools allowing religious groups to use their facilities outside of school ours (as long as they do so equitably). It does prohibit coercing students into religious instruction as part of the school day.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) – The state can NOT require – or even promote – prayer in public schools as part of the school day.

Abington v. Schempp (1963) – The state can NOT require or promote the reading of Bible verses or recitation of the Lord’s Prayer as stand-alone activities during the school day. (Studying the Bible or the Christian religion as part of history, literature, etc., still perfectly appropriate.)

Board of Education v. Allen (1968) – It’s OK for the state to provide textbooks free of charge to all secondary students (Grades 7 – 12), including those in private schools. An important part of the Court’s reasoning in this case was that the textbooks constituted aid directly to students, rather than institutions.

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970) – Not specifically a ‘religion in schools’ case. It’s OK for states to offer property tax exemptions for groups serving the public good – even if they’re religious in nature.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – State aid to sectarian institutions such as private Catholic schools violates the Establishment Clause and is unconstitutional. This case also established “The Lemon Test” – “Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion… finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion’…”

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – The state’s interest in an educated citizenry is outweighed by the right of the Amish to maintain their faith and their communities. Parents may pull their children out of public schooling for religious reasons once they turn 16 – especially given the Amish track record for becoming productive, well-behaved members of society. The Court had previously attempted to distinguish between regulating beliefs and regulating behavior – in this case, the two were the inseparable. They instead introduced the idea of “balanced interests’ – the state’s interest in an educated populace vs. the parents’ or individual’ interest in pursuing their faith as they see fit.

Meek v. Pittenger (1975) – It’s unconstitutional for the state to provide materials and equipment for non-public schools, or to pay for support services for students at those schools. As in Allen, however, textbooks (for traditional subjects) were fine.

Stone v. Graham (1980) – State cannot require schools to post the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, even if paid for by private money.

Mueller v. Allen (1983) – It’s OK for the state to let parents deduct expenses related to “tuition, textbooks, and transportation” for their children, regardless of whether their child attends public or private school, even if sectarian. Significantly, the Court determined that as long as the intent is secular, it’s OK for the effect to significantly favor parents sending their kids to religious schools. This case is considered one of the three foundational cases leading up to vouchers.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) – While a “moment of silence” is fine, any nudging towards prayer, especially with teacher participation, is unconstitutional. This issue will come up again.

Aguilar v. Felton (1985)– A NYC program sending public school teachers into parochial schools to provide extra help for disadvantaged children was ruled an unconstitutional “entanglement” of church and state, thus violating the Establishment Clause. This ruling was overturned a decade later in Agostini v. Felton (1997).

Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind (1986) – A state agency which provided assistance to blind students pursuing education or job training may continue to do so even if the education/profession being pursued is religious in nature. This case didn’t involve public education, but did nudge along an understanding of the law which certainly does. This case is considered one of the three foundational cases leading up to vouchers.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) – Students produced two articles for the school newspaper which dealt with teenage pregnancy and in which students at the schools shared their firsthand experiences, including various conflicts involving their families. The school principal determined the subject matter to be inappropriate and efforts to protect the girls’ identities insufficient, and the stories were pulled. Students protested that their First Amendment rights were being violated. The Supreme Court eventually ruled 5-3 that the principal had the right to make this decision because the newspaper was a product of the school and created as part of a journalism class, for which students were receiving credit and a grade.

Lee v. Weisman (1992) – It’s unconstitutional for schools to have clergymen offering prayers at graduation ceremonies, no matter how general or brief the prayers. Even if not technically ‘required’, or even on school property, participation is still coerced and thus a violation of the “establishment clause.”

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993) – Students attending private sectarian schools are still entitled to support services from public schools – in this case, a sign-language interpreter for a deaf student. This case is considered one of the three foundational cases leading up to vouchers.

Agostini v. Felton (1997) – Overturned Aguilar v. Felton (1985). It was no longer considered a violation of the Establishment Clause for a state-sponsored education initiative to send public school teachers into religious schools, so long as reasonable steps were taken to minimize “entanglement.”

Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000), Part One: Overview – Background to landmark Supreme Court Case in which the Court decided that organized prayer during school events using school resources was unconstitional – even if students “voted” on it.

Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000) – Part Two: If She Weighs The Same As A Duck… – The impact of mingling church and state on dissenters. Spoiler: it gets ugly rather quickly.

Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000) – Part Three: A Little Leaven Leaveneth The Whole Lump – The impact of mixing church and state on the faith being “defended.” Spoiler: it gets ugly rather quickly.

Let’s Talk About Vouchers, Part One (What Happened In Cleveland?) – Background to Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), a seminal Supreme Court Case in which the Court decided that efforts to improve education in Ohio – including the use of vouchers – did not violate the Establishment Clause.

Let’s Talk About Vouchers, Part Two (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002) – My brilliant breakdown of the decision itself.

Let’s Talk About Vouchers, Part Three (The Majority Opinion in Zelman) – Insights from the Majority Opinion.

Let’s Talk About Vouchers, Part Four (The Story So Far) – A summary of more recent court decisions at various levels dealing with vouchers and other “school choice” variations as of December 2016.

The Ten Commandments (Part One) – Background, the “Lemon Test,” some cases which made the news but not the Supreme Court Docket, and two that did – McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) and Van Orden v. Perry (2005).

The Ten Commandments (Part Two) – Recap of Part One, Pleasant Grove v. Summum (2009), Green v Haskell County Board of Commissioners (2009), and Felix v. Bloomfield (2014).

There will be more. I’m looking at “moment of silence” stuff, and will eventually follow up on other “school choice” cases. I’ll probably grab some quirky school-related cases not necessarily tied to “wall of separation” issues as well, in which case I’ll probably have to rename the next update. In any case, if you’re into that sort of thing, check back soon.

Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000) – Part Three: A Little Leaven Leaveneth The Whole Lump

January 10, 2017June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

I suspect you would never intend this, but this is what happens. When you attempt to live by your own religious plans and projects, you are cut off from Christ, you fall out of grace.
Meanwhile we expectantly wait for a satisfying relationship with the Spirit. For in Christ, neither our most conscientious religion nor disregard of religion amounts to anything. What matters is something far more interior: faith expressed in love.
You were running superbly! Who cut in on you, deflecting you from the true course of obedience? This detour doesn’t come from the One who called you into the race in the first place. And please don’t toss this off as insignificant. It only takes a minute amount of yeast, you know, to permeate an entire loaf of bread.
Galatians 5:4-9 (The Message)
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Galatians 5:9 (KJV)

In Part One I introduced Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), a case in which the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional for the school to open football games with prayer over the stadium loudspeakers – even if students “voted” on it. I suggested the stories behind this decision emphasized the importance of that whole “wall of separation” thing.

In Part Two I tried to highlight the impact on dissenters whenever majority beliefs control secular government policy, using the power of the state to promote favored theologies. I managed to keep it under 1800 words and didn’t mention ISIS or Al-Qaeda even once!

Finally, I’d like to look at the damage done to faith when it becomes entangled with secular authority. This isn’t really a religiously-driven blog, but it’s an important point – so I’m going to give it a shot.

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself…
James Madison, Federalist #51 (1788)

When I stop at a red light, I’m not doing it because those damn liberals are making me late for work just so someone else can drive through the intersection on my time; I do it because traffic lights allow for safer, more productive use of the common roads. They help the other guy, sure – but they help me as well. That’s true even when I’m not benefitting obviously and directly right that second.

That alone should be enough for us to stop, even when we’re in a hurry and there’s no one coming from the other direction. But we know ourselves, and we know humanity, so we collectively devote resources to both the cost of the lights and enforcement via police and the courts.

You can get a ticket for running a red light even when no one was coming and there was no danger. The rules are enforced on principle alone because over time, as a whole, that’s what’s best for everyone – including the guy getting the ticket.

There’s no crime in getting annoyed that you’re stuck at a red light. You might even go to city leadership and ask them to reevaluate some things – how long lights stay red or green, how the equipment senses vehicles, etc.

But if I let my determination to drive through that intersection any time I damn well please become a priority – the reason I even start the car in the morning – then something else has gone seriously wrong. Something with the potential to be personally destructive as well as threatening to others. At that point, I’ve lost sight of the whole purpose of driving to begin with.

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Luke 18:10-14 (KJV)

The “separation of church and state” defined by the First Amendment isn’t about being “nice” to folks with other beliefs. It’s not cultural charity – it’s collective preservation.

Yes, it protects religious minorities – like, say, the Baptists were for many years. But just as importantly, it preserves the integrity of the dominant faith. It’s a shield against the corrupting of Christianity.

Santa Fe had been something of a Mayberry. I’m sure they had their issues – most of us do – but it wasn’t until boundaries between faith and politics began to crumble that things turned particularly ugly.

Prayer before football games is part of a much larger campaign in Santa Fe, one to “bring God back into the classroom” according to school prayer advocates. Many here argue that the secularization of schools—after decades of Supreme Court rulings removing morning prayer and the Ten Commandments from the classroom—has caused a moral crisis in both this community and the nation as a whole. They believe Santa Fe has been chosen for a purpose, and that purpose is to wage “spiritual warfare” against an increasingly secular and amoral culture. “We are warriors on the field,” said Pastor Terry Gibson, “and prayer is our greatest weapon.”

We all remember when Christ emphasized to his disciples the importance of mandatory group prayer before athletic events, yes? Otherwise, the Devil scores the real touchdown.

Santa Fe had always been a place where people were strong in their faith but not in their judgments, Debbie recalled, though in the early nineties, that began to change. Fundamentalist and evangelical churches had always played an important, if low-key, role in Santa Fe. But as the town grew… church rolls swelled, and the Ministerial Alliance—a coalition of local church leaders who would figure prominently in the push for school prayer—became more powerful, and more political.
Several school board positions were soon filled with self-described Christian conservatives, who called the separation of church and state doctrine a “myth” and a misinterpretation of the Constitution. By the time the lawsuit was filed, the town’s mood had begun to shift…

This sound at all familiar, Oklahoma?

Abstinence-only sex education classes were instituted. Juvenile literature by Judy Blume and Beverly Cleary was removed from the elementary school library… And Danielle Mason was not the only student to have had a Bible forced on her or to be taunted for not taking one. “I was told by an administrator that if my girls would just take the Bibles, there wouldn’t be a problem,” Debbie Mason said…
Texas Monthly (November 2000)

The transition from believer to Pharisee is not always a clear or sudden one. The decline from faithfulness to rules and rituals is ugly, but often difficult to recognize in real time.

You don’t have to be a bad person to become a leavened lump.

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. 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.
Matthew 6:5-6 (KJV)

What the controlling majority in Santa Fe was fighting for wasn’t a fundamental component of their faith – it was a tradition. A statement of “us” in a community determined not to give in to “them.” Jesus, as you may recall, was a bit more of the “come unto Me” type – much less excited about ceremony and separation.

Prayer proponents were willing to alter the words, even eliminate references to God or the Bible just to win the legal battle at hand – begging the question of whether anything so faith-free is still even “prayer.” Students snuck in speakers and played pre-recorded invocations. Parents chanted prayers over the announcer. One way or the other, they were going to win this for God, dammit.

{History makes it clear that} religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together…
James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston (July 10, 1822)

Like the “War on Christmas” or the Salem Witch Trials, football prayers became a proxy for bigger economic and cultural changes they couldn’t fight – maybe not even consciously identify. Genuine belief mutated into a “must-win” battle over rituals and symbols. What many residents longed for was something their football prayers couldn’t give them – a return to an idealized past. One racially, economically, and culturally homogenous. They wanted Mayberry back.

Sitting in the bleachers of the local Little League baseball complex and cheering on the budding sluggers, Santa Fe school board member Couch calls it a “compliment” that the town resembles a community from the 1950s. “There are a lot of good values from the ’50s,” he says. “There are lot of people here who wouldn’t mind taking a step back.” …
He points to the 1962 Supreme Court ruling that first banned prayer in public classrooms.
“Since that time, there has been an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancies and school violence,” he says… “At the same time, test scores have dropped. It can all be traced back to that point. It is no mistake.”
That is why Couch says he is willing to go to jail to keep God in public schools. “This isn’t a matter of win or lose,” says Couch. “It’s a matter of right or wrong.”

This sentiment was not uncommon in Santa Fe. If we’re honest, it’s not that uncommon among conservatives in America today.

You wash your car, and it rains – therefore washing your car opened up the skies. You take state-sanctioned, teacher-led prayer out of public schools, and the 1960s unfold – therefore…

They could just as easily blame the Equal Pay Act, the introduction of Froot Loops cereal, or JFK saying that thing about being a jelly donut at the Berlin Wall. But the issue was never really just prayer or lack thereof, and it’s certainly not God’s inability to “get inside” public schools where desperate believers presumably lie verbally muzzled and thus spiritually forsaken.

Society changes – sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse – and it’s usually messy along the way. What faith offers isn’t an unchanging world, but an unwavering source of guidance and comfort as you walk through those changes.

That “wall of separation” isn’t there to stifle your faith. It’s there to protect it. And to protect others from you, if that first part doesn’t work.

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.
I Corinthians 10:23-24

Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000) – Part Two: If She Weighs The Same As A Duck…

January 6, 2017August 10, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

{History makes it clear that} religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together…
James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston (July 10, 1822)

In Part One I introduced the basics of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), in which the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional for schools to open football games with prayer over the stadium loudspeakers – even if students “voted” on it.

I suggested that the stories behind this decision were worth exploring in support of that whole “wall of separation” thing. Part Three will be about the damage done to faith when it becomes entangled with secular authority; this post is about how monolithic belief treats dissent.

As anyone who keeps up with world events already recognizes, this phenomenon is hardly limited to Christianity. It’s always dangerous when the powers of the state at any level allow themselves to become entangled in spiritual matters – particularly on the side of the majority. Religious beliefs often involve revealed truths (i.e., supernatural definitions of reality) and divine judgment based on those truths – with their own standards for right and wrong. Secular law utilizes human definitions of the collective good, and seeks to protect individual rights.

These two realms often overlap – which is fine. Sometimes they become mixed – which is not.

So it’s not a problem with Christians so much as a problem with humans and power. And since most Christians are also humans…

You get the idea.

“If somebody gets offended by somebody praying, they just shouldn’t listen,” says Santa Fe barber Tommie Weaver, holding buzzing electric clippers and standing atop tufts of straw-like hair shorn from a sunburned boy. “The government is trying to take the Lord out of our hearts and minds, and it’s going to be the downfall of this country,” says Weaver. “The devil is getting too much say here.”
The Salt Lake Tribune (June 3, 2000)

Santa Fe, Texas, is a flavor of Baptist hard to fathom for those outside the Bible Belt. As recently as the 1990s, the Gideons distributed Bibles at school. Teachers invited students to revival meetings and taught them religious songs. And – most sacred of all – there was collective public prayer before football games.

For any of you reading from outside God’s Country, football holds a place in the South second only to church – sometimes higher. Basketball can be played without invoking the divine, as can baseball, volleyball, or any of the other lesser sports. Marching band, speech and debate, theater – even vocal music all survive without regimented invocation.

But football… that’s different. You can’t play unless you pray. And if you won’t pray, you’re in the wrong town. Maybe the wrong country. So bow your head, dammit – or someone’s gonna get hurt.

For more than two years, classmates of {13-year-old Phil Nevelow}, an eighth-grader, have made him feel like a hated minority.
The bullying reached a climax last month when Phil… was set upon by three teenagers on a school bus; they called him “a dirty Jew” and threatened to hang him.
The prospect of a hanging is what caused authorities to arrest the three teenagers the next day. It’s anybody’s guess when authorities would have gotten around to doing anything about the slurs. Phil’s parents said he has been on the receiving end of repeated antisemitic harassment since the seventh grade–and their complaints to Santa Fe school administrators have gone nowhere.
When kids surrounded Phil on the playground and made the “Heil Hitler” sign, the school system did nothing. When swastikas were scrawled on book covers in front of him, school officials looked the other way. And when he was taunted with: “Hitler missed one! No more Jews! Hitler missed one! He should have gotten you!” his complaints were greeted with official inaction…
Of the system’s poor response, Santa Fe Superintendent Richard Ownby said, “I’m not sure our communications have been real good here.”
The Washington Post (June 24th, 2000)

Yeah, they were kids. But such specific and virulent ideology doesn’t evolve naturally by 7th grade. It’s imprinted by the culture in which they’re raised. Besides, it wasn’t just the kids…

{T}he problem faced by the Mormon and Catholic families… included outright harassment of their children, simply because they weren’t part of the dominant church.
When one of the children in the Mormon family questioned a teacher’s promotion of a revival, the teacher asked the student what religion she belonged to. When told that the child was Mormon, the teacher launched into an attack on Mormonism, calling it a “non-Christian cult,” saying it was of the devil, and telling the child that she was going to hell.
The court also heard ‘uncontradicted’ evidence that students who declined to accept Bibles or objected to prayers and religious observances in school were verbally harassed.
Mormons Today (June 23, 2000)

This mindset may not be typical of people of faith, but it IS what drives the politics of religious aggression. You may serve a Christ who blessed the meek while single-handedly conquering Death and Hell, but that hardly requires my cooperation. Folks clinging to public rituals serve a Messiah who cannot survive without state-mandated obeisance. It makes them desperate, and angry.

You want the freedom to serve your God; they want the state to pressure everyone else to do the same. Salvation via mob rule, lest Jesus somehow fade away like Tinkerbell when not enough people clap.

Such a mindset is always lamentable, but it’s only dangerous when it infiltrates enough secular authority to implement its bidding. It makes little difference whether that authority is federal, state – or a local school district.

Danielle Mason was eleven years old when she was first accused of not being a good Christian… Most Sundays, the Mason sisters attended the biggest and oldest church in town, the First Baptist Church of Alta Loma…
Danielle wore a thin silver cross around her neck and sometimes drew pictures of the apostles, carefully copied out of her candy-pink illustrated Bible. At night she would wind up her white music box with the pink trim and listen to its cheerful tune, “Jesus Loves Me,” as she drifted off to sleep.
According to Danielle, the week before Easter during her fifth-grade year, she gathered her belongings from her locker at the end of the school day and headed for the door. Several neatly dressed Gideons had set up a table nearby, and one of them approached her, proffering a Bible. She thanked him but declined the offer. Undeterred, the man pressed it into her hands. “God wants you to have this,” he said. “Jesus wants you to know him.”
“No, thank you,” she said. “I have a Bible at home.”
Other students in the hallway with the new red Bibles tucked under their arms stopped and stared. Again, the man offered her one.
“I don’t want it,” she said.
The students gathered closer. “Do you worship Satan?” one child asked. “Are you in a cult?” asked another. Danielle stared back at them, mute. Then the words came in a torrent of shrill voices. Devil worshiper. Atheist. God hater.
Texas Monthly, November 2000

It hadn’t always been like that in Santa Fe, Texas. As we’ll look at in Part Three, Santa Fe had been a place “where people were strong in their faith but not in their judgments.”

That changed in the 1990s when self-described “Christian Conservatives” began getting involved in local politics and declaring the Word of God superior to the laws of men – which may be true, but which they distorted into a Highlander-flavored dichotomy: “There Can Be Only One.” Either God’s law (as interpreted by themselves) must supplant man’s, or man’s law has thwarted God’s.

That’s like arguing you can either work from home all evening or bring your kids to work with you all day – that one realm must conquer the other. Yes, you’re a parent even while you’re at work; sometimes you may even miss work to take care of your kids. You might periodically catch up on work from home. Neither indicates some sort of irresponsible or sinful compromise on your part – just that you understand the difference between the two roles.

Unlike, say, locals at a heated school board meeting…

When a Catholic mother took issue with school prayer, a woman behind her called out, “Catholics aren’t Christians anyway.” During a recess, a woman approached Debbie to inquire what religion she was. “A school board member leaned over and said, ‘Don’t worry. She’s Baptist—she’s one of us,’” Debbie recalled. “And I thought, what does ‘one of us’ mean?”
Texas Monthly, November 2000

There were, of course, ways of finding out who was “one of us.”

The lawsuit had been filed anonymously due to fear of retribution towards the kids and families involved. Petitions began circulating in the community seeking support for these football prayers; anyone refusing to sign was suspected of being one of “them” – anti-Christian and anti-community. Those under suspicion were publicly shunned, some were threatened. You learned to be careful what you said, how you said it, and to whom.

School officials circulated a similar petition among students to see who would sign and who wouldn’t, so they could identify trouble-makers. Youth pastors quizzed their teens about who they thought was behind the lawsuit – insisting they needed to know in order to ‘pray for them’.

In Santa Fe, “us” meant conservative, it meant white, it meant football, and it meant Baptist. Some of those things are easy to identify, and to screen out those who don’t “fit in.” Other types of “them” are obvious enough once you highlight their heresy – Mormons, Jews, even Catholics generally own up to their faith once under a little pressure.

When it comes to those within the faith, however, dissent can be trickier to isolate, and to cull from the true believers.

Which takes us into Part Three…