Yet the majority imposes a judicial curse upon sectarian religious speech. One is the mere passage by the District of a policy that has the purpose and perception of government establishment of religion. Jay Alan Sekulow argued the cause for petitioner. It is irrelevant if Santa Fe turns out to be an incompetent endorser. The state is not involved. One of the purposes served by the Establishment Clause is to remove debate over this kind of issue from governmental supervision or control. Indeed, a reasonable observer would see that Santa Fe is working desperately to preserve prayer as part of the program at school events.
The school board has neither scripted, supervised, endorsed, suggested, nor edited these personal viewpoints. The Court relied on the history of the provision, on the implausibility of possible secular purposes, and on its knowledge of the public schools. Santa Fe Is Responsible Because It Sponsors And Controls The Program, And Its Conditional Delegation To A Selected Student Does Not Privatize The Delegated Interlude Football games, and the accompanying pre-game ceremonies, are official school events. When it was brought to the Supreme Court the case was narrowly interpreted and boiled down to only one significant question. Neither party was satisfied with this decision, since the school district wanted no restrictions on the prayers, and the families wanted them categorically struck down.
Thus, the delivery of such a message is not properly characterized as private speech. The point is not ownership, but rather that Santa Fe controls the program and the public address system. While the plaintiffs remained anonymous in the proceedings, one of the children appears to have been an atheist who sought to have public prayer categorically disallowed. And they also knew that nothing, absolutely nothing, is so inclined to foster among religious believers of various faiths a toleration - no, an affection - for one another than voluntarily joining in prayer together, to the God whom they all worship and seek. Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
A reasonable observer, or a reasonable judge, knowing the history of widespread support for religious observance in the Santa Fe schools, knowing that the Football Policy is inconsistent with the school's general policy on free speech, knowing that invocations are wholly unnecessary to solemnize a football game, would not have to await the outcome of student votes to understand the purpose of the policy or the message conveyed by the policy. The asserted locational distinctions are not rooted in Santa Fe's primary argument, nor necessary to it, nor even consistent with it. The policy cannot be understood as a free speech policy, because the school subjects all other public speech by students to pervasive prior restraints. Respondents will use the abbreviations set out in note 1 of Petitioner's Brief Pet. Another is the implementation of a governmental electoral process that subjects the issue of prayer to a majoritarian vote. The District Court enjoined the public Santa Fe Independent School District the District from implementing its policy as it stood. The establishment clause doesn't specifically mention religious preference in schools of any kind.
But it is easy to think of solemn messages that are not religious in nature, for example urging that a game be fought fairly. One carefully selected speaker per year, confined to a narrowly focused range of topics, does not create a public forum in any sense of the word. Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship. The policy no more violated the Establishment Clause than did the actions of. Kuhlmeier, , 270, but, rather, allows only one student, the same student for the entire season, to give the invocation, which is subject to particular regulations that confine the content and topic of the student's message.
This case invalidates the selection by students of an individual who will deliever a public invocation. In their complaint the Does alleged that the District had engaged in several proselytizing practices, such as promoting attendance at a Baptist revival meeting, encouraging membership in religious clubs, chastising children who held minority religious beliefs, and distributing Gideon Bibles on school premises. The school didn't agree with the words 'nonsectarian and non-proselytizing' while the Does simply wanted the actions completely unconstitutional. We are not persuaded that the pre-game invocation should be regarded as private speech. Santa Fe believes that with a student vote it should be able to have student prayer as part of the program at all school events, not just graduation, and that it should be able to have sectarian and proselytizing prayer if that is what a majority of students want. Our discussion in the previous sections, supra, at 307-310, demonstrates that in this case the District's direct involvement with school prayer exceeds constitutional limits. Santa Fe adopted its Football Policy for the actual purpose of perpetuating prayer as part of the program at football games.
The award of that power alone, regardless of the students' ultimate use of it, is not acceptable. Rather, these acts reflect an intense commitment to leading the crowd in prayer at football games. In this case the District first argues that this principle is inapplicable to its October policy because the messages are private student speech, not public speech. It fails to acknowledge that what for many of Deborah's classmates and their parents was a spiritual The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment prevent the government from making any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. When this lawsuit was filed, Santa Fe's practices with respect to religion in school were utterly indefensible. The Court of Appeals majority agreed with the Does.
Such an application of the policy 5 Wallace v. Note too that the prayers delivered at school events in Santa Fe, except when constrained by court order, have been sectarian in the sense described by the Lee dissent. Breyer Relying on the Court precedent of Lee v. The father of student Deborah Weisman sued based on the violation of the Establishment Clause. Brief for Marian Ward, App. The Court did not await proof of what actually happened, but struck the policy down because its purpose and primary effect could be determined before any implementation. Barnette case, the Court held that Jehovah's Witnesses did not have to say the required flag salute.