A school prayer battle in northwest Florida that has spread to the state legislature is a hugely messy example of how the First Amendment’s religious freedom clauses can so often pitted be against each other.
The battle began in 2008 in the Santa Rosa school district, which came under fire after two students filed suit with the American Civil Liberties Union who said that “officials regularly promoted religion and led prayer at school events.”
According to the complaint, the violations included:
such acts as school-approved prayer and invocations at graduation ceremonies; teacher-led after-school student religious meetings with Bible readings and prayer; teachers and other school officials extolling their faith to students during school-sponsored events and class; teachers assigning religiously oriented school work and encouraging students to attend religious student clubs; a teacher preaching to students before school in the parking lot with the use of a bullhorn; and teachers inviting students to lead prayers before or during sporting events and other school activities.
A consent decree was eventually reached between the district and plaintiffs in which the district and school officials were “permanently prohibited from promoting, advancing, endorsing, participating in or causing prayers during or in conjunction with school events.”
In January 2009, principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman were accused of violating the consent decree when “Lay asked Freeman to offer a prayer of blessing during a school-day luncheon for the dedication of a new field house at Pace High School.
“Freeman complied with the request and offered the prayer at the event. It appears this was a school-sponsored event attended by students, faculty and community members.”
In response, the Christian Educators Association International filed a motion to intervene in order to overturn the consent decree, arguing it amounted to a violation of teachers and administrators’ First Amendment free exercise rights to practice their religion with prayer.
Noting that the battle has been a polarizing force in the community, a judge ruled in February that CEAI did not have standing and did not demonstrate that the consent decree would have a “chilling affect” on its members’ religious observances.
As is typical in these cases, religious conservatives are now hollering that prayer has been banned from the school, which is not the case.
Prayer is still allowed, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has said leading prayer in public schools is not permitted. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the Court ruled in 2000 that student-led invocations were not simply the “private speech” of elected students and amounted to religious endorsement by the school district and that organized prayer at even “non-compulsory” events like graduations and football games still contained a coercive element of social religious conformity.
Now Florida’s lawmakers are wading into the fray. Yesterday the House passed by a 107-8 vote a bill that reinforces the notion that teachers and administrators are free to pray in schools. An identical bill is now being considered in the Senate.
The ACLU opposes the bills, pointing out that educators are still allowed to pray under the First Amendment, they’re just not allowed to promote their religious beliefs to students.
I find these cases fascinating. For evangelicals, spreading the faith is an integral part of their religion. So, it’s inevitable that the First Amendment would present a conflict in such situations where the right to witness to others butts heads with students’ right not to have the government use their education to bludgeon them with messages of Christ.
