Tennessee pre-game prayer unconstitutional?

[Emcee77]

I don't necessarily disagree with your take on the jurisprudence. Considering the makeup of this court (and stipulating that I know next to nothing about this particular case), it would not shock me to see the court find narrow grounds to allow this kind of activity without openly violating stare decisis.

Yeah, personally I don't see any way around the Santa Fe case but if what you are saying is that Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas would do anything they can to avoid applying Santa Fe, I think you are right. I think the latter three at least would be in favor of overruling the decision altogether.

However, Kennedy joined in Santa Fe, and he wrote Lee v. Weisman, which Santa Fe relies on. Unless he has changed his mind on this issue, then if this Tennessee case actually comes before the Court, Santa Fe is getting upheld and applied without limitation.

In this thread I was just giving my personal opinion about what offends me and what doesn't as a non-religious person.

Oh I know. I didn't mean to sound argumentative. I just found it fascinating that you formulated the point in terms of coercion. Kennedy's opinion in Lee v. Weisman, which, again, Santa Fe relied on, says that prayer at a graduation ceremony coerces the attendees to participate in the prayer, so it violates the Establishment Clause. That rationale has been much criticized. I mean it's a little nutty, right? even if it is the right result. Surely prayer at a public graduation ceremony or public school football game violates the Establishment Clause, but I'm not sure it coerces anyone to do anything ... a better rationale is that prayer in that context improperly endorses a religious message, alienating non-believers and making them feel less a part of the political community, possibly causing the very religious strife that the religion clauses are intended to prevent.

Just always found this stuff interesting ... in school I wrote an article on Establishment Clause cases and I always found Lee v. Weisman and Santa Fe problematic.

 

[Buster Bluth]

If you don't want to hear the prayer don't go to the game. I'm not a religious person per say but I'm not not going to the Indy 500 every year because of the invocation. Different strokes for different folks, is what I always say.

 

[irishfanjho15]

Oh go f*ck yourself.

Sometimes I wonder how hard it is for you to get your quota of "I'm a contrarian d!ckhead" posts in daily.

 

[chubler]

Honestly I wish we had a freedom from Idiots clause...
If you're so narrow-minded that you can't put up with 60 seconds or less of other people praying at a football game, I have a problem with you.

The high school i graduated from last year was sued for holding graduation ceremonies in a large, non-denominational church because it was far and away the best venue available for cost and for amenities. At the oral arguments in front of the 7th circuit, it was found that an event held in a religious building is not necessarily religious in nature. This was overturned by the 7th circuit hearing the case en banc, with all judges present. I was at the hearing, and a point that one of the judges made over and over again to the attorney for the appelant seems quite relevant: what's the harm?

The supreme court decisions involving high school and high school graduations don't apply to a public university, because higher education is neither guaranteed nor mandatory by law in this country. The supreme court has found that high school graduation is a right, interestingly enough. Having the prayer at a non-mandatory football game makes it even farther from coercive, which is a major part of one of three prongs of the so-called "lemon test" from Lemon v. Kurtzman, the relevant precedent in the case for my high school and for most establishment clause cases (this would be one). For the supreme court to rule this unconstitutional, either the prayer would have to be considered the state of Tennessee endorsing religion, or the prayer would have to be considered coercive, which means attending a football game is a right. If this occurs, I propose you print out the relevant portion of the opinion and wave it at the ushers in the stadium when they try to make you quiet down.

 

[Rhode Irish]

There is a documentary about this called Hot Coffee. It goes in to detail regarding tort laws. Trust me if you see the images of the 60 year old woman's burns it is tough to not see why she sued.

ON the Prayer side because it is a state school if you need prayer stop taking the states money and go private. Then you can pray all you want.

I have a couple things on the "Hot Coffee" case. First, to be burned the way that woman was, that wasn't just regular hot coffee. That is ridiculous. She is not the first person to spill some coffee on herself, but typically spilling coffee on yourself doesn't result in serious injury, hospitalization and deformity.

Second, you guys that are pointing to that case as an example of our overly litigious society are missing the point, which is that the issue people had with it wasn't that she won her case, but how much she won. She had sought a modest amount in settlement negotiations to compensate her for her medicals, but McDonalds refused to settle. A jury initially awarded her about $3M (which was later reduced on appeal).

[I guess in 1992 $3M was a lot of money for a tort jury award? How quaint.]

 

[BGIF]

Prayers work best when the players are big.

Frank Leahy

 

[BurningRiver]

As easy as it is to tell those who don't want to hear the prayer just to not listen or cover their ears, pre-game prayers are probably unconstitutional and shouldn't be happening simply for legal reasons.

That being said though, good to Tennessee to stickin' it to the man.

 

[Grahambo]

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

the constitutional issue has nothing to do with our "feelings" about public prayer. as stated above, the ENTIRE issue revolves around a state institution endorsing religion. in this case, a particular religion is favored and expressed publicly on behalf of a public school. that's simply against the highest law of the land, the constitution. telling people to simply not go to the event to avoid prayer is the equivalent of telling them that the laws shouldn't apply.

again, it's not a debate over whether public prayer is socially acceptable. of course it should be. the constitution clearly states freedom of religion and its exercise. the line is drawn at public institutions openly endorsing any of them. this particular instance may seem harmless, but the concept is preventive of far more intrusive endorsements. it seems perfectly normal to christians in TN to hear prayer, but imagine if the prayer wasn't christian. would you feel like UT was unfairly promoting judaism or buddhism or any other innumerable religions.

think about it in legal terms. look at it from outside your position. don't just accept things as normal. and most importantly, understand the difference between the law and social norms.

 

[Emcee77]

Honestly I wish we had a freedom from Idiots clause...
If you're so narrow-minded that you can't put up with 60 seconds or less of other people praying at a football game, I have a problem with you.

Obviously anyone can put up with the prayer. That's not the issue. The stakes are way higher than whether a person is comfortable for 60 seconds. It's about what message government sends to our citizens and what political consequences the message might have. There have been various concepts of the Religion Clauses among the Supreme Court justices over the years and decades, but I think Justice O'Connor is right when she says that a value of the Establishment Clause is to avoid alienating non-believers and making them feel like they aren't true citizens, and thereby avoid the political strife that comes from religious tension. It's a much more serious question than whether someone is uncomfortable for 60 seconds. The question is, what are the consequences of that discomfort?

The high school i graduated from last year was sued for holding graduation ceremonies in a large, non-denominational church because it was far and away the best venue available for cost and for amenities. At the oral arguments in front of the 7th circuit, it was found that an event held in a religious building is not necessarily religious in nature. This was overturned by the 7th circuit hearing the case en banc, with all judges present. I was at the hearing, and a point that one of the judges made over and over again to the attorney for the appelant seems quite relevant: what's the harm?

That's an interesting case. But it's quite clear what the harm is. I've described it above.

The supreme court decisions involving high school and high school graduations don't apply to a public university, because higher education is neither guaranteed nor mandatory by law in this country. The supreme court has found that high school graduation is a right, interestingly enough. Having the prayer at a non-mandatory football game makes it even farther from coercive, which is a major part of one of three prongs of the so-called "lemon test" from Lemon v. Kurtzman, the relevant precedent in the case for my high school and for most establishment clause cases (this would be one). For the supreme court to rule this unconstitutional, either the prayer would have to be considered the state of Tennessee endorsing religion, or the prayer would have to be considered coercive, which means attending a football game is a right. If this occurs, I propose you print out the relevant portion of the opinion and wave it at the ushers in the stadium when they try to make you quiet down.

The first two sentences of the passage above are nonsense that have nothing to do with this issue.

What follows, beginning with "Having the prayer," at least resembles the law. The Lemon test is much criticized and has frequently been ignored by the Supreme Court, especially in religious symbol/religious ceremony cases such as the cases we have been talking about (but not always ... Justice Souter applied Lemon in the McCreary County Ten Commandments case in 2005). Lemon itself involved public funding in religious schools, and only clearly applies in that context. If your high school's case or this Tennessee case came before the Supreme Court, I doubt the justices would apply the Lemon test, but they might.

In any case, it is quite right that the prayer is unconstitutional if it counts as an endorsement of religion by the state of Tennessee (via the University of Tennessee), or if its coercive. Under the rationale of Lee v. Weisman and Santa Fe v. Doe, it is coercive. Personally I think that rationale is problematic, as I said in a prior post, but the law is the law. Go back up and read the passage I quoted from the Santa Fe case. It's quite clear that Santa Fe should control the outcome of any challenge to the Tennessee prayer. I think the endorsement test is a much better fit for this case, and even if the prayer isn't coercive, it is clearly an impermissible endorsement of religion, like the Christmas display in Lynch v. Donnelly, the case in which the endorsement test was first applied (in Justice O'Connor's concurrence ... I commend that opinion to you all. It's great stuff).

Establishment Clause jurisprudence is tricky, but I think that's the correct analysis. Can I say for sure that's how the Supreme Court would analyze the issue? No ... but if I were a Supreme Court clerk, that's how I'd advise them to look at it.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

Honestly I wish we had a freedom from Idiots clause...
If you're so narrow-minded that you can't put up with 60 seconds or less of other people praying at a football game, I have a problem with you.

did it occur to you that perhaps the people attempting to force prayer into the game festivities at the football game for a state funded school was "narrow-minded" as well? we are not all like-minded. we're not all christian. what is wrong with attending a game, put on by a public institution, without encountering anything religious? why must religion be involved beyond private displays? i don't see the need to have the school lead a prayer.

also, i'm sorry that your graduation experience was so negative. there are some flaws and negative aspects of the logistics of following the SCOTUS rulings, but our individual freedoms of religion do not, and should not, extend to public institutions.

 

[4irishnation]

How To Brew Coffee - National Coffee Association or Safety Facts on Scalding Injuries Maybe don't dump the coffee on yourself J/A

 

[Emcee77]

I have a couple things on the "Hot Coffee" case. First, to be burned the way that woman was, that wasn't just regular hot coffee. That is ridiculous. She is not the first person to spill some coffee on herself, but typically spilling coffee on yourself doesn't result in serious injury, hospitalization and deformity.

Second, you guys that are pointing to that case as an example of our overly litigious society are missing the point, which is that the issue people had with it wasn't that she won her case, but how much she won. She had sought a modest amount in settlement negotiations to compensate her for her medicals, but McDonalds refused to settle. A jury initially awarded her about $3M (which was later reduced on appeal).

[I guess in 1992 $3M was a lot of money for a tort jury award? How quaint.]

Exactly. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand, especially the bolded.

 

[phgreek]

Just as a devil's advocate, go look up any historical document of the term 'separation of church and state'...there are none. It is a term that was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Congress about the possibility of doing it.
This term is completely blown out of proportion. The whole idea of our country was to separate religion from running our government. Not to keep church and religion out of our schools,events,etc. It was simply to separate ourselves from the way England was run.

Ding, Ding...give the man a prize.

I do believe in separations as were intended...you can't have the pope dictating foreign or domestic policy...but at the same time no one envisioned where the original separations concept has been taken. I am positive we'd get some odd looks from Jefferson himself...

...intent is inconvenient to "progress", a meaningless bit of trivia, even a vestige to a more socially just and aware America...you just don't get it...

 

[Bluto]

I am positive we'd get some odd looks from Jefferson himself

Yep...he would think we are a bunch of overzelous, science denying idiots.

Anyhow, how about a Muslim call to prayer before one of the games? If the fans of that public institution are not ready for that then in my opinion Christian prayers should also be excluded.

 

[jason_h537]

Just to go along with this...freedom of religion implies freedom FROM religion.

Just playing Devil's Advocate.

But personally...I could care less if Tennessee has a prayer before gametime.

This. Christians like to claim persecution in this country when there are Christians being killed around the world for their beliefs. As far as this goes, I could care less. If the players and coaches are cool with it then OK. I can understand if there was a player on the team with an issue but if your not in their locker room then I don't care about your opinion. They are not praying in the classroom right?

 

[jason_h537]

Just as a devil's advocate, go look up any historical document of the term 'separation of church and state'...there are none. It is a term that was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Congress about the possibility of doing it.
This term is completely blown out of proportion. The whole idea of our country was to separate religion from running our government. Not to keep church and religion out of our schools,events,etc. It was simply to separate ourselves from the way England was run.

OK but the first amendment said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Isn't that separation of church and state? No laws based on religion, no laws prohibiting religious practice. You said it yourself, "The whole idea of our country was to separate religion from running our government". We do not want a country run by the church. Not to mention the founding fathers did not exactly have high opinions of the church.

So yes, keep your church out of public schools.

 

[Redbar]

Exactly. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand, especially the bolded.

For me the most important part of the "hot coffee" case is that, without this type of litigation their is simply no recourse for an individual when they have been harmed or have a damage caused by a large corporation. McDonalds served scalding hot coffee that seriously injured a person, denied any liability, and refused any settlement. What is the individual's recourse when the corporation with its team of attorneys and deep pockets tells you to take a hike. There has to be a balance to their EXTREME advantage. I know everyone gets a laugh when they come out with the Stella awards each year and some of the cases are hilarious and some are just head shakers, but there is still an important consumer protection that should be respected when there is a legitimate injury.

 

[jason_h537]

For me the most important part of the "hot coffee" case is that, without this type of litigation their is simply no recourse for an individual when they have been harmed or have a damage caused by a large corporation. McDonalds served scalding hot coffee that seriously injured a person, denied any liability, and refused any settlement. What is the individual's recourse when the corporation with its team of attorneys and deep pockets tells you to take a hike. There has to be a balance to their EXTREME advantage. I know everyone gets a laugh when they come out with the Stella awards each year and some of the cases are hilarious and some are just head shakers, but there is still an important consumer protection that should be respected when there is a legitimate injury.

For some reason I can not give reps, but thank you. You are correct.

 

[phgreek]

Yep...he would think we are a bunch of overzelous, science denying idiots.

Anyhow, how about a Muslim call to prayer before one of the games? If the fans of that public institution are not ready for that then in my opinion Christian prayers should also be excluded.

Presumptuous much?

Uhm, no Jefferson wouldn't...that'd be Franklin

...anyway, in any references to Jefferson on here...I never said anything about denomination...and particularly christianity...I think Jefferson was less about organized religion and more about faith...I, like he, see that as two very different things.

A call to prayer should invite all to take a moment and thank your God and pray for the players etc...whatever. If a given faith is leading with their prayer, I pray to my God, in my way...like most people who are'nt born victims...sheesh...

I can't speak for the opportunity for a Muslim to lead...you'd have to ask the vols. on that one...its their tradition, their call...but I don't think anything in their prayers would preclude a muslim from doing his thing...and I don't think they look for an athiest to drag down to the 50, and make a spectacle out of either...

 

[phgreek]

For me the most important part of the "hot coffee" case is that, without this type of litigation their is simply no recourse for an individual when they have been harmed or have a damage caused by a large corporation. McDonalds served scalding hot coffee that seriously injured a person, denied any liability, and refused any settlement. What is the individual's recourse when the corporation with its team of attorneys and deep pockets tells you to take a hike. There has to be a balance to their EXTREME advantage. I know everyone gets a laugh when they come out with the Stella awards each year and some of the cases are hilarious and some are just head shakers, but there is still an important consumer protection that should be respected when there is a legitimate injury.

I grudgingly must agree...somewhere in the corporate structure, the negligent conduct that leads to "stella" moments gets lost sometimes. Whats to set the person right...whats to prevent it from happening again...and no not some Stella worthy thing happening twice...but rather a culture of negligence w no accountability. I don't like it, but this stuff needs to happen...I do resent the professional witch hunters though, who concoct some story, and ask for a settlement they know you'll pay because litigation is too expensive, and none of this stuff ever gets decided with any prejudice...which means even if you win, you can't recover your costs for defending yourself...

 

[Grahambo]

Tennessee fan wins Best Facial Hair Ever award | Dr. Saturday - Yahoo! Sports

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

Tennessee fan wins Best Facial Hair Ever award | Dr. Saturday - Yahoo! Sports

THE END.

 

[Bluto]

Presumptuous much?

Uhm, no Jefferson wouldn't...that'd be Franklin

...anyway, in any references to Jefferson on here...I never said anything about denomination...and particularly christianity...I think Jefferson was less about organized religion and more about faith...I, like he, see that as two very different things.

A call to prayer should invite all to take a moment and thank your God and pray for the players etc...whatever. If a given faith is leading with their prayer, I pray to my God, in my way...like most people who are'nt born victims...sheesh...

I can't speak for the opportunity for a Muslim to lead...you'd have to ask the vols. on that one...its their tradition, their call...but I don't think anything in their prayers would preclude a muslim from doing his thing...and I don't think they look for an athiest to drag down to the 50, and make a spectacle out of either...

Here's an interesting quote from Jefferson

1814 July 5. "I hope the necessity will at length be seen of establishing institutions, here as in Europe, where every branch of science, useful at this day, may be taught in it's highest degrees." (to John Adams, Peterson, Writings, 1343.)

Give me a break. If a Mulah stepped onto that field people's heads would explode and at the first Alah akbar they'd run screaming for the gates. It's a public institution and therefore any prayer should be done at home or in the parking lot. Anyhow, does anyone really think God gives a rats *** about Volunteer football? ND probably but Tenessee?

 

[stlnd01]

What exactly do they do?
Wasn't clear from the blog post, but the letter they link to mentions asking everyone to stand for an invocation, presumably from a Christian pastor, who "routinely invoke Jesus Christ." Is that right?
If so, this is 100,000 people being urged to pray to a Christian god, in a public university stadium as part of an event that has nothing expressly to do with anyone's religion. Sorry, but that seems like a step too far.
Do you really think everyone would "just ignore it" if it was a reading from the Torah, or a Muslim call to prayer. I doubt it.

 

[phgreek]

1814 July 5. "I hope the necessity will at length be seen of establishing institutions, here as in Europe, where every branch of science, useful at this day, may be taught in it's highest degrees." (to John Adams, Peterson, Writings, 1343.)

yea...Jefferson appreciated science, even revered it...but this neither supports nor refutes the notion of Jefferson's thoughts on faith and God as I've presented them.

"He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if He had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science." -Jefferson

Of the framers and authors/contributors to the forming documents to this nation MOST believed God's hand was responsible for the nations very existance, and important to its survival.

Further, my interpretation of "separations" and the intent was not to run faith from all things government, but rather, to prevent any religion from ruling.... If you simply look at historical documents I think my view of intent is pretty reasonable...and my understanding of Jefferson's view may be debated some, but it is not at all out of bounds.

Give me a break. If a Mulah stepped onto that field people's heads would explode and at the first Alah akbar they'd run screaming for the gates.

I don't doubt bigotry exists...but in the extreme case you cite, I think anyone with a brain would run for the gates. If a calm person of muslim faith took the microphone and said a prayer, I really don't think anyone would give a flying %^%...and if they did, they'd bitch about it AFTER...thats the America I know...

It's a public institution and therefore any prayer should be done at home or in the parking lot.

and all I can say is...

The first act of the first session of the Continental Congress was to pass the following resolution :

Tuesday, September 6, 1774.-Resolves; That the Rev. Mr. Duche be desired to open Congress tomorrow morning with prayer, at Carpenter's Hall, at nine o'clock.

Here is John Adams recount of how this came to be...

"When the Congress met, Mr. Cushing made a motion that it should be opened with prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay of New York and Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina because we were so divided in religious sentiments — some Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Anabaptists, some Presbyterians, and some Congregationalists — that we could not join in the same act of worship.

Mr. Samuel Adams arose and said that he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue who was at the same time a friend to his country. He moved that Mr. Duche, an Episcopal clergyman, might read prayers to Congress the next morning. The motion was seconded and passed in the affirmative."

Prayer, faith, and God were thusly, intentionally in EVERY public meeting/document, that launched this nation, including the constitution...

Further it was clear from DAY 1, all faiths were welcome.

If your entire argument was that this prayer is not inclusive...I could see it...your argument contends that there is no place for prayer at all...there is nothing in the words or actions of any who formed this nation that would inform me that way...quite the contrary.

The funny thing is...if the vols decided to end prayer, that'd be ok...its a viable choice EITHER way.

Anyhow, does anyone really think God gives a rats *** about Volunteer football? ND probably but Tenessee?

Indeed, we can finally agree...

 

[PLACforever]

This guy strongly disagrees

 

[rikkitikki08]

Political correctness is ruining this country. I am in no ways religous but i believe anyone can pray to anyone they want at anytime. If you dont agree with it just dont follow the prayer[/QUOTE

Would you allow that for the other side? For example a large section of a fanbase get together and come up with a chant, shirt etc that states their unbelief in a god. Acceptable or not?

Acceptable......people need to mind their own business

 

[jason_h537]

Acceptable......people need to mind their own business

There is a large misconception about this country. This country was not founded on Christianity, most of our forefathers were either atheist or were completely against the church. "Under God" was not added to the pledge of allegiance until the 1940's, same with "in God we trust" on our money. This was never meant to be a Christian nation. Your religion was supposed to be kept to yourself and your church. This has nothing to do with this article but a general message for some that have commented on this thread.

Prayer does not belong in schools, neither does the creationism myth. You are right, people need to mind their own business. so keep in mind that your business shouldn't be forced in the face of people.

 

[rikkitikki08]

There is a large misconception about this country. This country was not founded on Christianity, most of our forefathers were either atheist or were completely against the church. "Under God" was not added to the pledge of allegiance until the 1940's, same with "in God we trust" on our money. This was never meant to be a Christian nation. Your religion was supposed to be kept to yourself and your church. This has nothing to do with this article but a general message for some that have commented on this thread.

Prayer does not belong in schools, neither does the creationism myth. You are right, people need to mind their own business. so keep in mind that your business shouldn't be forced in the face of people.

The thing is i agree with everything you said. Im just the type of person who believes anyone should be aloud to say or believe anything they want. I agree church should be kept out of school and such so im not really sure what you mean by the last sentence. Im the farthest person from religous so its all good jason!