Discussion Thread: Legal and Ethical Considerations

 After reading the online articles posted in this week’s Learn section, what legal concepts would you need to take into consideration if you were a Christian coach at a public high school and were thinking of having a team prayer or devotional?  How could you incorporate your faith in a vocational setting that regulates a person’s expression of their beliefs? 

SMGT 504

Discussion Assignment Instructions

You will complete 3 Discussions in this course. For each discussion you will post one thread of at least 400 words in response to the prompt by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of the assigned Module: Week. You must then post at least 2 replies to your colleagues’ posts of at least 200 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of the assigned Module: Week.

Consider the cheerleaders: Religious expression

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT
The problem is that the Lions have, perhaps, posted these gains after making illicit use of performance-enhancing
prayer. Since the start of the year the school’s cheerleading squad has been displaying banners painted with Bible
verses (like the one pictured above).

FULL TEXT
 
Should a public school’s cheerleading squad be allowed to display banners painted with Bible verses?

THE Kountze Lions, a high-school football team from east Texas, are having a good season. Their all-time win
percentage is 38%. Thus far this year, they’re five for seven. The problem is that the Lions have, perhaps, posted
these gains after making illicit use of performance-enhancing prayer. Since the start of the year the school’s
cheerleading squad has been displaying banners painted with Bible verses (like the one pictured above). It’s
common at high-school football games for the team to run onto the field by bursting through such banners like the
Kool-Aid man, but it’s not common for the banners to carry religious messages, because public schools aren’t
supposed to promote religion. Last month, accordingly, the district’s superintendent banned such banners, but on
October 18th a district court ruled that the school can’t enforce the ban for the time being.

At a press conference in support of the cheerleaders last week Rick Perry, the governor, and Greg Abbott, the
state’s attorney-general, were looking like Christmas, and I do mean Christmas, had come early. America’s
constitution separates church and state, as indeed does the Texas version. But Texas’s contemporary political
leaders have notably declined to give the principle much respect. The controversy had given them a chance to stand
up for Texas, high-school football, cheerleaders, God, and the constitutionally enshrined right to free expression, all
in one go, against the interference of–as Mr Abbott put it, in an incredulous tone–“an atheist group from Wisconsin”.

The speech rights of students are often debated, because if a student is in public school, as most American students
are, a lot of their self-expression happens under the auspices of a governmental entity. Broadly speaking, it’s
probably constitutionally correct to say that students have the right to put Bible verses on banners, just like all
Americans do. And if the complaint is that an outside observer would assume that any student doing so is working
under the auspices of school authority, Mr Abbott and Mr Perry would probably still be on firm footing. The exercise
of rights shouldn’t be curtailed simply because of other people’s perceptions and preferences.

A wrinkle here, though, is that courts have already taken the position that cheerleaders are representatives of the
school, even agents of the school’s authority. Ian Millhiser, at ThinkProgress, notes that this point was considered
legally relevant in another recent case in Texas: in 2010 a cheerleader in Silsbee was kicked off the squad after
refusing to cheer for one of the players. The girl had accused the boy of raping her; he later pled guilty to simple
assault. She sued the school, arguing that by kicking her off the squad, it had violated her rights to free expression.
The Fifth Circuit court ruled against her, and its reasoning was that as a cheerleader, she was supposed to speak on
behalf of the school, not on behalf of herself. A less directly relevant example, which nevertheless suggests that
cheerleading is serious business, would be the case of Crystal City, where the high school’s discriminatory policy

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/consider-cheerleaders/docview/1115286158/se-2?accountid=12085

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/consider-cheerleaders/docview/1115286158/se-2?accountid=12085

against Mexican-American girls who wanted to be cheerleaders led to several years of protests, starting in 1969, on
behalf of Chicano rights. (One of the young activists who organised those protests, JosE Angel GutiErrez, would go
on to co-found and lead La Raza Unida.)

In other words, courts have held, and Texans believe, that cheerleaders are a special subset of students, and not
just for the reasons dramatised in John Hughes movies and Taylor Swift songs. They’re not people who happen to
be standing on the football field, exercising their right to free speech. They’re deputies of the school administration;
they speak for the school, not themselves. That was the point of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, anyway. So which is it? Do
cheerleaders speak as themselves or not?

It’s unsurprising but significant that Mr Perry and Mr Abbott would argue otherwise. Neither of them can get through
a press conference lately, including the aforementioned one, without deflecting a question about whether he’s
running for governor in 2014. Mr Abbott is also a Republican, and might be willing to challenge Mr Perry in the
primary; a widespread opinion among Texas politicos is that should Mr Perry stand for another term, Mr Abbott has
a better shot of beating him than anyone else, in the primary or the general. Polls have shown that a large majority
of Texas voters support the separation of church and state, and everyone knows that the state’s changing
demographics could mean trouble for Texas Republicans. But if Texas’s leadership is going to continue to dabble in
the culture wars, it’s a solid sign that the shift isn’t afoot just yet.

DETAILS

Subject: Cheerleaders; Church &state; Students; Bible; Football; Press conferences; Federal
court decisions

Location: Texas; United States–US

Publication title: The Economist (Online); London

Publication year: 2012

Publication date: Oct 24, 2012

Publisher: The Economist Newspaper NA, Inc.

Place of publication: London

Country of publication: United Kingdom, London

Publication subject: Business And Economics

Source type: Magazine

Language of publication: English

Document type: NEWS

ProQuest document ID: 1115286158

LINKS
Get It At Liberty

Database copyright  2024 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

Document URL: https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazi
nes/consider-cheerleaders/docview/1115286158/se-2?accountid=12085

Copyright: (Copyright 2012 The Economist Newspaper Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Last updated: 2022-11-16

Database: ProQuest Central

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/consider-cheerleaders/docview/1115286158/se-2?accountid=12085

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/consider-cheerleaders/docview/1115286158/se-2?accountid=12085

https://liberty.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/openurl/01LIBU_INST/01LIBU_INST:Services??url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ:abiglobal&atitle=Consider%20the%20cheerleaders:%20Religious%20expression&title=The%20Economist%20(Online)&issn=&date=2012-10-24&volume=&issue=&spage=&au=&isbn=&jtitle=The%20Economist%20(Online)&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/

https://www.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions

http://about.proquest.com/go/pqissupportcontact

Consider the cheerleaders: Religious expression

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrd20

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance

ISSN: 0730-3084 (Print) 2168-3816 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ujrd20

Prayer 101: Deciphering the Law — What Every
Coach and Administrator Should Know

Jennifer Beck Willett, Bernie Goldfine, Todd Seidler, Andy Gillentine & Scott
Marley

To cite this article: Jennifer Beck Willett, Bernie Goldfine, Todd Seidler, Andy Gillentine &
Scott Marley (2014) Prayer 101: Deciphering the Law — What Every Coach and Administrator
Should Know, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 85:9, 15-19, DOI:
10.1080/07303084.2014.958252

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2014.958252

Published online: 27 Oct 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2075

View related articles

View Crossmark data

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrd20

https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/ujrd20?src=pdf

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07303084.2014.958252

https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2014.958252

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=ujrd20&show=instructions&src=pdf

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=ujrd20&show=instructions&src=pdf

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/07303084.2014.958252?src=pdf

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/07303084.2014.958252?src=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/07303084.2014.958252&domain=pdf&date_stamp=27 Oct 2014

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/07303084.2014.958252&domain=pdf&date_stamp=27 Oct 2014

JENNIFER BECK WILLETT

BERNIE GOLDFINE

TODD SEIDLER

ANDY GILLENTINE

SCOTT MARLEY

Jennifer Beck Willett (jbeck@kennesaw.edu) is an associate professor in the
Department of Exercise Science and Sport Management, and Bernie Gold-
fi ne is a professor in the Department of Health Promotion and Physical
Education, at Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, GA. Todd Seidler is
coordinator of the graduate program in Sport Administration at the Uni-
versity of New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM. Andy Gillentine is a professor
and associate dean of the Department of Sport and Entertainment Manage-
ment at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC. Scott Marley is
an associate professor in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona
State University in Tempe, AZ.

Successful high school administrators and coaches
wear many hats and perform numerous tasks related
to their jobs. Finances, hiring, scheduling, and com-
plying with Title IX often take the forefront. More
recently, administrators have also had to address the

issue of prayer at athletic events. Not only is prayer a risk-man-
agement issue, it is often the topic of hot debate and has been a
source of controversy and confl ict (Gillentine, Goldfi ne, Phillips,
Seidler, & Marley, 2004). Schools that are not compliant with the

Prayer 101:Prayer 101:Prayer 101:

What Every Coach and
Administrator Should Know

DECIPHERING THE LAW —

JoPerD 15

16 Volume 85 Number 9 NoVember/December 2014

law could face lawsuits and legal costs that would be detrimental
to already-strapped school district budgets.

According to Coakley (2011), “Athletes and coaches use reli-
gion, religious beliefs, prayers, and rituals in many ways” (p. 535).
Proponents of prayer believe that it provides many positive bene-
fits in athletic settings, such as building team unity and helping ath-
letes to deal with the uncertainties of sport. Opponents of prayer
contend that it can divide a team and alienate some team members.

Even though 73% of the United States population considers them-
selves Christian, 20% of Americans are “atheist, agnostic, or unaf-
filiated with a religion” (The Pew Forum on Religion and Public
Life [Pew], 2012). Additionally, almost 5% of the U.S. public affili-
ates with a non-Christian religion (e.g., Islam, Hinduism, Judaism,
etc.). Since religious affiliation in the United States is clearly diverse
and fluid (Pew, 2013), it is not surprising that the use of prayer in
sport events is a hotly debated topic.

Table 1.
Prayer and Public Schools

Year Court Case Case Summary
1962 Engel v. Vitale Prohibits the recitation of school-sponsored, nonsectarian prayer. The rationale of the court was

that it was a violation of the Establishment Clause because government cannot be involved with
creating and sponsoring religious activities.

1985 Wallace v. Jaffree Prohibits teachers from setting aside time for prayer activities. The rationale of the court was
that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.

1992 Lee v. Weisman Prohibits school-sponsored prayer at commencement delivered by an invited clergy. The
rationale of the court was that students were being forced to participate in a religious ceremony.

Table 2.
Interscholastic Sport-related Cases

Year Court Case Case Summary
1989 Jager v. Douglas Prohibits clergy from conducting invocations prior to football games. The rationale of

the court was that pre-game invocations were unconstitutional.
1995 Doe v. Duncanville

Independent School District
Prohibits coaches from leading prayer before practices and games. The rationale
of the court was that the school was endorsing religion by allowing one of its
employees to lead prayers.

2000 Santa Fe Independent
School District v. Doe

Prohibits school officials, administrators, and employees (coaches) from initiating,
leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at interscholastic athletic events. In
addition, school officials cannot allow prayer over a school public address system.
The rationale of the court was that prayer violated the Establishment Clause
because it was delivered over the public address system.

2008 Borden v. East Brunswick
School District

Prohibits coaches from endorsing student-led prayer by kneeling and bowing their
head with the team. The rationale of the court was that, observers could conclude
that a coach who does so is not merely showing respect but is instead endorsing
religion.

2009 Marszalek v. Fadlallah &
Dearborn School District

The principal of Fordson High School (Fadlallah) did not renew the wrestling
coach’s (Marszalek) contract because of his association with a Christian volunteer
coach who converted a student-athlete to Christianity. Marszalek was a renowned
coach with over 35 years of experience and numerous awards. He claimed that
Fadlallah and the school district violated the U.S. and Michigan constitution and
statutes. The lawsuit was settled and Marszalek was awarded $24,500; however,
the district admitted no liability and instead claimed they wanted to eliminate the
costs associated with litigation (Associated Press, 2010).

2013 Matthews v. Kountze
Independent School District

Cheerleaders from Kountze High School have had a tradition of displaying Bible
verses on run-through banners as the football team enters the field of play. In June
2013, the District Court decided that banners that included religious messages such
as “If God is for us, who can be against us? Romans 8:31” were permitted under
the Constitution (Carcamo, 2013). The rationale was that the display of Bible verses
was protected by the cheerleaders’ free speech rights.

JoPerD 17

In 2012, a fan who self-identified as an atheist complained
about the traditional pregame prayer at the University of Tennes-
see–Chattanooga (UTC) football games. This complaint compelled
the university to place a ban on all future prayers at sporting events
(Garrett, 2012). Such pre-game prayer had been a traditional part
of the game experience at UTC Finley Stadium football games,
as well as at many other universities in the south. However, af-
ter the UTC decision, the University of Georgia and University of
Mississippi have both eliminated prayer before football games in
the past two decades (Garrett, 2012). Although these universities
have voluntarily discontinued pre-game prayers, the courts have
upheld the right of schools at the university level to continue the
practice of prayer at graduation and before games as long as they
are nonsectarian or generic. The rationale for this decision is that
college-age students are old enough to know that a prayer does
not equate to a state endorsement of religion (Chaudhuri v. State
of Tennessee, 1987). Although many universities have stopped
prayer at athletic events, the main focus has been at the scholastic
level.

Administrators at the interscholastic level must address the issue
of prayer at athletic events, balancing the desires of students and
stakeholders with the institution’s legal obligation under federal
law. The religious makeup of our country is ever changing, as evi-
denced by the fact that 72% of the millennial generation considers
themselves to be more spiritual than religious (Grossman, 2010),
and students’ attitude toward pre-game prayer is different today
than it was in decades past. Additionally, legal rulings have bol-
stered the case against school-sponsored prayer at interscholastic
athletic events. The Constitution of the United States of America
provides numerous freedoms, among which are the freedom of re-
ligion and the separation of church and state. The First Amend-
ment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an estab-
lishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof . . . ” (U.S.
Const. amend. I). Charges that prayer at school-sponsored activi-
ties violates this Amendment has
led the U.S. court systems to vital
decisions regarding religion and
prayer at public schools. Tables 1
and 2 provide a brief summary of
several court cases and decisions
involving prayer in public schools
and interscholastic sports.

Despite these rulings, many
coaches continue the practice
of prayer with their teams be-
fore and after athletic events.
A nationwide survey of public-
school athletic administrators
was conducted to investigate
current prayer practices at in-
terscholastic sporting events, in
which high school athletic direc-
tors (N = 585) were randomly
sampled from across the United
States (Beck, Goldfine, Seidler,
Marley, & Gillentine, 2009). The
Prayer and High School Athletic
Events Survey contained ques-
tions regarding religious activi-
ties at athletic events, who leads
religious activities, whether the

school has religious activity policies, and the religious beliefs of
the respondent.

Regarding prayer practices at high school athletic events, the
nationwide study revealed that many public high schools through-
out the country are not compliant with the law regarding prayer
at interscholastic athletic events. Specifically, divided by region,
the South reported the highest rate of pre-game prayer at athletic
events, noting that it occurs at 50% of the games. The remaining
regions reported significantly lower rates: The Midwest reported
24.5%, the West 23.2%, and the Northeast 12.7%. The athletic
event with the highest reported rate of pre-game prayer was foot-
ball (40.3%), and the State of Alabama had the highest reported
rate of pre-game prayer at football games (70%). Alabama was
closely followed by South Carolina, which reported 66%. The
states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and
Texas all reported rates of over 40% (Goldfine, Beck, Seidler, Mar-
ley, & Gillentine, 2010).

Based on the findings of the study, researchers have identified
several steps coaches and administrators can take in order to mini-
mize religious controversy at interscholastic athletic events.

Step 1: Understand the Laws Regarding
Prayer at Interscholastic Athletic Events
According to the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
(2000) decision, the following activities are deemed unconstitu-
tional. If schools are involved in any of these unconstitutional ac-
tivities, they should be stopped immediately:

1. School sponsorship of a religious message, including an-
nouncements over the public address system.

2. Prayer led by school officials at school-sponsored functions.
3. School administration and employees (including coaches) or-

ganizing and/or promoting formal prayer.

D
AJ

/T
hi

nk
st

oc
k

18 Volume 85 Number 9 NoVember/December 2014

Constitutionally acceptable activities involving prayer include
the following:

1. Any student can pray before, during, or after competitions
or school.

2. Any player can kneel and pray in the locker rooms or on the
field or court.

3. Any attendee can organize an impromptu prayer session with
others.

In summary, according to the law, all employees, including
coaches, may not participate in any form of religious activity in-
volving students. This also includes prayer in the locker room or
in a huddle.

Step 2: Establish a Prayer Policy
Athletic administration should check to see if their school district
has a written policy regarding prayer. If so, the administration
should ensure that the policy follows the guidelines set forth by
federal law. Of all the athletic directors queried on this issue in
the nationwide study, 71.1% indicated that prayer policies are de-
veloped by school districts rather than by individuals in the ath-
letic department. Yet, in a 2008 study of public schools across the
United States, only 21% of athletic directors reported that their
school district actually had a written policy regarding prayer at
interscholastic athletic events (Goldfine et al., 2010). If one does
not exist, the school district should create one that mirrors the law.

Step 3: Assess the Current Religious Practices
at Athletic Events
To assess the current situation regarding prayer at athletic events,
athletic administrators should speak to the coaches of each team
or attend each sporting team’s athletic competitions and observe
which religious practices fall within the boundaries of the law and
which do not. If school-sponsored prayer has been occurring, the
student-athletes must be informed that the coaches can no longer
be involved as leader or participant in any team prayer. Coaches
who have strong religious convictions and believe in prayer can
convey that they are simply following the guidelines of federal law
and not expressing any personal opinions regarding prayer or reli-
gion. However, it is also important that student-athletes know they
can continue prayer practices individually or in groups without
cause for concern. If prayer does not exist in the team environment,
there is no need to discuss this issue with the student-athletes.

Step 4: Educate Constituents on the Laws
Regarding Prayer and Interscholastic Sport
Many schools may not be adhering to current recommendations
and legal obligations simply because the coaches are uneducated
about the law. This lack of familiarity with federal law was under-
scored by the findings from the nationwide study, which exposed
respondents’ lack of knowledge regarding the crucial Santa Fe In-
dependent School District v. Doe (2000) Supreme Court ruling.
Specifically, in response to the question, “To what extent are you
familiar with the court case?” a full 62% of the athletic directors
who responded to the survey reported “not at all” or “not very
familiar” (Beck et al., 2009). Therefore, athletic directors must
first familiarize themselves with the law and should then assess
the circumstances at their school. If questionable prayer practices
exist within a high school environment, the principal or athletic

director must provide resources to coaches, student-athletes, and
other stakeholders that clarify which prayer practices fall within
the boundaries of the law and identify those that do not. Athletic
directors need to be proactive in clearly explaining prayer policies
to their coaches at the beginning of each academic school year to
prevent any issues from arising.

Step 5: Enforce the School District Prayer
Policy and the Law
Athletic directors and coaches are obligated to uphold the law and
adhere to school district policy regarding prayer at school-spon-
sored sport events. Despite this obligation, many schools have pre-
and post-game traditions that include a prayer led by the coach.
This is not unexpected, given that more than 65% of athletic di-
rectors agreed or strongly agreed that prayer should be allowed
at athletic events (Beck, Goldfine, Seidler, Marley, & Gillentine,
2011). Clearly, athletic directors’ or coaches’ personal beliefs play
a strong role in their decision to adhere to or ignore federal law
regarding prayer at sporting events. This was highlighted by the
nationwide study, which revealed that a statistically significant re-
lationship existed between the level of a coach’s religious devotion
and the presence of prayer at football games. Specifically, the more
religious or spiritual the athletic directors professed to be, the more
likely they were to allow prayer to be led by a school representative
at a sporting event. However, the study also found that 88% of
the athletic directors who responded wanted to protect nonpartici-
pants’ rights by allowing team members to leave if prayer offended
them. However, there are unintended consequences for those who
choose not to participate in a team prayer. Those athletes who ab-
stain from team prayer may miss out on a significant team-bonding
experience, or they may feel like outsiders because they do not
share the religious beliefs held by others on the team. In the Santa
Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) court ruling, the
court expressed concern that nonadherents may feel pressured into
participating in team prayer so that they do not feel like outsiders.

Therefore, while many administrators are well intentioned by
allowing prayer at sporting events and by allowing student-ath-
letes to opt out of a team prayer, doing so is in violation of the law
and may have unintended negative effects on some of the student-
athletes. Consequently, the already difficult task of enforcing the
federal law regarding prayer at sporting events is further compli-
cated by a lack of prayer policies in the schools and by the fact
that many administrators are either ignorant of the law or choose
to disregard it.

Conclusion
Prayer is inextricably woven into the fabric of American culture,
perhaps most readily witnessed through prayer at sporting events,
as is evident on national television broadcasts of professional
sporting events and high school match-ups. However, the place
of prayer in compulsory school settings is a complex issue that
our nation has been grappling with for the past several decades.
Proponents of prayer extol its virtues, while opponents point to
its divisive nature. What is clear is that the Supreme Court has
made a definitive stand on this issue by (1) allowing for players and
fans to spontaneously worship on their own; and (2) disallowing
coaches, athletic directors, or school personnel to lead, organize,
or participate in student-initiated prayers. Coaches and athletic di-
rectors need to be cognizant of the law and foster a climate that

JoPerD 19

is nondivisive. However, their responsibility does not end there.
Regardless of their personal beliefs, coaches and athletic directors
must be willing to educate stakeholders on the federal law regard-
ing prayer in school — and by extension prayer in school-spon-
sored athletic events — when circumstances warrant such action.
While they are free to exercise their right to practice the religion of
their choosing, they do not have the right to disregard federal law
because of their religious beliefs.

References
Associated Press. (2010). Dearborn school settles with coach who

claimed he lost his job over his Christian beliefs. Retrieved from http://
www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/10/dearborn_schools_
settle_with_c.html

Beck, J., Goldfine, B., Seidler, T., Marley, S., & Gillentine, A. (2009, May).
Prayer at interscholastic athletic events in the U.S.: A regional analysis.
Presented at the North American Society for Sport Management Confer-
ence (NASSM), Columbia, SC.

Beck, J., Goldfine, B., Seidler, T., Marley, S., & Gillentine, A. (2011, June).
Effect of religiousness and spirituality on athletic directors decisions re-
garding prayer at interscholastic athletic events. Presented at the North
American Society for Sport Management Conference (NASSM), Lon-
don, ON, Canada.

Borden v. East Brunswick School District, 555 U.S. 1212; 129 S. Ct. 1524;
173 L. Ed. 2d 656; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1640; 77 U.S.L.W. 3487; 28 I.E.R.
Cas. (BNA) 1536.

Carcamo, C. (2013, May 8). Texas court backs cheerleaders’ display of reli-
gious banners. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.

com/2013/may/08/nation/la-na-texas-cheerleaders-20130509
Chaudhuri v. State of Tennessee, 585, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 2578, 96 L.Ed. 2d.

510 (1987).
Coakley, J. (2011). Sports in society (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-

Hill.
Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District, 70 F. 3d 1177 (1995).
Engel v. Vitale, 368 U.S. 982; 1962 U.S. Lexis 1786.
Garrett, J. (2012, September 23). The new atheism at UT football. Times

Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/
sep/23/the-new-atheism-and-ut-football-tennessee.com

Gillentine, A., Goldfine, B., Phillips, D., Seidler, T., & Marley, S. (2004).
Prayer at athletic events. Strategies, 18(1), 13–15.

Goldfine, B., Beck, J. Seidler, T., Marley, S., & Gillentine, A. (2010, March).
Prayer at interscholastic athletic events in the U.S.: Where are the bound-
aries? Presented at the American Alliance of Health, Physical Education,
Recreation, and Dance Conference, Indianapolis, IN.

Grossman, C. (2010, April 27). Survey: 72% of millennials more spiritual
than religious. USA Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.
com/news/religion/2010-04-27-1Amillfaith27_ST_N.htm

Jager v. Douglas County School District, 862, F.2d 824, 831 (1989).
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).
Matthews v. Kountze, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4951.
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2012). Nones on the rise.

Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-
rise.aspx

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2013). U.S. religious land-
scape survey. Retrieved from http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, et. al., 120 S. Ct. 2266 (2000).
U.S. Const. amend. I.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38; 105 S. Ct. 2479; 86 L. Ed. 2d. 29 (1985). J

Texas Churches Sue FEMA For Tax Aid In Wake Of
Hurricane
Anonymous

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT (ENGLISH)
Three Texas churches are suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency, demanding taxpayer aid to help
them rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. The conservative legal group the Becket Fund on Sept. 4 filed a
federal lawsuit, Harvest Family Church v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of Rockport First
Assembly of God, Harvest Family Church in Cypress and Hi-Way Tabernacle in Cleveland. The suit calls for federal
aid to rebuild a church steeple and restore flooded church sanctuaries. AU Legislative Director Maggie Garrett noted
on AU’s Wall of Separation blog that disaster aid is available for houses of worship in certain cases.

FULL TEXT
Three Texas churches are suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), demanding taxpayer aid to
help them rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.
The conservative legal group the Becket Fund on Sept. 4 filed a federal lawsuit, Harvest Family Church v. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of Rockport First Assembly of God, Flarvest Family Church in Cypress
and Fli-Way Tabernacle in Cleveland. The suit calls for federal aid to rebuild a church steeple and restore flooded
church sanctuaries.
To protect the constitutional principle of religious freedom by ensuring taxpayers aren’t compelled to pay for religious
entities they don’t support, there are limits on government money being used to fund houses of worship.
AU Legislative Director Maggie Garrett noted on AU’s “Wall of Separation” blog that disaster aid is available for
houses of worship in certain cases. For example, houses of worship can be reimbursed for emergency services they
provide to local governments, such as serving as shelters for people displaced by disasters. They also are eligible
for government loans to rebuild after a storm, as are most nonprofitsand businesses.
They’re not usually eligible for direct government grants, however. In fact, most nonprofits aren’t eligible for these
grants – only those that perform emergency, essential and government-related activities and are open to the general
public are eligible. These grants are not available to most, let alone all, businesses, nonprofits, private residences
and other buildings.
“The government is not in the business of building churches, synagogues and mosques – even after a terrible
disaster,” Garrett wrote. “That is at the core of the First Amendment, and we must stand by it in good times and in
bad.”
That logic didn’t stop politicians from weighing in. Days after the lawsuit was filed, President Donald Trump tweeted,
“Churches in Texas should be entitled to reimbursement from FEMA Relief Funds for helping victims of Hurricane
Harvey (just like others).”
About two weeks later, U.S. senators led by Texas Republicans Ted Cruz and John Cornyn introduced the Federal
Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act, a bill that would make houses of worship eligible for FEMA Public
Assistance grants. Then Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, both Republicans, sent a letter
to Trump requesting that churches be made eligible for more FEMA aid.
The letter insists the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer should pave the way
for houses of worship to be eligible for more FEMA funding. AU Associate Legal Director Alex Luchenitser explained

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/texas-churches-sue-fema-tax-aid-wake-hurricane/docview/2075506711/se-2?accountid=12085

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/texas-churches-sue-fema-tax-aid-wake-hurricane/docview/2075506711/se-2?accountid=12085

to The Washington Post that the politicians are misinterpreting the Trinity decision.
Luchenitser noted that the decision allowed a Missouri church to get funding for a nonreligious purpose (playground
improvements), whereas the Texas churches are seeking money for “core facility” repairs that will support religious
activity.
“We know a lot of people in Texas are suffering, and we are sympathetic,” Luchenitser said. “But the fact that
something bad has happened does not justify a second wrong. … Taxpayers should not be forced to protect
religious institutions that they don’t subscribe to.”

DETAILS

Subject: Government grants; Displaced persons; Politics; Religious organizations; Church
&state; Disasters; Litigation

People: Trump, Donald J

Publication title: Church &State; Silver Springs

Volume: 70

Issue: 10

Pages: 17-18

Publication year: 2017

Publication date: Nov 2017

Section: PEOPLE &EVENTS

Publisher: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Place of publication: Silver Springs

Country of publication: United States, Silver Springs

Publication subject: Religions And Theology, Political Science

ISSN: 00096334

e-ISSN: 21633746

Source type: Magazine

Language of publication: English

Document type: News

ProQuest document ID: 2075506711

LINKS
Get It At Liberty

Database copyright  2024 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

Document URL: https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazi
nes/texas-churches-sue-fema-tax-aid-wake-hurricane/docview/2075506711/se-
2?accountid=12085

Copyright: Copyright Americans United for Separation of Church and State Nov 2017

Last updated: 2019-02-08

Database: Social Science Premium Collection,ProQuest Central

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/texas-churches-sue-fema-tax-aid-wake-hurricane/docview/2075506711/se-2?accountid=12085

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/texas-churches-sue-fema-tax-aid-wake-hurricane/docview/2075506711/se-2?accountid=12085

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/texas-churches-sue-fema-tax-aid-wake-hurricane/docview/2075506711/se-2?accountid=12085

https://liberty.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/openurl/01LIBU_INST/01LIBU_INST:Services??url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ:religion&atitle=Texas%20Churches%20Sue%20FEMA%20For%20Tax%20Aid%20In%20Wake%20Of%20Hurricane&title=Church%20&%20State&issn=00096334&date=2017-11-01&volume=70&issue=10&spage=17&au=Anonymous&isbn=&jtitle=Church%20&%20State&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/

https://www.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions

http://about.proquest.com/go/pqissupportcontact

• Texas Churches Sue FEMA For Tax Aid In Wake Of Hurricane