By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Cambridge Christian School, ending a nine-year legal battle over the school’s right to offer a prayer over a stadium loudspeaker at a 2015 football championship. The case involved the Florida High School Athletic Association, which denied the school’s request. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled that announcements over the loudspeaker constituted “government speech,” thus not violating free-speech rights. This decision effectively upholds the appeals court’s ruling and resolves a dispute regarding free speech rights in a government setting.
Read the original article here
Supreme Court Turns Down Pregame Prayer Case, and the decision feels like a sigh of relief. The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal from the Tampa Christian school, which wanted to broadcast a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker before a 2015 football championship, is a clear win for separation of church and state. It effectively upholds a lower court’s ruling, and it seems like the right call. The push for pregame prayer felt like an attempt to force religious observance on everyone, and it’s thankfully been shut down.
The need to inject prayer into every aspect of life, especially in sports, seems a bit odd, doesn’t it? It’s like some folks can’t just enjoy the game without needing to declare their faith, and it feels as though some Christians seem to miss the mark on core tenets of their own religion, notably the one about praying in secret. The verses in Matthew, specifically 6:5-15, make a pretty clear point about avoiding public displays of prayer for show. It really makes you wonder if these folks are even familiar with the scripture. It’s almost as if they skipped that part.
This case, at its heart, was about the government’s role in promoting religion. The school wasn’t being prevented from praying; they just weren’t allowed to use public resources – the stadium’s loudspeaker – to do so. The court’s decision simply reinforced that the state isn’t obligated to actively help you practice your religion; it’s the other way around. It’s a win for those who value the separation of church and state. The fear is always that once you let this relatively harmless stuff in, the next push will be far more invasive.
The fact that the teams were able to pray before and after the game, privately on the field, really underscores the issue at hand. It’s not about prohibiting prayer; it’s about preventing the imposition of prayer on others. The freedom of religion should extend to all religions, and the special pleading of some religious groups isn’t something that sits well. The whole point of the Supreme Court’s ruling seems to be that they’re choosing to say, “Keep it to yourself.”
The irony is often palpable. This Tampa Christian school, and others, seem to want to have it both ways. They want to force prayer on others, but somehow want to avoid the parts of the Bible that tell you how to do it in the first place. This case, and others like it, unfortunately, really can make some Christians look bad, or worse, like they’re playing the victim for attention.
The Supreme Court isn’t necessarily against religious expression. The fact that a coach can lead an optional prayer is a good example of protected free speech. But using a loudspeaker to broadcast a prayer is fundamentally different. It forces everyone in attendance to be exposed to a religious message, and that’s where the line is crossed. If this was any other religion with their hymns, prayers, what have you, it would be the same issue. It’s a matter of respecting the rights of those who don’t share the same beliefs.
The lack of any requirement for the government to actively help someone practice their religion is a key point, and the court seems to agree. In this case, the government isn’t saying you *can’t* pray; they’re just saying you can’t commandeer public resources to do it. It makes sense, as prayer is generally intended to be a private communication with a higher power. It’s worth considering.
The real heart of the issue might be that some groups desperately want to associate sports with Christianity. Sports has always had some of the most visible expressions of American life, and organized religion wants to insert itself. However, that feels like a misrepresentation. How can these athletes go to the alter to thank God, but not the trainers, teammates and the rest of the support staff?
Ultimately, this case is a reminder of the importance of respecting individual rights. The Supreme Court’s decision isn’t a victory over religion; it’s a victory for religious freedom. It’s about protecting the right to believe, or not to believe, without being forced to participate in someone else’s religious practices.