Football and Religion

Back in high school, I was a member of an excellent A cappella chorus, whose director was nationally known and whose repertoire ranged from Broadway show tunes to Russian liturgical music to an ancient Greek hymn to Apollo.  All our music was well received, but a special crowd favorite was when we sang a unison chant of The Lord’s Prayer at assembly each week.  Lacking any social sensitivity at the time – I was a true nerd – it never occurred to me that several of my Jewish friends might have been bothered by listening.  It was just another one of our numbers as far as I was concerned, and no one ever said anything.  I suspect both my Jewish and Christian friends regarded it much the way I did, as just music, but I do not know for sure, because like it or not, they never would have spoken.

We nowadays have several Orthodox Jewish friends whom we regularly see.  One of them, a woman in her mid-eighties, feels pain to this day from having to sit in homeroom in her Baltimore public school each morning while the class around her recited The Lord’s Prayer.  To her it was an offense repeatedly rubbed in, from which she still bears a grudge.  She was not required to recite it herself, only to listen as others did, but to her it was a symbol of religious oppression.

A controversial court case this year arose when cheerleaders in the small Texas town of Kountz, who regularly waved banners at games with messages such as “Scalp the Indians” (itself about as socially insensitive as I was back in high school), decided to replace the banners with encouraging religious messages.  When the superintendent banned the practice, the cheerleaders (or, as I suspect, their parents) sued, insisting that they, the cheerleaders, waved the signs voluntarily and without direction from the school, and the school had no right to stop them.  With support from the Governor and a temporary injunction from a Texas court, the practice continues.  The temporary injunction was based on the court’s view that students do not shed their Constitutional rights when they enter a school house.  Whether that view would hold on appeal is problematic.

I’ve mentioned before about the distinction between adult Liberty to pursue one’s own life goals without government hindrance, but responsibly mindful of the rights of others sharing the society, versus the teenage desire for Freedom from all restraint without regard to the effect on others.  It’s part of growing up.  The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence both promote Liberty, not Freedom.  This case is awkward in regard to that distinction.

The unrestricted freedom of our own thoughts and religious beliefs is among our most precious rights, as is the right to express such beliefs.  Freedom to practice religion is written into the Constitution.  About that there is no controversy.  It is when we enter a room, or stadium, with others, that questions arise.  There we are dealing with issues of expression rather than belief.  We’ve all been to parties or dinners where our spouses have reminded us beforehand to be careful about what we say about religion or politics, because some of those who will be there will be offended.  We treat the space as a kind of neutral ground, and express our opinions responsibly.  We do that because the others there are our friends, and we care about not offending them.  It is one step further to treat strangers, or all classmates, as our friends, but it is a step worth taking.  Christian doctrine, which the cheerleaders are striving to practice, tells that the Apostle Paul wrote, “If because I eat meat it causes my brother to do wrong, then I will not eat meat…”  Does the anger and frustration of those feeling religiously oppressed qualify as the “doing wrong” that must be prevented under that doctrine?  Aside from that, simple civility would say much the same about voluntary sign waving when alternatives are available.  Signs of encouragement that are not overtly religious should be easy to come up with.  There’s the prohibition in Constitutional law against “shouting fire in a crowded theatre.”  And there’s the nexus implied by the cheerleaders being perceived by the crowd as agents of the school, whether they themselves feel that way or not.  Where does that all fit into the Kountz picture?  The courts, and those serious about their religious belief, may have their hands full on this one.

However the courts may finally hold on this one, the cheerleaders would do well to consider the silent voices in the crowd; even in the small Texas town of Kountz there may be those who are oppressed for a lifetime by having always and everywhere to listen to or view beliefs contrary to their own, knowing that any objection on their part would bring with it social ostracism.  Football fields are neutral places for recreation, not pulpits, where even the strangers seated next to us should be our friends.