BS!

MBW: The whole thing is BS. Everyone could have done the right thing to begin with and taken down the banner, but the town and theocrats decided to fight a losing battle. Their decision to break the law. Their decision to fight a losing battle.

Feel free to put your money where your mouth is and send Cranston a check to help the taxpayers defray the costs of a pointless trial and legal battle. It's not just all our rights which are harmed by the illegal actions of theocrats - but it's the taxpayers who must shoulder the burden of pandering politicians and truly bad decision making.

It was a petty lawsuit. Oh yes, I was oppressed when I saw that banner---not!

ccolins. It is not about whether YOU were oppressed or not, it is about whether ANYONE was oppressed. As I have said often during this issue, we must have empathy for others. It is not about just how it effects me or you, minorities have rights as well. The Bill of Rights and other laws are written to protect all of us. You have the freedom to practice your beliefs in your house of worship, in your home and in your heart and mind. But not in places supported by taxpayer funds. That is fair and it is the law of this great land. This is hardly a petty issue.

Jim Dawson, it is hardly a landmark decision. One intolerant person made a big deal about it. Even the religious didn't notice it there. I doubt the one or two people, who made a big fuss over it, were oppressed because of it. This isn't about the Church of England oppressing the Catholics. Geez!

ccollins, it doesn't matter how many people were offended or hurt by a constitutional violation. It doesn't matter how many people noticed said constitutional violation. What matters is that it WAS a constitutional violation, in the eyes of the higher courts and our current legal precedent that recognizes the separation of church and state as our current interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

If you have beef with anybody, it's the numerous judges over the past few decades who have all agreed that separating church and state (and the public schools are an entity of the government, being taxpayer-funded, publicly-owned, and government-run) is the best way to ensure religious freedom for ALL, equally AND fairly.

Read the judge's decision in this matter, ccollins, it'll do you a world of good: http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/01/11/ahlquist_decision_011112.pdf

Just because only one person came forward that does not mean it did not bother others. Besides, it is the old slippery slope.
And how exactly was Jessica the intolerant one here? Religioius people have right to complain and so do atheists.

It was a petty lawsuit. Now the ACLU wants their paychecks.

ccollins: Of course they do, the folks at the ACLU work for a living.

And as a contributor to the ACLU, I resent that they had to waste money defending something that the city should never have fought in the first place. The ACLU looks out for everyone, even ccolins. If ccolins was legally wronged, they would come to his/her defense.

ccollins, it is the law that the losing party has to pay the legal fees of the winning party. And some of the ACLU lawyers worked for FREE! What more do you whiners want? Do you have a financial investment in this prayer banner or something, ccollins? Or do you mistakenly believe that the school had a right to have a Christian school prayer up on its wall where it didn't belong?

All it takes is ONE student to see a problem so that it can be addressed.

I wouldn't go to the ACLU to defend a petty lawsuit and I doubt they would EVER defend the 2nd amendment in RI.

The ACLU has defended the second amendment on a number of occasions. They defend ALL of the civil rights granted to ALL American citizens by the Constitution. The fact that it tends to be people on the religious-right who act the most entitled in their belief that the law somehow doesn't apply to them, and that they can deny other people's rights, is not the ACLU's fault.

Give me a break MBW. You feel persecuted because someone pointed out and complained over a patently illegal State endoresment of religion - and now, somehow, evil has triumphed over good? Really? And THEY are now coming for you? Really? Get some help. Seriously.

Atheists are people too. Just because they do not believe in God, that does not strip them of rights as Americans. Believing in God is not required for citizenship nor does it mean that they are inherently good. I have heard some religious people say some terribly evil things during this discourse. I am one of the good people of Cranston and I have never been so ashamed to say so in the 31 years that I have lived here. MBW, where are you from anyway?

Thank you for posting, Jim Dawson. I hope more rational minds from Cranston follow your lead and speak up about this issue and drown out the cries of "injustice."

Thanks, JD.

What does being a Vet have to do with this?

I'm not religious at all and I found the lawsuit petty. Seriously, ask yourself does the ACLU defend all the amendments and the Bill of Rights? They pick and choose what they want to defend. Now, the are down to crumbs, like this petty lawsuit against a dusty old historical banner in a dark auditorium. Have they ever defended the 2nd amendment in this state? I doubt it. There is a lot of work there and money to be made, if they are interested.

ccollins: "Seriously, ask yourself does the ACLU defend all the amendments and the Bill of Rights?"

Yes. Next question, please.

Seriously, the ACLU has countless times defended the rights of religious people as well. There was one case, I believe in Tennessee IIRC, where a student was told that he couldn't post the Ten Commandments in his own locker at school.

Guess who defended him, and helped him win his case?

That's right, the ACLU.

R.Brum, th ACLU camps out in RI and wields a big iron club (threat of expensive lawsuit) on choice issues of their liking. Many of their lawsuits from the past (not all) were just iron clubs against a school system over things like school uniforms. Are those schools being malicious towards the students? No, they are trying to HELP them!!! The ACLU nit picks the poor state! They are awful! I have never seen anything like it. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Pony up, Joe. Put your money where your mouth is. Talk is cheap and what you've been saying is so firmly discounted as to be considered worthless rubbish.

I'll believe you when you actually go down to city hall and pony up a check to help pay for your fools errand masquerading as a theocratic expedition. Until then, you're nothing but a loud mouth clown. Shakespeare once said it best about life and while he didn't know you personally, your kind has always been with us, to wit:

"[Joe the Plumber's life is] but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Bravo Joe. Bravo!

Joe - I agre with you 100%...... They shouldn't get anything. All they do is cause problems.....

These are the things that the ACLU supports, from their web site. Which one are you against, Joe? If you should ever need them, they would even defend you! They protect all of us. Publicly supported religion is not legal in public schools, that is the law as it relates to the first amendment.
1. First Amendment rights (freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion)
2. the right to due process of law
3. the right to equal protection of the laws
4. the right to privacy
5. open government issues

You DO realize the ACLU has defended the rights of religious people countless times, right? There are many cases like the one where a student wanted to post the Ten Commandments in his locker, and the school told him he couldn't. He sued the school, and won. And guess who defended him?

That's right, the ACLU.

Have you even read Judge Lagueux's decision, Joe? And you do realize that the higher courts do not rely on track records or past decisions... right? It doesn't matter what happened to Lagueux's cases in the past. When this case is looked at, it will be looked at on its own merit.

You know nothing about the legal system, it seems Joe.

Hey Joe The Dope, !!! Why dont you pay the whole bill,,, that would be real nice to do.. Then my taxes won"t go up again for stupidity..

I love it when people who do not live in Cranston would tell us how to spend our tax dollars.

I live in Cranston. I own my home and have rental property too. I pay all of my taxes on both properties. Neither I nor any of my tenants have ever had a child in public schools. Yet I have paid my taxes dutifully despite this. I fully support education and feel that it is a great investment in our city. But I resent that money being spent to fight for a prayer in our schools. The Supreme Court determined that in 1963 (I think). Are they "dopes" too?

Joe you forget schools get federal and state monies as well, so you are spending some of MY MONEY, So yes, I have the right to say something

I can see from your comments you are becoming increasingly delusional.

Very amusing......

No. Not delusional. I don't worship an Invisible Space Pickle or other imaginary being, and if I did it wouldn't delude me into thinking I had the right to force my delusions on other people's children in a public school in violation of the Constitution.

So, no, not delusional. Just highly amused at the sad spectacle of a community paying for allowing a handful of religious bigots like you to cost them so much money in pursuit of a cause doomed to failure. Let’s put up your picture in place of the banner when it’s removed, with a nice poem about how you cost the city so much money with your pursuit of theocracy.

Liberty Janus, technically, it had a religious tone. However, this was a petty lawsuit. You can't tell me it has mattered. It was crumbs from an old era. That student was used by her family to make a statement, because of their point of view and opinions. I don't care for the ACLU in RI (it may be different in other states), because they nick pick on the poor state. This is how they make a living. My opinion comes from their actions over the years. They pick and choose parts of the constitution they want to defend. I am not religious and I went to Cranston schools.

This is old stuff at this point, but I’ll review it again for you: Heading: “SCHOOL PRAYER”; then ‘OUR HEAVENLY FATHER’; then requests that ‘OUR HEAVENLY FATHER’ ‘GRANT US’, ‘HELP US’ (twice), and ‘TEACH US’; and the cadence mimics the Christian ‘The Lord’s Prayer’; then “AMEN”; then the context and circumstances of its making. That makes the banner religious and Christian. The judge also so ruled. The sky IS blue, not green.

No, Jessica wasn’t used by her family. There’s copious material online by and about Jessica to demonstrate otherwise.

Your dislike of the ACLU is not objective. Other people VALUE the ACLU and the causes and cases they undertake in defense of the US Constitution. Of course the ACLU picks and chooses. Every organization has priorities and limited resources to accommodate. This means nothing of substance. Other groups are advocates for their chosen Constitutional issues, and this is perfectly appropriate. You might as well hate the Patriots because they don’t play soccer. As for the ACLU “picking on the poor state”....this is just more blaming the victims for the taking the criminals to court: perhaps if the people didn’t violate the constitution they wouldn’t require so much remedy for their violations.

And…upholding the 1st Amendment is not petty. It DOES matter a great deal. It matters to all of us, including those who don't understand this fact.

Liberty Janus, Yes, I get tired of reading the paper and finding another dopey lawsuit defended by the ACLU against school uniforms for failing students in failing schools. Yes, the ACLU appear to be camping out in RI. They have the means to fight these lawsuits. They use a big stick (expensive lawsuit) to keep people in place. No one has the money in Cranston to fight the banner situation all the way to the Supreme Court. So, by default, the ACLU gets paid and the banner gets thrown out, and the awful, oppression is gone from Cranston West High School.

ccollins reminds me of somebody who, 60 years ago, might have said something like, "Yeah, there are 'Whites Only' and 'Coloreds Only' signs, and yes it's wrong. Yeah, it's wrong that black people are forced to sit at the back of buses. But it would be so PETTY to bring up a lawsuit about it! They should just sit down and be grateful that's all the negative treatment they get!"

Pathetic, ccollins. An injustice is an injustice, and a constitutional violation is a constitutonal violation.

Richard Brum, no, that lawsuit is no where near the Civil Rights movement or the Church of England's oppression against the Quakers and Catholics. The banner was from a bygone era. No one is practicing religious or any oppression in the Cranston school system. This is what I'm talking about.

Cc,

All your discussion is irrelevant to the simple FACT that the banner violates the US Constitution and must therefore come down. It shouldn’t have been there in the first place and legal action to force its removal was necessitated by the school board under pressure from religious fanatics. Means, motives, techniques, etc., are tangential to this simple fact of unconstitutionality. And every lawsuit has financial implications to be considered for both sides. This doesn’t mean lawsuits ought not be brought, especially when the defendant is clearly violating the Constitution, it just means that potential costs have to be considered by both parties to a dispute. This is simply a fact of life for everyone involved, and is certainly not some evil plot carried out by the ACLU. But your attacks on the ACLU are merely the usual ad hominem attacks and a straw man, and as such are meant to distract attention from the fact that the banner IS unconstitutional and was rightly litigated against due to the intransigence of the school board.

And as RB says: “a constitutional violation is a constitutional violation”. We don’t allow one because someone thinks it “less” of a violation than another. They’re ALL violations. The banner was religious establishment and that violates the 1st Amendment. Pretty simple.

Liberty Janus, the city of Cranston cannot afford to fight it, so it doesn't matter if they are right or wrong. The ACLU carries the big iron club ($$$$) -----not Cranston.

So did the City of Cranston, but they refused all the compromises offered. You know the old saying: You play (and lose) You Pay..so now the citizens of Cranston are going to pay for their refusal to abide by the Constitution...enough said?

If what you are saying is true, then they have a huge weapon (expensive lawsuit) to get their way and I think it works in RI sometimes. People become afraid to defend themselves. Forget about defending school uniforms in failing schools or not allowing kids to upload lewd songs about their teachers. It will cost you!

It will cost you, IF you are found to be in the wrong. What is so hard to understand about that, ccollins? If a judge finds that the school is in the wrong, then yes, they will have to pay. The solution? STOP violating the constitution! Are you seriously suggesting that the school be allowed to do whatever it wants, even if it's illegal and unjust?

We will never know a lot of things are unconstitutional or not, because it all comes down to money. The city of Cranston cannot afford to fight it. You won your petty lawsuit, so be happy with that.

Amen....

I assume you are referring to voting out the school committee members. Settle down, it's not the Presidency we're talking about here. Do you really think they are worried about your threat? I'd imagine they'd be happy to walk away after this mess.

You seem to have some sort of vendetta against the ACLU.

I kind of agree with you that the lawsuit was petty in that it should not have been necessary. The school board should have simply changed the banner wording to make it secular and moved on.

But they didn't. They called the ACLU's bluff. It's all on them.

If you are told to pay taxes and then you don't pay your taxes and end up in jail, who do you blame? Do you blame the government? It's your fault for not paying.

Your comments lack depth. The ACLU is a good organization. If you have reason to believe otherwise, why not publish it?

Right, because each state DOESN'T have its own ACLU chapter. You know nothing, ccollins. The ACLU was called on this matter. They didn't camp out like hawks or vultures. From the judge's own decision:

"During the summer, Plaintiff learned that someone else had complained about the Prayer Mural to the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”). Indeed, Defendants explain that, in July 2010, they received a letter from the ACLU complaining about the Prayer Mural, written on behalf of an unnamed family with two children in Cranston public schools."

Seriously, read the judge's decision. Here, I even outlined the important parts for ya: http://yetanotheratheist.com/2012/01/the-decision-of-ahlquist-v-city-of-cranston-by-judge-ronald-lagueux/

Oh yes, the ACLU had to swoop in to defend someone from oppression, because of that old dusty banner, which wasn't even an actual prayer. It was a petty lawsuit and they know it.

Your assertions are merely subjective emotional evaluations posing as objective evaluations and as such are unfounded. You attack the ruling merely because you have an emotional bias against the ACLU. Many place great value on defending the 1st Amendment, as does the ACLU, and legal precedent and the banner ruling (which adds to that precedent) supports their approach, not yours.

The banner was rather obviously a prayer. Still clinging to the silly argument that a banner headed with the words “SCHOOL PRAYER” really isn’t a prayer….incredible, and water under the bridge.

Our Heavenly Father, please help ccollins recognize a prayer when he sees one. Give him the strength to know when he is wrong. Help him to understand that it is a two sided coin, the same law that keeps religion out of publicly funded spaces is the law that provides for all of us to worship in our own way in appropriate places. Teach him to respect ALL others and their right NOT to believe in You.
Amen

(This is a prayer!)

Thanks again JD...first good laugh of the day.

JD, you should say the prayer for yourself. In fact, it would be good for you. I know.

ccollins

Your comments are petty and you know it. Just hot air. You seem really annoyed. Why? Are you mad at the school for deciding to fight instead of obeying the law? Are you mad at the school board for wasting tax-payer money when they were given 8 months to comply with the demand that they follow the law? Are you mad at the bigots in Cranston who egg the school board on - who attempt to get them to waste still more money by appealing the decision?

Nope. You're mad at the ACLU. Get real man.

ccollins,
If it's just an "old dusty banner" and such a "petty" issue, why didn't the school board just take the damn thing down rather than fight an expensive and lengthy court battle? They're the ones you should be upset with. All they had to do was agree with you that it's not that important...but they couldn't, could they? They're convinced doing so would upset their invisible sky daddy...and I suspect you harbour the same fears.

Yawn. The principle is in the constitution and has been used in numerous Supreme Court rulings. There are lots principles that implied, like there is a ban on wiretaps without a warrant. Even though the phones were did not exist when the Bill of Rights was written, it follows from the restrictions on unreasonable search and seizures. Separation of Church and State is a basic constitutional principle, which has been used in hundreds of court rulings. Any course in Civics would make that clear, but apparently they don't teach Civics in Cranston anymore.

The phrase "checks and balances" is NOWHERE in the Constitution nor is it implied.

See? I can be ignorant, too!

Brum, you are a real constitutional genius I can see by your comment. "Checks and Balances" is implied by the separation of powers. Church & State is not. Your little leftist brain may have trouble absorbing that.

Ok Sven, just wondering if you are so inclined to agree with the supreme court decision Bush Vs. Gore? Something tells me you selectively choose your supreme court decisions (just like the ACLU) when it fits your radical agenda.

Perhaps Eddie.

But protection from religion and the right for everyone to have equal treatment IS in the constitution. The banner was unequal. It violated the establishment clause.

Mathematical models predict that non-religious affiliation in the USA will reach 50% by 2060. I wish it were sooner.

It is not an issue of being bothered. It is ILLEGAL. I am glad Jessica spoke out. I wish everyone would use this a teachable moment. Devotional religious statements have no place in public schools. Period.

She did not "take away" anyone's rights. She stood up for her Constitutional rights, and for yours, too, I might add.

I'm not even religious and I thought that lawsuit was ridiculous. I agree, she was the pawn for the adults in her life who believe in atheism. It would be interesting to see if she ends up changing her feelings on atheism in the future.

I am amused that ccollins said something about believing in atheism. Think about it. It's funny. Atheism is not a belief. It is the opposite. They do NOT believe in God. I know I am being picky, but thought I would point it out.
And judging by the outpouring of hatred from the "faithful" in our community, I can only guess that this will not cause her to believe God. She has certainly seen no evidence of a higher power here.

Jim Dawson, when are the atheists tolerant? They live in a world filled with religious people of all kinds. They need to get used to it and stop nit picking their neighbors. Sometimes, I don't like the religious right, but I found that lawsuit quite petty. It certainly wasn't a landmark decision by any means. It was crumbs from an old era. I would have put a sign next to the banner to say it was once a school prayer. The sign can include history of the contitutional decisions (school prayer) as well.

Atheists accept (I will not use the word tolerate) all sorts of religion and religious symbols where ever they go. They accept that churches are on tax free land. They accept the rights of the faithful to worship as they choose. I rarely hear an atheist publicly refute religion (which is why we have little concept of just how prevelant they actually are) for fear of the wrath (not of God) of the faithful. Jessica was really brave. Atheists only object when religion invades tax payer spaces. And stop saying it is petty or nit picking. If that were true, why would you or I be wasting so much time on it?

cCollins You just don't get it.

You asked a few questions
when are the atheists tolerant? All the time. We don't try to stop Anything you do in private as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, we were against the bigotry towards the mosque, it was mostly Christians who were intolerant there. We NEVER ask for special privileges for our views. We only ask for a single set of rules that are respectful to Everyone. Your side wants privileged rights that you would not tolerate if any other group tried to impose them on you. A good example is all of the anti-Sharia laws popping up around the country. We are against them because we are consistent, your side had no issues with blue laws and dry counties. You have no problem cramming your religious views on the country from abortion to Terri Schiavo when the decision should be between the person and their doctor.

That it should come up in this discussion when the people of Cranston have come off as bigoted, intolerant, crass, disrespectful and intolerant is really rich.

Then you said
They need to get used to it and stop nit picking their neighbors.

I would say you need to respect the Constitution and your fellow citizens who do and stop acting like bullying and disrespecting a teen age girl makes you look like anything but a bully and a tyrant. If she had stood alone for gun rights, you'd call her a patriot and Fox would have 24 hour specials. She had courage and character and it looks like Cranston is short on both.

Kevin, I get it, but sometimes there are iron bats used on people for something that is not oppressing anyone. Someone was "offended" about that banner, so they made a big stink about it. It was an old banner from a bygone era. No one is forcing or coercing anyone to practice anything in particular or to recite that "supposed" prayer. Honestly, I don't care if that banner is there or not. I just don't think it is a landmark case. It pales in comparison to most historical situations on the matter.

"Technically it was illegal, technically it was a prayer, technically it was religious...."

I'd have more respect from those of you whining if you just said - it was an illegal Christian prayer, we know that and we don't want to follow the law. We don't care how much it costs the community and the kids to make us "feel" better about keeping a privileged status that we KNOW is wrong.

All technically means is that you know you're in the wrong and you just don't care but none of you are honest enough to just say that.

and continuing to say she was a pawn belittles the courage that NONE of you would have had at her age or now to do the right thing and be honest.

Jim Dawson said, "I am amused that ccollins said something about believing in atheism. Think about it. It's funny. Atheism is not a belief. It is the opposite. They do NOT believe in God. I know I am being picky, but thought I would point it out. "

Agnostics are the "opposite" you're talking about, having no definite belief or disbelief on religion.
True atheists firmly believe there is no diety of any kind.
That is a belief.

Not to be nitpicky.

@la_moufette

In the broadest sense of the term, an atheist is anyone who is not a theist.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. Those who believe no deities exist, which we call “hard atheists” or “strong atheists”, make up a minority of atheists.

Actually Joe, it is up to the School Committee to determine what is best for Cranston students. Two of the four SC members that voted to defend the banner are attorneys. They had to know it would be an uphill battle at best to win a decision to keep the banner on the wall. They also knew going in that if they lost, the school dept. would be on the hook for the ACLU legal fees. So, in my opinion, it is the 4 SC members that voted to defend that failed the students of Cranston.

Joe Richer, “Looking out for what's best for the students of our fair city” is your school board’s job, not the ACLU’s. You should rather say the Cranston school board wasting a hundred thousand dollars defending an indefensible school prayer, which marginalizes minority students, was inconsistent with their responsibility to protect *all* their charges.

The ACLU’s motive and mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Point well taken Don.

Robin, indeed that is the job of the school committee. Still the ACLU seeks to willfully take the money in question from the students of the city of Cranston.

JR,

This is the kind of “spun” statement that makes it look completely like propaganda cloaked in a mantle of reasonableness. You acknowledge the school board’s responsibility, but then: imply falsely that the ACLU is responsible (the school board is solely responsible for having and refusing to remove an unconstitutional banner); imply falsely some kind of ill motive to the ACLU by using the word “willfully” (of course it’s willful, just as it’s intentional, on purpose, and a necessary consequence of the need to be paid for their work); imply falsely that the ACLU is somehow “taking” money (when they’re merely being compensated for the time and work it took for them to remedy a constitutional violation, just as any other person is compensated for their time and work, and being compensated by the criminals – in this case the town’s taxpayers through their proxy the school board, as is the manner in most litigation wherever possible); imply falsely that the students are being victimized by the ACLU (the students have been victimized by the school boards who’ve erected and maintained the banner in place and especially by the current board’s refusal to remove it or modify it, and by their choice to litigate).

This kind of attempt to slyly deflect responsibility away from the school board and the town and onto the straw man of the ACLU is false and old and unworthy of you.

JR: The Cranston School Board and local government's actions are demonstrably NOT consistent with looking out for the best interests of the taxpayers or students. They have flaunted the law, pursued a dubious, costly and failed legal battle, and encouraged the vilification of one of the few people courageous enough (in over a generation and a half) to demand that the people in charge live up to their oaths, follow the law, and guarantee equal treatment before the law.

The 'adults' have set a very poor example by willful violation of a simple but core principle of our nation (which also carries the weight of law): No government - local, state or national shall offer preference for one particular religious belief system over any other. Government must remain neutral and must not establish nor promote any religion (i.e. supernatural beliefs) in the public space. Period.

The ACLU? Doing their job, protecting the law and everyone's civil rights. More than I can say for most of the so-called Cranston adults. Seems to me that the ACLU does have student’s and city’s best interests at heart. Their real motivations? Go talk with them and try to find out before you project your own fears and issues onto them. Have you tried that?

JR, with all due respect, I continue to question your motives and comments. The people of Cranston have received a $173,000 lesson. I can only hope you all learn something from this, for then it won’t be a complete waste of money.

Seriously, do you think that was an important lawsuit? It wasn't even an actual prayer. It was historical. Was it oppressing anyone? I went to school in Cranston. There was no religious oppression. Imagine if Italy destroyed all their public art with religious content. Geez! Some things are historical-- not meant to oppress. The lawsuit was petty.

Not only was it an actual prayer, Cranston West used to lead children to pray it. It was written by David Bradley in 1960 as a replacement for their daily recitations of Lord's Prayer after the Pledge of Allegiance.

See, this is what I find hard to deal with when talking to religious people: They can look at something, see clearly what it is, and yet still deny that it is what it is if that suits their purposes. Before this case was brought, nobody (not even ccollins) would have looked at that banner and said it was anything other than a prayer. But now, because it suits his argument, ccollins can look at a banner which says "SCHOOL PARAYER", begins with "Our Heavenly Father" and ends with "Amen", and with a straight face say that it isn't a prayer. That kind of wilful ignorance makes debate utterly asinine.

By the way, I'm not Mike Hager. I'd have chosen a different user-name if I'd have noticed his name before!

ccollins: I'm an atheist and someone who believes all the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are just as important - 2nd Amendment included. Question: Why would the ACLU spend their time on 2nd Amendment cases when the NRA does it? Makes sense for the ACLU to spend time on cases NO ONE ELSE takes, but which need attention just the same. Yes, the pick and choose. That doesn't make this case any less valid. It just makes you a fool.

Yes, it has a religious tone. Technically, maybe it was against the law. However, the lawsuit against a crumb from a bygone era seems petty to me. Yes, it is my opinion. You are right, the ACLU looks at a lot of things differently. They will defend against a student's suspension (consequences) from school for uploading lewd songs about his teacher and also burning them on CDs to pass on to fellow students.

"Technically, maybe it was against the law."

Then WHAT is the issue here? It's not petty if it was ILLEGAL, ccollins. From the judge's own decision:

"This Court is satisfied that the Supreme Court, were it to analyze Plaintiff’s standing herein, would determine that her status as a student enrolled at Cranston West is sufficient to confer standing in a dispute about a prayer displayed at her school. … She is a captive audience. Beyond that, Plaintiff has stated that the presence of a Christian prayer on the wall of her school has made her feel ostracized and out of place. She has also stated that she doesn't find the text of the Prayer to be offensive. The Court fails to find these statements inconsistent. It is possible to object to the presence of the Prayer Mural without having to find its goals of academic achievement and good sportsmanship offensive. While her injuries might be characterized as abstract, those injuries are consistent with the injuries complained of by other plaintiffs in Establishment Clause litigation…and readily distinguishable from the cases where the Supreme Court has determined that plaintiffs lacked standing…"

There is no law or precedent that defines what constitutes a "petty" lawsuit vs. a valid one. They are ALL valid.

The ACLU ALSO defends the rights of religious students whose freedoms are being violated by their schools (and other such examples). Your cherry-picking of their past cases is completely dishonest.

Also, it didn't start with a lawsuit, ccollins. It started with Jessica reaching out to the school to ask that it be altered or removed. That's when the insults started pouring in. That's when the religious revivals -- er, I mean, school committee meetings -- started, where Jessica was publicly ostracized. The school escalated this to the point where a lawsuit was NECESSARY.

Again, ccollins, READ the Judge's decision on this matter. He explains it all in detail there, in the "Background" section of his writings: http://www.rid.uscourts.gov/menu/judges/opinions/lagueux/01112012_1-11CV0138L_AHLQUIST_V_CRANSTON_P.pdf

The reason it stirs people up is that some intolerant people find any teeny tiny religious tone or a dusty old plaque as offensive, even if it was a gift from 50 years ago. It is ridiculous! Have you ever been to Italy? If so, did you wear a black cloth over your eyes when you toured around?

ccollins asks, "Have you ever been to Italy? If so, did you wear a black cloth over your eyes when you toured around?"

A non sequitur, in that Italy hasn't got the U.S. Constitution, nor its 1st Amendment. And, having been to Italy, I'm recalling that the vast majority of Christian art was displayed in churches and cathedrals, or what had been private homes; most of the public art of a religious nature probably goes back to the pre-Christian era... the old Roman gods.

But again, that's neither here nor there in this dispute, as that's Italy, and this is the U.S. of A., where the founding documents erected a stronger bulwark between the citizenry and state-imposed religion.

You do understand that anything you thought mattered would feel "petty" to many others. The reason we have laws is because EVERYONE thinks they are right. The problem for Cranston is that the religious people and those fighting this were wrong before the suit, wrong if no suit had ever been filed, wrong after the suit and will be wrong for all time unless the Constitution is changed. Saying petty a million times won't change that.

The fact that people can get so stirred up shows clearly - religion has no place in the schools and government which is why the founders kept it out. The controversy is that religious people want a special, privileged right and that is ALWAYS going to be wrong-- and unAmerican.

The ACLU defends the constitution for all Americans? Is this a joke?

cc - you're the joke. Only it isn't very funny.

They defend principles. It is how you can defend anyone including slimeballs like Ollie North and the Nazi Party as well as the Scottsboro Boys, against Japanese Internment, Brown vs Board of Education. Their moral compass has been far more consistent and principled than Cranston's. While they defend a principle, you have shown a willingness to ignore them.

Stoney
I dunno. I find his persistence funny. I mean in a sad way. He can't simply swallow his pride, admit fault, and move on. He just *has* to get the last word in.

ccollins
Give it a rest man! So you don't like the ACLU. Fine. You have no reason to dislike them other than your own opinions which seem to lack any sort of evidence to back them up.

Oh I got it. You're just a troll.

Isn't that what we call... Iran?

Exactly. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine, am I right?

Good point.

This never happened in any court in any state. Ask Snopes. This is all a fantasy revenge scenario if you just think about it.

What is the atheist expecting the judge to do if he finds for him? Judges don't declare national holidays. Nor do they declare existing ones like Christmas must be banned.

Also I'm bemused that the judge can take an unsupported assertion in a holy book and make findings of law from it. Why upbraid the atheist because he doesn't apply a Psalm to his legal case? What if there is a relevant Sura that could take precedence?

The only reason to keep passing this little 'joke' around is because it resonates with the Christians who resent being told they have to stop bullying others and actually be nice, like it says in their book.

Jackson,

It is laughable that you actually try to play the "poor little persecuted atheist" mantra here on this discussion when all one has to do is read the numerous comments above to see the venemous comments lmade by militant atheists and your ouwn insulting portrail of scriptures which are sacred to some.

And please spare me the "I'm only attacking the persons who make disparaging remark" line. Your insults are felt by all people of faith when you call the sacred Bible a stone age book.

Practice what you preach you hypocrite.

So Joe, you really do believe in talking snakes, burning bushes, people living in fish and boats that can carry all the species of the planet? Really? And you don't see how rational grown ups would think that is kinda kooky and childish?
Wow.

So Mark, I beleive in God.

And I take great pleasure in exposing the radical lunatic fringe that you represent for the mean, insulting, pompous, cult you all are. Thanks for helping my efforts by your comments

You didn't answer my questions, Joe. Do you or do you not believe in all those things I listed along with people rising from the dead and virgin births? Are you not answering because you're embarrassed to admit you believe this nonsense?

Mark,

If you could read, you would see that I previously proudly professed my Faith and that I am Catholic and as such, I do not window shop for my beliefs. I consider myself lucky to have Faith. For you unfortunate souls that do not truly understand Faith it is understandable that you would also not understand and respect sacred scripture and out of your ignorances and hatred, you would misrepresent and mischaracterize its true meaning.

I will pray for your soul.

Ok, I got it. I too was raised catholic so I know what you believe and that you believe it on faith alone, in the absence of any evidence. Talking snakes, people living in fish, even that whacky cannibalism thing with transubstantiation. Ya gotta admit, Joe, if you had these beliefs but didn't call it a religion, everyone would think you're a raving lunatic.
I realized it was nonsense when I was 13. Maybe some day you will too. I'll hope for you.

Kevin, get a grip.

Do you really beleive the statistics presented by a website called atheistempire.com.

That's laughable that your insignificant cult would label yourselves and "Empire" while representing only 0.7% of our society.

My statistics come from other websites that were provided by your very own cult members.

A member of you cult of atheists provided these four references:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://chartsbin.com/view/3nr
http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm
http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html

From his first first source:

"Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population"

So your own source puts atheists at less than 0.5%.

OOOPS.....

His second source puts atheists at 2.32% WOLDWIDE!

ummm okay.....

His third source show no statistics at all.

His fourth source shows atheists at 3.8% world wide. Which considering Communist China, and Mongolia where most of them live, it is understandable....

So, if delusion is defined as a belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence, I guess that makes you and your rabid militant minority cult of atheists delusional.

WOW... Name calling, targeting an individual, false accusations, you name it, you're doing it Liberty...
Now if the same statements were said toward Jessica, you would get shredded, PERIOD...
Not only are you showing a tremendous amount of hatred, your true colors are being shown, loud and clear!!!
You should quit posting!!!

When someone disparages an ENTIRE NATION'S peoples merely because of their different nationality, that's racism. A true accusation. He's also a religious bigot. Fact, not insult. Wanna-be theocratic tyrant: fact. The briefest knowledge of JTP confirms all these and the language is not insulting, merely descriptive. It may be a harsh fact that these things are true but they remain facts. He's also a hypocrite because he engages in this racist, bigoted, intolerant behavior while all the while claiming to be a tolerant person of faith.

Do you have any facts to contribute, or are you just the ball boy, who steps onto the field in between plays to pat his team on the butt?

Liberty... You are not the judge, the prosecutor or the jury!!! Yet you "freely" attack, attack and attack again as you see fit, to make "your" point and your point only...
What do others call that? We all have your version.
You don't have to agree with Joe but he has his say too...
Your posts are just way too similar to those made toward Jessica when this all broke, only thing missing is threats of bodily harm... But, if words could kill, Joe would be dead based on your posts...

So you ARE just the ball boy.

And JTP is having his say. His say happens to be repetitively racist, bigoted, intolerant, and hypocritical, but that doesn’t bother you because it comes from someone who professes faith. You don’t say a word about JTP calling people “ass”, “jerk”, “idiot”, and “dumb” (cut & pastes from JTP comments), or about the numerous deletions of his posts by the Patch due to his use of insults. You don’t say anything about JTP’s many comments like this choice comment in which he calls commenters “denizens of hell .…spewing hateful insults of our beliefs. No doubt about is (sic)...... you boys are going to burn in the eternal flames of Hell. No jokes. No (sic) myths, not fairy tales. There is a speacial (sic) place in Hell for the likes of you all.”

When JTP, and you, misspell my name by omitting the J to make a childish insult, you don’t make a peep of protest, because you support the insults of faith. So spare us the hypocrisy and try to dredge up some tiny attempt at contributing facts.

By the way, you appear to be the same Ed who represents himself as one of the florists who refuses to send flowers to Jessica. That would figure.

Liberty... I apologized in my post for leaving off the "J" as I was typing too fast and didn't proof read, that is a fact. I told you I'm not into the name calling, I don't play in the trenches.
You should take a lesson, it would make you a better person and relieve you of some of your anger....

Leaving off the J so strategically is very coincidental, but since you re-affirm your explanation, I'll accept it as true. JTP, on the other hand, does it quite intentionally, yet you don't say anything about that.

As for lessons…..no thanks, the lesson you offer is to stand on the sidelines throwing unfounded personal accusations at those you dislike while saying nothing about the direct QUOTES of racism, bigotry, and intolerance of those who happen to share your religious beliefs, and if you’re the florist you claim to be then no one needs a lesson in your kind of intolerance.

You’re also of no use to anybody who wants objective commentary, since you don’t make any. Accusing me of insult? You can’t find one instance of my using non-descriptive purely insult language anywhere, and you ignore my noting that you don’t make any note of insults by JTP. Likewise, alleging anger where none exists is merely a lame tactic, and to be ignored. You probably understand the difference between emphatic articulation and real insults and anger like JTP uses; his words “ass”, “jerk”, “idiot”, and “dumb”. You won’t admit it though.

So…lessons…from you? No thanks.

Hey Janus,
Wake up.

I was not insulting the Chinese or Mongolians. But stated that it is understandable that there is a slightly higher percent atheists in these countries because they are Communist. Communism is based on socialist philosophies of Karl Marx, he saw religion as evil. Thus it makes sense they would have a few more atheists in these countries.

So don't pull that hate bating BS, even a simple plumber can recognize your deceit.

Ed, I agree with you. It may not have been right, but the posters were only kids. As for Joe's comments here, I have to agree with you there too. I haven't seen any "racist" comments from him. I don't know where Liberty Janus is getting this from. Obviously, she thinks she knows his type and is interpreting everything he posts through her lens of hate towards anyone, who believes in God.

Lunatic fringe????

Atheists = 0.7% ............The rest of society= 99.3%

ummmmmmm.....okay.

Paul, there happens to be a variation between stating facts and attacking!!! Liberty has gone way over the line to make "her" or "his" point, complete with name calling, targeting, and hatefull comments. (gender doesn't matter to me)
I can read and I'm calling it as I see it! Put Jessica's name in Libertys posts instead of Joes and all hell would break out.
So what makes it any different???

Ed,

It's not just accurate but mandatory to call a racist a racist. Apparently, though, you support racism, and support using racism as a tactic of argument. Disparaging an ENTIRE nations belief merely because they're of a different race than yours is OK to you. You may wish to allow that kind of tactic to supplant rational argument and avoid calling it what it is, but that merely makes you a tacit, or overt, supporter of a racist. If your allegiance to a faith blinds you to racism and intolerance practiced in the name of that faith, then you're a good example of why the banner is unconstitutional and strong separation is a necessity.

By the way, Ed, here are screenshots of the insults and threats thrown at Jessica.

http://jesusfetusfajitafishsticks.blogspot.com/2012/01/ahlquist-screenshots-if-by-christian.html

Much of it’s so vile it can’t be cut and pasted here without requiring deletion by the Patch. So your comparison of my descriptive language to this fetid swamp of hate language is pathetic. Maybe you're a decent guy just trying to help his team – even if it leads you to error and falsehood - but anyone who was to read this filth and was in ANY WAY apologetic about it, or compared it in ANY WAY, to any pro-constitution/anti-banner comments here, would be engaging in deliberate manipulation and lying. They'd also be self evidently pathetic - descriptively speaking.

Ed,

jAnus and his band of lunatics from an atheist cult actually think that I have been missing the point on legal arguments and ignoring some convoluted logic they are spewing.

Fact is that I'm a simple plumber who's sole motive is not to argue points of law here, but to expose these rabid atheist maniacs for what they really are, which is Christian hating, insulting, lunatics who's sole purpose in life is to rid our society of religion.

With them only representing 0.7% of our society I'm guessing that is not going too well for them.

I agree Joe, you're just simple and, while it's not my sole purpose in life, I would like to see religion eliminated from the world. Whether your claims that atheism is a cult and that we're an insignificant percentage of the population are valid are irrelevant when considering whether or not your catholic beliefs are kooky. You think you're eating human flesh during the sacrament of communion fer chrissakes. That's a whole lotta kooky and creepy right there.

Mark,

You see? That wasn't so hard was it?

To finally admit it is liberating isn't it?

And that really is what all of this is about isn't it?

Your insignificantly small group of atheists would like to see religion eliminated from the world.

Simple.

No big fancy words or lenghty treatise on law as Janus, Auger, Jackson and other pseudo intellectuals use to disguise their real intent here.

You want to rid the world of religion.

That's really what this is all about.

JTP can’t prevent himself from revealing himself every once and awhile when he steps out from behind his repetitive tactical lies. He sounds about 2 minutes from committing violence on the first innocent secular group he can find because he hears god’s voice in his head and he’s precisely the kind the Cranston police ought to be vigilant about. What he reveals is a perfect example of an intolerant, racist, religious bigot, wanna-be theocrat whose admitted sole purpose in commenting is to erect a straw man and knock it down over and over and over again. He doesn’t care what lies he tells or how he gets the job done. Might makes right and the end justifies the means. To quote JTP: “Now we will begin to truly impose our will”(from one of his more honest moments when he confessed his longing for absolute majority rule by Christians). He just has to pursue his bizarre and fetishistic crusade against those atheist “demons”. In his myopic fantasy world and bizarre persecution complex he’s completely abandoned any connection to the issues, or to reality, for that matter, and become truly pathological and an embarrassment to reasonable and tolerant Christians. He’s a textbook example of why the lunatic fringe of religion is dangerous to everybody and why the establishment clause is more important than ever. It’s like the Pathology of Theocracy 101.

Hey Joe, I bet you'd like to see atheism eliminated as well. Nothing wrong with that. Except that you believe silly fairy tales. I understand your reluctance to actually come right out and say "I believe in talking snakes and eating human flesh"; it does tend to make one sound like an idiot. Maybe you should examine your reluctance to enunciate these crazy beliefs of yours...this might be a clue that they're baseless and silly.

Liberty... I have two statements here...
First, those comments made against Jessica are most certainly made by those in school with her and those in her age group, it is their way of venting behind the safety of their computer screen and voicing their stance to be heard, teens do that...
Secondly, and I hope you take this constructively, you appear to just wait for JTP to make a post so you can viciously attack it and him. He chirps too much sometimes, but your posts show a very deep rooted hatred and a problem that you just won't let go. You may be a nice person superficially, but the real you is ugly and I'll bet you have lost many friends through the years because of this. Step back for a minute and take a close look....

Ed,
A member of the RI state senate called Jessica an "evil little thing". This is an elected official talking about a 16 yr old girl. Similarly, Jessica has been booed and catcalled by "adults" when speaking at school board meetings. What's their excuse beyond being deluded fools who get their twisted morality from a bronze age myth replete with rape, genocide, xenophobia and nonsense.
How can adults believe in talking snakes and bushes, virgin births, dudes rising from the dead and giant boats capable of carrying every life form in the world on it? Believing that crap is no less crazy than mohammed's flying horse or the stories of alien abductees. Those that buy into any of this are self-evidently whack-a-doodle nutbars.

Again, Ed, you merely apologize for and rationalize about the hate and threats that have been directed against Jessica, while avoiding the points, which were 1) you made a false accusation 2) you only apply your standards against those you disagree with while failing to apply them against those you agree with. This has become a pattern with you folks: falsely accuse, deliberately misrepresent, or simply lie, and when evidence of falsehood, misrepresentation, and lying is presented ignore and/or falsely trivialize. In blunt terms; this is lying and hypocrisy.

You accept blithely the vile hate language and threats of physical violence from those you share faith with when you’d be screaming about it were it directed against your beliefs. And when commenters here whose faith you share insult and engage in personal attacks SOLELY as a way to wage some paranoid battle with a non-existent evil, you call it a chirp. This is hypocrisy. No matter, it’s expected from you, Ed, as one of the florists who refuses to send flowers to Jessica.

So far, everything you’ve said I’ve taken constructively. It all reinforces a conviction that if I behave in the opposite way from you, I and the world, and my neighbors, and my friends, and my family, will be a better place for it, and also re-affirms how important the establishment clause is in preserving freedom of belief from your kind of prejudice and irrationality, so thanks for your input.

Liberty and Mark
We are really laughing as we read your post(s); all we had to do was bait the water and WHAM... can't let go. lol...
Here is my point and I personally don't care one way or the other about the "banner"...
It is a fact that since the banner was put up there are many who don't like it as they walk by it... Correct?
It is also fact that those who didn't like it never made an issue out of it for numerous reasons (i.e.: peer pressure, administration, family values, school pride ... it was developed by a former student) Correct?
Jessica walked by and dealt with it for over 2 years. Correct?
Jessica, along with thousands of students before her knew it was religious in nature and even against school policy. Correct?
Would it be safe to assume that removing a piece of school heritage (right or wrong) was going to cause some waves...? Correct?
Is it safe to say that as Jessica continues to play the media role that it is going to keep the "haters" going, maybe even stronger? Correct?
Is it safe to say that there is now a lot of her school mates and members of the community who will show hatred toward her as they are doing now? Correct?
The fact of the matter is, she spoke up on what is really a "minor" issue and won the battle. The down side to this is she will "not" be enjoying the best years of her life (teen years) with all the anger centered on her.
But, all the posters here who are living their lives through Jessica will not see or feel her pain...

News Flash: “Intolerant florist acknowledges irrelevant facts, AND draws false conclusions!” Stay tuned for follow up: “Upholding constitution a ‘minor’ issue!”

And that's the real mark of shame: that a community of so-called "christians" can tolerate (even encourage) such hatred. For someone whose cause is just.

If I were to believe that most American christians were motivated by the words of the New Testament, I'd have expected the loudest sentiments to be those of love; having experienced what passes for religion in America I'm not all that surprised that it's appeals to the vengeful god of the Old Testament to smite the Other, those not of the tribe, those who might upset the traditional order.

==And that's the real mark of shame: that a community of so-called "christians" can tolerate (even encourage) such hatred. For someone whose cause is just.==

Just curious - have you seen the thousands of posts, month after month, of anti-Christian hatred from the organized gangs of atheists here? Its amazing that they are happy to enjoy the fruits of a country whose ethical principles are based on Christian underpinnings, but they feel so smug and superior that they despise the moral system which has created the country they are so happy to parasitize.

What nonsense. Our ethical principles were around long before Christians left most of them out of the Ten Commandments (maybe they were on the tablet that was dropped and broken). This is a secular country and the Constitution is a secular document except for the two prohibitions on religious entanglement. Fortunately the US Constitution, you know, the thing you want to violate with your little theocratic ideals, protects yours AND my liberty of belief.

And, yeah, all the non-believers here are in constant communication with our global headquarters (Shh…I can’t tell you where it is cause I swore an oath on my decoder ring).

LibertyJ you are free to assume that the Preamble to the US Constitution, the preamble to the RI Constitution, the Declaration of independence and the writing of the founding fathers are all shams. You are free to believe that there is no difference between the 'decency toward your fellow man' philosophy of Christianity and the atheistic governmental philosophies of Stalin and National Socialist Germany.
I understand that your rabid hatred of Christianity has deranged you to the point where 'truth' no longer holds meaning for you, all you have left is agenda.
But what I just said is simply the truth, and the underlying decency of Christian philosophy upon which we are founded is known to all objective Americans.

You’re wrong. What I said is true: people behaved ethically and understood ethics more comprehensively for thousands of years before Christians arrived with a newer version of the same old myths and a much diminished moral understanding soon to impoverish the world until the enlightenment rescued humans from Christian ignorance (to say nothing of non-western civilizations who managed to behave ethically without Christianity). You promote xenophobic myths while trashing the Greeks, just for one example, who are more responsible for our civilization and our ethics than anything promoted by barbarous theocratic Christianity. Plato and Aristotle, for all their faults, compare to Christianity like Einstein compares to the astrologer in the weekend paper. Were it not for the enlightenment disposing of the worst drek of Christianity and pursuing…enlightenment…instead of inquisitorial dogma, the US wouldn’t exist as a nation with liberty and rights, and the founders wouldn’t have taken great care to EXCLUDE religion from the critical founding legal document of the country, the secular Constitution.

I’ve never said the Preamble or the Declaration are shams, so don’t lie about it. Pot/kettle.

I have an agenda, yes; my agenda is evidence and facts and liberty, but you’ve forgotten about that in your support of theocracy. Your attribution of hate is likewise simply untrue and a lie. So spare us your religious propaganda and hypocrisy and go tell it to Galileo.

Teddy sconce. Teddy sconce.

Rebar 45-666.

Acknowledge. Acknowledge.

Beach trollop flounce.

LibertyJ wrote-
=I’ve never said the Preamble or the Declaration are shams, so don’t lie about it. =

Excellent. I'm glad that we are in agreement, then , that those 'rights' you are pretending to fight for were, indeed, 'endowed by our creator' - the philosophical basis ,according to the Declaration, from which they are derived.

Knowing better than to play 'last word' with a several dozen posts a week fanatic whose goal is to shout people down, by volume and verbosity, rather than to converse, I shall leave the floor to you at this point.

Again, go tell it to Galileo, and try falsely putting words in his mouth in so childish a way. I’ve said nothing at all about those documents. I’ve said the facts: the US Constitution is the fundamental LEGAL underpinning of our country and is completely secular. As a result the banner is unconstitutional.

Your long history of posting shows that you only converse with people who agree with you. Those who disagree, or are pro-constitutional/pro-secular, are falsely dismissed by you as extremists. You’re plenty good at tolerance when it’s your opinions that get tolerated, but really abysmal at it otherwise.

Manta Ray!**& manta Ray!**&

Pontiac on the Hudson.

Skeezix.

LibertyJ- On a less contentious note, as you insist on using Galileo as one of those 'refrigerator magnets' you use for filler in every post to avoid actual creative thought, (see under 'strawman', 'hypocrite', and 'blame the victim' - though the next time you use any of those appropriately will be a first), I might add that Galileo is one of my heroes. I actually have a bobble-head 'Mt.Rushmore' in my office of Christ, Galileo, Luther, and Darwin who I would consider Western Civilization's great - well, minds, heroes, 'advancers' ... whatever.
Some time listen to Ellis Paul's song 'Did Galileo Pray' - a great lyric and a very good sounding song as well.
On a similar musical note, did you know that in Jethro Tull's 'Locomotive Breath', 'Ol' Charlie' who 'stole the handle' is a reference to Darwin? True.
I understand that you are just here to be a hater and won't appreciate any of that, but perhaps other, more objective minds might find it interesting.
In terms of the charge that I only go on 'friendly' threads, i have been verbally beaten up here by the atheistic thugs many, many, many times. Quotes available on request. &)

Sure, that’s less contentious. Framing false accusations and lies with attempts at conciliatory dialog.

I used “strawman”, ‘hypocrite’, and ‘blame the victim’ accurately, you just don’t like their use and you always refuse to accept the fact of them because they apply to your theocratic teammates.

I didn’t “insist” on using Galileo as a shorthand designator for the church’s ethical contributions and repression of progress both ethical and practical. I just did it. It’s a good magnet; concise, clear, emphatic, and unassailable without the use of falsehood.

I have nowhere expressed hate and you merely lie to say so. At least you could TRY to separate yourself from the mindless herd you portray yourself as being above when you’re mostly merely an apologist for theocracy. I appreciate that you and others take emotional succor from religious figures, but others do not, and that’s fine, knock yourself out, but you don’t get to have OUR government establish YOUR beliefs at my expense in our schools. I support a Constitution that prohibits establishment while securing your right to believe whatever you want in private, while you don’t support this. The law currently supports my position, not yours, and both our rights, and your ad hominem attack language doesn’t change that.

The issue here has always been about establishment versus liberty. You advocate establishment. I advocate liberty

I do like Jethro Tull, though.

Blarney Stone. Blarney Stone.

Slingback 616.

Otterback.

Cranston has to pay only because they were in the wrong. It's the ONLY reason the ACLU is getting paid for a job that shouldn't have needed to be done if Cranston had only followed the law. Would you care to use the same judgment for the Christians of your town who blew money on a loser of a lawsuit rather than spending on the kids because they were so obstinate and it wasn't coming out of their pockets? Perhaps they all should have taken out second mortgages to support their beliefs. Or are you looking for a double standard here? Good luck with the manifold, car repair can be expensive.

Thanks for the Truth brother.

The athiests, who made a big stink out of that old banner by calling it "endorsing a religion" were the mean spirited.

Manifold- I know you think you're clever, but I just don't see it. As to the ACLU and getting or not getting paid it is really a side issue. The case could not have been won if one side Jessica had not been right and the other side Cranston had not wanted a fight. Know, brother know.

Discounted, not “inflated”. Twice discounted, since the ACLU has now generously agreed to accept only $150,000.

Manifold - I think you are going out of your way to be obtuse. Cranston would have had nothing to pay had they chosen to follow the law, they would have had nothing to pay had they not gone to court, they would have had nothing to pay if they were right about the law. They are now at the point where they could appeal. Are you telling me that you think they have a case likely to win on appeal?
While we have Supreme Court Justices who have tortured logic as it relates to religion so much that you could possibly win. This gem from a recent case
"[The Christian cross] signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," [attorney] Peter Eliasberg told the justices. ... Justice Antonin Scalia sharply disagreed. "It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all the war dead."
IMO, Scalia decided this case with such poor judgment he is not fit to serve on the court. Can you truly say that if a Jew or an atheist or a member of any other group you would find that statement anything other than offensive, if not idiotic?
If you think this case was decided incorrectly, on what grounds do you come to that conclusion. If not, the fees have no relevance as they are only the result of poor judgment for decades -and now recently.
Had the banner been doing anything of value for the moral character of the community, the parents and the kids and their hate filled screeds would have treated this in a more responsible manner.

I have to apologize manifold, I didn't think you actually thought that it wasn't a prayer. Convenient compartmentalization of the English language and the very people who seem to indicate it is by their vehement attacks but... I didn't really believe that you felt that way. From that point of view, you could see it the way you do.
I guess what saddens me is the screw them view of I don't care if I make my country comfortable to me and my kind and the hell with everyone else attitude. I'd not feel comfortable taking that position. I don't think it is remotely what the founders wanted either.

Oh and I am serious. Since even ccollins seems to get what it is but didn't care, I thought highly enough of you that I didn't think he got it and you didn't.

Officials have confirmed that an aluminum foil hat worn by a Cranston resident and local plumber may have actually prevented him from being influenced by any outside sources of facts. “Either that hat really works or he’s just a delusional sociopath”, one official said.

Officials remain puzzled as to what the plumber’s use of words like “minions”, “cabal”, “repulsive world order”, and “denizens of immorality” reveal beyond the obvious persecution complex. “Well”, one official explained, “it’s clear that his thoughts are purer than average, but they seem to be pure paranoia.” Officials declined to provide more explanation for the delusional beliefs but in a casual conversation overheard later by our reporter an official said: “The guy probably just roto-rooted a few too many toilets.”

Joe says he loves how atheists act like beasts of burden by commenting on blogs? While I guess being compared to horses, camels, yaks, donkeys, or elephants could be insulting, they don’t seem particularly comparable to blog commenters.

Your beliefs are still kooky.

Joe... I have to say that at first you were a little off the wall, but as I see the hate and discontent, especially the anger from those who are not the least bit open-minded, you are 100% accurate!!!!
You have shown the ability to let these others prove you were right all along!!!
Good Job!!!!

Just take your medicine Ed. Like Jessica said: “It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to. It’s for their own good. I feel like they might see it as a very negative thing right now, but I’m defending their Constitution, too.”

Liberty... I did take my medicine...lol That is why I can now say with a clear mind, very clear mind, that out of everyone who posts here you win the "Dog Poop" award for being the furthest out of touch with reality... Congratulations on winning, and I will deliver flowers for this occasion...

So along with your degree in discrimination, which taught you how to discriminate against a 16 year old girl by refusing to delivery flowers to her, you also earned a degree in Foul Languages.

And the 16 year old girl is right and you are wrong.

Take your shot Ed.

Liberty... We have to know, are you the father? Uncle? Or, the golden girl herself? The anger and hatred you display are giving you away....

Not related to the little 16 year old girl who is making you take your medicine.

Liberty... She's not feeding me any medicine, but I love what you're doing for her. You have her classmates so fired up she can't go to school, maybe because the medicine will get spit up on her? She can't attend public functions anymore within her peer group, guess she's not welcome, she's certainly not enjoying the best years of her life right now.
So, I have to say, keep your comments coming, keep her school mates fired up, I love the great job you're doing... and almost single handed... lol

x9r7 yu83 71db jc666
Nothing further. Out.

Gee, all this drama over a vestige of a bygone era. Common sense has gone out the window.

Hate to tell you Kevin, our government imposes privileged status on $$$ groups all the time.

So now we’ve learned that the atheist standard for discussion is whether or not they deem your chum unworthy of “attack”? Good to know, though we’re just exchanging thoughts here.
;-)

For years and years, no one considered the banner a problem. No one was forced to "pray" the banner. Then someone noticed it and made a federal case out of it. Same will happen with kids named Christian when some anti-Christ pretends to be offended. It’s what they call a “slippery slope”.

And as to which group contains “critical thinkers”, let’s just say that the jury’s still out on whether you’ve corned the market on that one.

The heaven we envision is so much simpler than the things we know to be true on Earth, so why can’t it be true? I think it is.

The accounts of Jesus were written relatively contemporaneously by more than one person. Why can’t they be true? I think they are.

And if the plaintiff was so afraid of alleged violence that she had to have police protection, then why can’t a florist refuse to subject himself to the risk without being subjected to an allegation of a civil rights violation? I think he can.

And my kid, Christian "Carbureutor" Witness, says "hi".

Manifold- I'd rather things were discussed on a higher standard and leave the trolling to trolls who are more easily ignored. I know you think that you're on to something with the Christian but I just don't know anyone worked up about it but you. The differene between a theist and anti theist is a rather large one and it's rather doubtful that it can be handled here well.
Ocasionally there are words and concepts that I know theists would love to redefine but they actually have meanings that are generally accepted. For a few thousand years now the religious have exalted faith, the belief in something without evidence (in fact they have often been criticized from within) for trying to arrive at their relationship based on evidence.

That theists discount people who use evidence and that is supposed to not be insulting while atheists who discount theists for the having a special spot where reason and evidence are unnecessary is considered to be an insult is also problematic. Theists (most if they actually believe what they say they believe) damn atheists for all eternity and think we deserve it so who is actually being arrogant, insuling and offensive here?
A term like "relatively contemporaneously" is a bit twisted for instance. What you are actually saying is it isn't contemporaneous. Years ago I went to Grant's Home in Galena. Everything there was authentic reproduction of a facsimile of a piece of that period. Basically a copy of a copy of a copy. Nothing original.
The issue for Ed is his belligerent attitude and his self back-slapping about what a great guy he is and a role model to kids. He's a role model, a horrible one. These principles only mean anything when the cases are controversial. If you don't get that, you don't get America IMO.
The need for police protection says something about how bad the role models are in Cranston. I wouldn't have tolerated my child behaving in such a shameful way. I don't know why any responsible adult isn't ashamed at their behavior, it seems to be applauded and poo pood on here.
Say hi to Christian, Tell him to read his Bible, there is stll hope, that's how most of us turned the corner toward reason.

Kevin, it's wrong all the time, but that's why we read about politicians all the time... Some are actually pretty good speaking with forked tongue.... $$$ buys power and $$$ calls the shots...

Oddly enough, none of those comments (apart from the rather inspecific "F**** you...") even hints that atheists should be violent toward the religious, as opposed to the remarkably violent and threatening words in the article I posted.

But I also seem to have missed the part where Jesus said, "Go find examples of others' bad behavior to excuse your own?"

Hey Rossy,

Isn't that the "pot calling the kettle black" in double reverse.

Pretty clever, but we do not buy it.

Go tell that to your repulsive atheist friends on this discussion who have repeatedly lowered themselves to their own "bad behavior.

And to have an atheist like you quote Jesus. HAHAHA!

I'm just loving this. You guys are too easy.

You take the bait every time.

You're just throwing words at the wall in the hope that something will stick.

To summarize, some startlingly nonchristian comments (e.g., the threats of violence against Ahlquist, and those noted in the article I posted a link to) are getting a pass--rather than even just disavow them, your claim is that atheists are as bad or worse.

I'm not buying it.

The worst of what you've heard has been ridicule: some atheists believe that those who believe in deities are silly, or irrational. To play devil's advocate (as it were), if they *were* right, how *would* you expect them to regard those who follow what would then be rather strange prescriptions and proscriptions, running from bans on eating shellfish or pork, to which direction in which to prostrate themselves how many times per day, to the ritual cannibalism that the eucharist seems to represent?

Theology aside, you're not presenting reasoned arguments, you're blustering.

Let's start with some easy questions: What should we think of those threats of violence made to Ahlquist and other non-believers, coming from self-professed christians? And why are they so much more common than condemnations *of* them, by other self-professed christians?

Hey JTP... I saw those too....

Professor-
Could you cite the law which Congress made that is relevant to the banner?

That's not exactly breaking news, this point has been debated here on about 10,000 posts.
Europe's 'long history or religious persecution', whether you are discussing the English Civl War (Catholic Stewart vs Protestant Parliament), the French Wars of Religion and the expulsion of the Huguenots, the Thirty Years War etc. were all about the establishment of national religions. That is why that is in the constitution, because in America we were not going to have that.
That is why the constitution is very specific about not establishing a state religion. Which is why it is called the establishment clause.
its about what the constitution says, not about what you wish it said. .

Words have meanings.
How can the phrase 'Congress shall pass no law...' be 'interpreted' by one of two people as 'this does not refer to Congress, and has nothing to do with the passage of any laws'?

I certainly agree with all the quotes posted.

But was that post a reply to ' what law did Congress pass that has anything to do with the banner?' , as the Constitution says 'Congress shall pass no law..'

Or was it a response to 'Europe's history of religious persecution is about the establishment of a state religion' , hence the 'we shall not establish a state religion' clause?
If I may make a humble suggestion, perhaps the Professor could take his (appreciated)' input to the recent blog on the subject on The Patch, where someone is actually discussing Judge Lagieux' decision and the constitutional basis, rather than the endless repetitive pointless bickering of these threads.

The literalist approach to the clauses is an intellectual exercise only, and would ENABLE and FACILITATE theocracy, and so it's always trotted out ONLY by those who WANT to enable and facilitate theocracy, which is what the founders intended to prevent. The courts have clearly understood this, and this is why legal precedent is so consistently and firmly supportive of fairly strict separation, and has always been so. Literalism, is also, IN FACT, irrelevant to actual E&FE clause law. Supporters of strict separation don’t need to WISH that the clauses be interpreted to support fairly strict separation; the clauses are so interpreted, and correctly so.

In the end, this is all that needs to be said about this matter, except perhaps to note how transparent the supporters of literalism are in their goals and methods. There’s no principle involved here for them, merely the wish to gain unrestricted access to establishing their beliefs in public schools and other public places and institutions, for that is what literalism would accomplish for them if practiced. This old, old, repetitive dance around this tactical ploy gets rather silly.

Just for those who may not know, Ed is one of the petty bigoted florists who refused to deliver flowers to Jessica, as he would have refused to deliver flowers to an African American in the 1950’s, before such pathetic behavior was specifically outlawed. As a particular type of Christian who revels in his bigotry he also sanctions hate, discrimination, and death threats by other Christians. This is the kind of Christian who embarrasses other Christians. It infuriates him that a 16 year old girl has proven to be more mature, more knowledgeable about the constitution, and –worst of all – doesn’t share his religious beliefs. He’s proud that he refused to send Jessica flowers just because she’s an atheist and because she’s right.

Liberty... Here you go again with more lies.... If you look closely I am an atheist, not a Christian, I am now was back then and always will be.
The only differance between me and you is simple, I'm not an extreme radical who is celebrating their life through a 16 year girl. I am living and celebrating my life through my accomplishments and a whole lot of common sense...
You can now continue with the name calling as that is the only power you possess in your feeble mind.

What bizarre behavior. You’ve implied that you pray. You've offered little substance or facts but instead merely cheerled the fanatic Christians here while personally attacking and playing captious word games with pro-constitutional/anti-banner commenters, and until now your comments have supported and implied belief. You've refused to send flowers to Jessica and gloated about the decision. You’ve trivialized the hate and threats of physical violence directed at Jessica (in fact you appear to enjoy and sanction them), and implied that you agree with trivializing Christian death threats against atheists. You offer no reasons, no arguments, just cheerleading of the worst behavior of fringe Christians. Very bizarre behavior and seemingly just a game of trolling for you.

Liberty... You just don't get it, period. If you read all my prior posts, JTP was getting me excited, but the more I read, the more vicious I see the Atheists here living their lives through Jessica, not their own. I see no point what so ever targeting anyone based on beliefs, race or creed (as hard as that is for your simple mind to comprehend).
My point from the get go has always been simple, this girl at the ripe age of 16, knows nothing, nothing about life. It is a fact she walked by that banner for 2 years, right or wrong. She got an "itch" to speak up when it was bought to her attention. This was further complicated by her parents and uncle, they then took on the issue using her, period. Do you really think she went to the ACLU? No, absolutely not. She was pushed. My problem is not with her (and I wish her no harm), but with her parents not providing her the proper guidence, I would have really put it all out there for her, they didn't, pure and simple. It became their battle using her as the pawn.
Well guess who is suffering now?
My problem with you... In your pea brain anology you are keeping the fire burning and it is doing nothing but taking away the best years of her life. That is why I enjoy sticking it you, maybe she will read this and it will generate a thought process to help her in life...
Your thought process fits well in Nazi Germany, period... You dear need a muzzle and an education on child bearing!!!

Wow. That’s pitiful. You say you’re an atheist, but ask for prayers; you support the supporters of an unconstitutional banner (while avoiding saying whether you consider it unconstitutional or not) while personally attacking those who point out the unconstitutionality; by implication you support the hate speech and threats of physical violence against Jessica, and refuse to deliver flowers to her like some throwback 50’s bigot and then claim you wish her no harm; you claim you “see no point…targeting anyone based on beliefs, race or creed “ but then simple mindedly fail to notice that’s exactly what you’re doing; you avoid any comment on the content of Jessica’s beliefs but attack her for merely having any beliefs (how dare she have beliefs, she’s only 16!); you ignore the true principle Jessica rightly holds, the rightness of her pursuing the case, and the rightness of the ruling.

You’re simply wrong about every fact, and if ALL you have a problem with (which is pathetic if true, but you’re probably just lying about it) is Jessica’s parents’ parenting, well, you’re wrong about that too. “Period”. Your assertion that she was used is just hogwash. In the end, the 16 year old knows better than you, despite her lack of life experience. She is self-confidently and maturely right and you are childishly and petulantly wrong, and that’s all that’s necessary to note to refute your ignorant blather. The age irony is just icing on the cake.

Not pitiful, accurate... And you know I hit the nail on the head head here... Jessica needs proper guidence and that is severly lacking and in your case, you don't even make nonsense...
I think you should put your space helmet back on as that is where you're at...lol

No, Ed, you’re pitiful. You’re simply wrong about everything. Jessica is well known by many as obviously a brave, mature, and self-confident young lady, and your personal vendetta against Jessica and her parent’s is beginning to look sociopathic. If your claim to have no interest in anything about this whole issue besides Jessica’s parents is true, then you have some pathological problem.

To be fair small change, I think it was unfair to assume the whole community is like the people on this forum. On the other hand we are the evidence based group and I think if you reread the posts and TRY to assume you were not on one side or the other, there have been some bigoted and mean spirited things said and they would lead to that conclusion for most of the theist community represented here. I'm coming around on carburetor's dad. :-)

==To be fair small change, I think it was unfair to assume the whole community is like the people on this forum.==

And back at ya' about the atheists.
However you are a rational sort (that jumping on a minor typo notwithstanding &) ), and surely you must know that this is , for the vast majority, not about anti-atheist bigotry. NO ONE in Cranston has the attitude,'Look - there's an atheist, get her!', as in anti-Semitism or racism.
This is about a high school student who said that she didn't like The Banner, a 40 year old school tradition, and demanded that it be taken down. She made it clear that she didn't care if that bothered others, because she was not very popular anyway. Then the ACLU moved in.

I personally don't care about any of that, I don't know her and would not guess at her motivations. (I just came here to argue that we have gone WAY overboard to suggest something like the banner violates the Constitution.)
But THAT, as you and any other clear thinking atheists here know, is why the town is upset with her. Not because, as is repeatedly argued, that as bigoted Christians they have some 'anti-atheist bias'.

Prof. Sweet, it was kids. Kids do that. They gang up on someone, especially when their friends do. It will all blow over.Has anybody here been to Cranston? It isn't a bigoted place, which is why they are surprised by the fuss over that dusty old historical banner.

ccollins, Cranston has bigoted parents railing against Jessica in town meetings, bigoted students making terroristic threats, and bigoted florists ostracizing the Ahlquist household. Apparently Cranston is a bigoted place, it just wasn't as visible before.

Robin, I wouldn't say it is a bigoted place. They are just angry. There is a difference.

Cranston as a community suffers from 'anti-atheist' bigotry??
I don't recall that coming up in my many years here.
No one 'came after' any atheists in Cranston.
If someone walks into your living room and starts smashing your furniture, and you get annoyed, they shouldn't assume that you don't like them because you are bigoted about their religious beliefs.

Small Change It would be unfair to brand a whole town as bigots but as far as the meetings and the postings here, there seems to be a lot of evidence. There have been some comments toward Jessica that are way beyond the pale and I really have seen nothing but "kids will be kids" comments in response. A reasonable adult would have condemned the posts and been ashamed that anyone had done such a horrendous job of raising their children that way.
Theists are not happy sharing the country with the rest of us. They feel entitled to special status like the addition of words to the Pledge and the addition of the words on currency and the public pronouncement of their beliefs in schools and government buildings. Things they would protest from others.
I just don't know of anything equivalent atheists have done. I wouldn't be for hanging a banner saying "If you believe in things without evidence you are foolish and naive" I wouldn't because it would seek to impose my beliefs on others in a way that creates a divide when we should all be trying to live together for a better country. Based on the reaction here and at the meetings, if you had been offended by the banner over the years, would you have said something? or ignored it? Should a school be a place where kids are made to feel more uncomfortable than they already are by the additional weight of the school saying in effect, this is our school and we don't respect your views? I don't think so, Sorry you don't seem to care.

=Small Change It would be unfair to brand a whole town as bigots but as far as the meetings and the postings here, there seems to be a lot of evidence. =

That was big of you. Well, I mean that was almost good of you there... for a moment.

Sweet, you take yourself way too seriously. Those kids are not religious fanatics, they are just kids. Have you ever been here? If not, you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not saying it was okay for them to write vile things about Jessica, but you have to look at the source---kids. You have to be kidding about the Nazi and Taliban comment--- way over the top! Now, I understand what the religious folks are complaining about.

A Christian would forgive them, because we are ALL sinners. What others do is up to them, I suppose.

Fair enough.
Thanks for the 'bonus post.'
Bye.
We have a good supply of ' ignorant anti-American fanatic' and 'intolerant ignoramuses' style rhetoric from the 'usual suspect' atheists here. Name calling we got, we could use a little more discussion of the constitutional issues beyond the argument of 'I am right and you are wrong and if you disagree with me you are to stupid to talk to.'
But thanks for the academic rigour.

I really do hope this is your last post. I think we have had too much of you already!!!

Ohhhh, by the way, if you were Jessica's parents, she would be targeted even more. I think you can go back under your rock now....

Small Change... I don't know if I missed something here but I have a question... are any of the posters the judge who made the decision? Are any of the posters the judge(s) who would hear the appeal (if it ever happened?)...
Ahhh... It appears that they are all reciting what they want the ruling to be and how with all their "Supreme Court" experience, they know everything related to any future decisions... I like that.

Ed’s looking pretty petty here in revealing a personal vendetta the sole purpose of which is to attack Jessica and her parents. What.....did one of them knock his books over back in high school? Make fun of his acne? Some deeper personal affront?

Nah Liberty... I was a bad boy in High School, but not only did I change, I have helped so many kids that I actually am proud of that. The one area you can't even hold a match to me is providing good, sound advice to teens. I have been very successful and that is why I can say that girl is not getting good advice... Look at her peer group (although that doesn't matter to you)....

Lots of people wouldn't let you near their kids, given your attitude about Jessica, which is flat wrong, and given your willingness to support ideas which are wrong, hateful and anti-constitutional merely out of some bizarre vendetta against Jessica and her parents. If you try to help kids… great. More power to you. You don’t like the Ahlquist’s parenting? So what? Plenty of people agree with their parenting and admire the result in Jessica and the result that Jessica is bravely standing up for the US Constitution. Making your dislike of Jessica and her parents the fuel for your support of religious fanatics and hate speech against Jessica and her parents is just pathetic, and really bizarre – indicative of some other pathology you probably have.

As to peer groups, we’ve all seen the behavior of her “peers”, texting hate and threats. She’s a lot better off without them, and probably quite satisfied with the many friends (local and worldwide) who’ve rallied to support her. And while she’s off speaking at another national convention, meeting more world class academics, and generally having a fantastic experience while opening doors for her future that would have been shut before this experience had her parents not allowed her participation, her schoolmates will still be home watching Jersey Shore and texting more hate. So, yes, her peer group does matter to me. She just traded up, thanks to her parents.

Liberty... I really do feel sorry for your warped sense of thinging. People not only let me near their kids, they applaud me for the guidence I provide. I kind of earned that through the years.
To show how much of a loser you are when you say that her peer groups don't matter and she is better off without them, who can she turn to? You? What a joke, what a loser, you think it's fine that she doesn't fit into her peer groups? You are sick and in desperate need of help... I hope she reads this!!!

Is that it? You're just going to insult me and get simultaneously defensive and self-congratulatory? And say I said something I didn’t say?

The FACTS are, she has great peers, and did trade up, AND her parents have allowed her to have an incredible, life changing experience which has opened opportunities for her future, and ENRICHED her peer group. Those are FACTS. As I said...and meant... if you try to help kids...great, but (big surprise!) other parents don't share your ideas, as apparently the Ahlquists don't, and Jessica is the better for it. But go ahead and take your little personal, petty vendetta and funnel your hostility into your comments here.

I also hope the Ahlquists read this, both for a laugh, and because your hostility seems to be rooted in some pathological dislike of them, of which they should take notice.

Liberty... You have issues, serious issues... Stick with JTP, you're not even close to being in my league, and yes, in this case and this case only... I am a better person than you...
Have a nice life, you are seriously deprived of education and common sense....

And you have a nice pathology, Ed.

You're right, though, I'm not in the bush leagues with you. I never sunk that low.

Janus I have been debating on whether or not I should jump in on this all day long to be honest I wish I had a way to send this to you privately but I don't. So I will do it publicly. You know I am on your team in in principle we are on the same page, that said your methodology is truly bothering me. I now know how Christians feel when JPT claims to speak for them, Even if they agree with his points they may feel very uncomfortable with they way he makes them. Many may even say that they are embarrassed by him, and that he does thier cause more harm than good, But they may feel unconformable making waves in thier own tank, I am never afraid to make waves, in ANY TANK.

As far as I am concerned you are the JTP of those of us who stand for reason, logic and law, Your name calling and long rambles are doing more harm than good, Please stop,

Small Change, well said.

Paul A...check Facebook

How is this for a theory.

jAnus is actually Jessica........

Actually, Joe, on this you make me genuinely laugh, and I mean that in a non-adversarial, good way. It would be amusing all around to guess what everyone's "secret" identity is. Perhaps you're Ken Ham.

That name misspelling continues to be childish and lame, by the way.

Yes... Now I'm sure of it.

Janus is Jessica!

Classic fantasy: if a person could take their current brain with them would they agree to be 16 again. And if the experience of age couldn't go with them into the new body, would they go then? I guess if a person had to start over as a 16 year old being Jessica would be a good 16 year old to be, though clearly many disagree. To have participated bravely in upholding the US Constitution is a good thing to do and to experience, though clearly many disagree with that also.

Janus,

You speak as a 16 year old.

You think as a 16 year old.

You have the rationality of a 16 year old.

You are definitely Jessica.

JTP... I did say the same thing in one of my earlier posts. Should it not be the golden girl herself, it is one in her tight inner circle, (mother, father, uncle).
No one outside of that inner circle would post to that degree and continually twist things around.
It's really a slam dunk when you look at it....

If the new thread is guessing the identity of others I would hope no Cranston residents have actually posted and JTP, Ed, cc and co are actually from the Westboro Baptist Chuch

Свобода ... Скажу одно, вы не могли угнаться за мной на мой худший день. Наслаждайтесь!

Ed Gwell i gael ei meddwl idiot a chadw eich ceg cau nag i agor i fyny fel yr ydych wedi ei wneud ac yn gadael dim amheuaeth. Os ydych yn wirioneddol yn anffyddiwr, os gwelwch yn dda ddod o hyd i Iesu. Yr ydych yn gwneud unrhyw un sy'n meddwl edrych yn wael.

Просто травля воды, чтобы увидеть, какую рыбу кормят ...

Empty boasting, Ed, in any language.

Plumber Joe,

No, we don’t want to eliminate religion. We’re standing up for our right not to belong to yours. Though I’d rather you didn’t subscribe to an ideology that so fills you with hatred, you, you’re allowed to be that way.

Your sanctimonious hatemongering brings more discredit to your religion than any arguments unbelievers have brought here. If you’re an example of religious morality, we can do better.

Do you intend to repeat your 0.7% falsehood ad nauseum, until everyone tires of correcting you? Every cycle of repetition and refutation shows anew, you do not live in truth, Plumber Joe.

Joe...

"Pack Animals".... "Pack Animals"

Hmmm... that phrase is pretty catchy, I like it!!!

Robin,
Your accustation of falshood is laughable. I got my statistic and more from members of your cult of atheists. These reference were provided by your group of idiots, not me:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://chartsbin.com/view/3nr
http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm
http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html

From his the first source:

"Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population"

So your own source puts atheists at LES THAN 0.5%.

OOOPS.....

His second source puts atheists at 2.32% WOLDWIDE!

ummm okay.....

His third source show no statistics at all.

His fourth source shows atheists at 3.8% world wide and which mainly reside in China and Mongolia . Which considering their government philosophies are based on Communism founded by Karl Marx, who saw religion as evil it is understandable

So, if delusion is defined as a belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence, I guess that makes you and your rabid militant minority cult of atheists delusional.

This is not hate, it is FACT.

You’re just spamming your earlier comments now, Plumber Joe.

Kevin Jackson and Liberty Janus responded to this comment five days ago; I refer you back to their responses which you ignored above.

(Minor correction: /nauseum/nauseam/)

Liberty.... You are single handily turning "all" against Atheists, your lies, your negitive comments, your empty and vile attacks... This is "non-stop" with you. I jabbed a few comments to see how far you would go and there is no end to it. No wonder JTP says you and yours are a band of "Pack Animals" and I'm beginning to believe that, you're making a strong case for that (and that would be a win in court).
What do you think about Jessica's peers telling her that "God loves you", that they'll "say a prayer for her", that they give her prayer cards to "get through these tough times", that they give her a "bible" to study and read along with them....
Maybe when they are all together at a social function they will huddle in front of her and say a prayer for her...

Бог blees вы ....

More falsehoods from Joe:

Fidel Castro and Maximilien Robespierre were deists.

Mao Zedong's and Kim-Il-Sung's followers worshipped *them* as gods. Indeed, totalitarianism tends to be like a state-worshipping religion. As George Orwell wrote, "A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible."

More to the point, even for the couple dictators you list that you didn't falsely characterize as atheists, atheism was irrelevant to their atrocities. Atheism has no doctrine nor belief system to justify any political program. You might as well blame Stalin's mustache as his atheism.

Unlike, for example, Adolf Hitler, Catholic, who had at least 20 million slaughtered in Christianity's name. (And that's without even looking at century after century of holy wars, crusades, pogroms, and inquisitions.)

You also need to keep in mind that people confuse "Atheist" with "Not my religion". Here is what I mean, it is popular the say that Hitler was an atheist, The truth is he was not. In addition to the over whelming evidence that Hitler was Catholic, There is also evidence that he was into the Occult. The fact that he was into the occult means that he was a theist.But some folks insist if you are not their religion you are atheist, The truth is Hitler may not have been a CHRISTIAN but he was a THEIST. So what Hitler proves is that when one looks out side of themselves for answers, they are more likely to do barbaric things. Religion of ANY KIND makes one look outside of themselves for direction, this relives one of their responsibility for their actions. This is the logical out come of religion, and -- here you go Joe why we need to rid ourselves of the scourge of religion.

Though I support your right to express your opinions, Paul, it's not helpful to give atheophobes an opportunity to change the subject to your anti-theism.

And that's your argument? There are some atheists... could be one, or one million (that'd be only 0.33% of the U.S. population right there), or the several million who're indicated by the Pew research, in the U.S., who believe that religion has had, in many cases, disastrous consequences--sure, there are cathedrals, and those who've done good work in the name of their god(s), but from tribal warring, to the Inquisition, to "manifest destiny" wiping out the Other worldwide, over centuries, it has brought millions misery, and continues, e.g., every woman stoned for running counter to religious dictum, every man stoned for "blasphemy"... women in particular are suffering under regimes (including in this country) that derive their authority from supposed divine decree. Absolutely we think that religion can be, most often is, a bad thing. Similar to any of those religions who believe those adherents of every other religion (and us atheists) will all burn in hell.

Now then, what exactly we or you believe is tangential to the *Constitutional* issues here: the U.S. Constitution both protects *your* right to believe, and protects *my* right not to be subjected to your beliefs under the authority of the state.

The bottom line in this particular case is that the courts have regularly found that things self-describing as "prayer" don't pass Constitional muster in public schools, so any appeal of this ruling is likely to be good money after bad...

Cranston did you read my whole post or are you just going to cherry pick? The reason I think that we need to evolve beyond religion and no longer need it is that religion is what Hitler hid behind to justify the mass execution of a race of people. This kind of barbarianism is the logical out come of religion,because religion makes it possible for people to not take responsibility for their actions, and justify their most evil actions, as Hitler did, I in no way connected any of my comment to the banner.., I connected them to Hitler. quote me in context.

My original quote:

You also need to keep in mind that people confuse "Atheist" with "Not my religion". Here is what I mean, it is popular the say that Hitler was an atheist, The truth is he was not. In addition to the over whelming evidence that Hitler was Catholic, There is also evidence that he was into the Occult. The fact that he was into the occult means that he was a theist.But some folks insist if you are not their religion you are atheist, The truth is Hitler may not have been a CHRISTIAN but he was a THEIST. So what Hitler proves is that when one looks out side of themselves for answers, they are more likely to do barbaric things. Religion of ANY KIND makes one look outside of themselves for direction, this relives one of their responsibility for their actions. This is the logical out come of religion, and -- here you go Joe why we need to rid ourselves of the scourge of religion.

Small change please show me where:
1 I said Hitler was not atheist enough
2. I change the meaning of my words
3. there is some thing I said that I later denied saying..
by the way before you take this out of context - "1. I was not saying that Hitler was not atheist Enough. Nor was I saying that being an atheist some how guarantees that someone will do the just thing. "Even though I am saying I did not say those words I am not denying words I actually typed - or words I typed that might mean those things. I was simply reporting On what I did and did not say.

No-SC it made be true that you cut and pasted my words after you paraphrased them this may be true but you never proved your point based on my actual words, This is what I called you on, You still never proved that I said Hitler was not atheist enough. I said whenever something such a s religions gives us a reason to do something we are less likely to take responsibility for the things we do. You drew the conclusion that Hitler was not Atheist enough. This tells me something you thought about this, and the fact is on some level you know I have a real point, Thats way it up set you so, because you you know there is truth in my point. If not debunk my point rather than me.

Try the decaf.

No, lies and smoke and mirrors are what _you're_ slinging here, reiterating your 0.7% falsehood, Joe the Liar. It's rather hypocritical of you to decry hate, then in your next breath, use a hateful epithet like "militant atheist zombies".

America awaits with rapt attention the answer to where that view is supported and which court cases have ruled in that way.

It is twisted enough that the worst Supreme Court Justice in history might have had that view but I doubt it has been the majority and regardless, never has been so, that I can even imagine, with a case as obvious as Cranston's. All of the twisted logic rulings have basically said ignore these religious people freaking out, it really is only a secular thing. Any honest person would be able to see through that.

A person is free to walk onto the public square, announce his religious beliefs publicly, and post a flier memorializing his belief on a tree.

So, the question here is:

When does a flier with a religious viewpoint (the banner), authored by a private citizen (the student writer), and posted in a public place (a school wall), transition into something else that becomes state mandated participation in a state religion?

And that is where I think peole are justified in disagreeing with the Judges ruling here in Cranston.

You were right until you got to the tree (which is almost one whole sentence) He doesn't own the tree so he has no rights to it. The public (ALL of the public) owns the school so he has no rights whatsoever there. It is such simplistic logic and a gross misunderstanding of the law that you are painfully displaying here that were you to ask any attorney, I think they'd tell you that you are riding not only a dead horse but one that never could have lived.

@Joe the Liar

It’s deceitful to pretend that Cranston West’s “School Prayer”, composed at the administration’s behest, was a “flier” “authored by a private citizen”.

Cranston West’s administration *commissioned* David Bradley, a seventh grader, with writing that school prayer. At school board meetings over the School Prayer mural, David Bradley said that in 1960, he was “tasked by the administration at Cranston West and by our own student council advisor to write the school prayer and the school creed”, to replace their daily recitations of the Lord’s Prayer after the Pledge of Allegiance.

So this School Prayer was effectively produced by the government. Don’t misunderstand: If it *was* produced by a private citizen, it’d still be unacceptable for a public school to paint a school prayer on an auditorium wall. I merely point out that it wasn’t to correct another of your falsehoods, Joe.

Furthermore, teacher Edmond Lemoi testified that kids regularly recited the prayer at award ceremonies in the mid-1960s.

The ACLU’s attorneys have said otherwise, and a federal judge agreed with them in a cogently-written decision. You should read it.

@Joe

“including some well respected attorneys”

Given your history of spreading falsehoods here, I’d like to verify that. Name two.

“His interpretation of the intent of the founding fathers in the establishment clause is grossly incorrect.”

Even if that were so, intent of the founding fathers is irrelevant.

“In one such reversal, the higher court judge actually commented on his ineptitude.”

Though that has no bearing on this case, I'm curious. What case would that be?

I keep hearing that 'the intent of the founding fathers is irrelevant' from the atheists.
If so, why do they constantly insist on quoting them whenever they suggest separation of church and state?
For example, if it means nothing, why did Prof Sweet bother to dig all these up?

="Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." 1797 the treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Washington, and approved by the Senate of the United States

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706– April 17, 1790)=

Because people like you, Small Change, spread falsehoods like “LibertyJ you are free to assume that ... the writing of the founding fathers are all shams... the underlying decency of Christian philosophy upon which we are founded is known to all objective Americans.”

No, our founders intentionally and deliberately founded the United States to be a secular government, on a bedrock principle of freedom of all religion, privileging no religion over any other.

Where by “sympathetic judge” you mean a conservative Reagan appointee, and by “fast” you mean after two years, including 10 months of attempting to persuade Cranston West to obey the law without going to trial. I agree with “good ruling”, though.

Students have not had to recite any prayers at Cranston West for decades. The banner is OLD.

Religion means any belief. For Government to force people to be athiests is just as bad as forcing people to believe in a particular God. Some people feel the far left is trying to control what people think or do.

SC

I noticed a few things and would LOVE to respond to:

1, I notice that you need to paraphrase me in order to make your points.Why is this?
Why cant you deal with my quote rather than reacting to you paraphrase of my
words.

2. More importantly I have not seen you actually deal with my points, You have said
nothing to debunk anything I have said:

a, You have not proved that Hitler was not a theist.

b. You have not disproved that religion's tendency to make one look outside of
themselves for answers is likely to have the effect of making one feel less
responsible for the choices they make, Is this because you agree with this
point.?

c. You have failed to demonstrate that if Hitler was indeed an atheist, how being
atheist would have played a role in the actions he took.

d. Along this same line You have failed to demonstrate that if Hitler was religious
how being a theist would have played a role in stopping the actions he took.

I am wondering if the fact that you rather reinterpret my words than deal with my point head on suggests that are some level you know I am right?

Would love to continue this dialog with you.

=1, I notice that you need to paraphrase me in order to make your points.=

If you define' need to paraphrase me' as ' need to cut and paste the exact words you wrote ' then I guess that is true. I repeat, AGAIN,what is it with you folks and this obsession with assuming words mean what you want them to say, rather than what they actually mean?

For example, to get back to the matter at hand, The Constitution says 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..'
The anti banner interpretation is that Congress is not involved, the passage of laws is not involved, and establishment of a religion is not involved. So if you omit the words which you insist don't mean what they say, you interpret the Establishment Clause to say:

'............. shall..................................................'

SC- The key to understanding for you would be that absent a court case that believes your powers of interpreting the Constitution are superior to established case law, your views are irrelevant. Should you wish to put your house where your mouth is, you can mortgage it and pay for the attempt to impose your views on others. If you win, I believe the ACLU would then have to pay your costs. Go for it! If you are so sure, there is not even a risk especially with a court full of activist Catholics on the Supreme Court level.

Small Change at 12:45 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012 you wrote
"To be fair, as ridiculous as that comparison is, it does not qualify for the award as the most bizarre post on the thread. That award was retired with, and****** I admittedly paraphrase,******** 'The problem with Nazi germany was that Hitler was not atheistic ENOUGH.' so right there in your own words you admitted to paragraphing, As you are so fond of saying "words have meaning". " I admittedly paraphrase" means you admit to paraphrasing.

later you said the the quote you were paraphrasing was mine. 2:03 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012

RL wrote, ( and I thank her for doing so...)
=Nowhere in this thread do I read any post saying anything like your incendiary so-called “paraphrase”, “The problem with Nazi germany was that Hitler was not atheistic ENOUGH”. That’s way over the top, Small Change. Shame on you.=

Oh really? Perhaps you missed this then, from your 'fellow traveler'-

=The truth is Hitler may not have been a CHRISTIAN but he was a THEIST. So what Hitler proves is that when one looks out side of themselves for answers, they are more likely to do barbaric things. Religion of ANY KIND makes one look outside of themselves for direction, this relives one of their responsibility for their actions.=

so SC we caught you in a lie, and we caught you with your own words, as you say Words have meaning,

To PA-
Caught me in a lie?
True, i used the term 'paraphrase', correctly, about 6 messages ago. Since then, as you know, I copied the exact lines where you stated that ol' Adolf would have been less likely to commit barbaric, irresponsible acts if he were a true atheist.
Nice gloating.

SC asked about 'the intent of the founding fathers is irrelevant'
That statement is correctt and there is also a reason to bring up the founders views.

It is irrelevant because courts interpret the law and therefore the law is what they say it is. Cranston has already lost that argument. (repeatedly) Those against accepting the ruling have since gone to Plan B and asserted that the courts were wrong (they assert that they know what is right)in their decision. When you look at the Founders views they back up that the laws were interpreted as they wished them to be. There is a concerted effort to push revisionist Christian history and whenever you go back to the original source materials -- and don't just take pieces out of context-- there is a consistent message as Prof. Sweet has pointed out of trying to respect all Americans in the public square and not to privilege some. I still don't get why that is such a difficult concept. Many theists get that it is why they have more respect here than most of the rest of the industrialized world.

SC - You obviously think you have made a point, care to flesh it out so we know what it was?

It is, obviously, not an 'ad hominem' attack to point out that your analogy between a benign non-denominational inspirational banner and segregation into 'colored' and 'white' drinking fountains is simply absurd .
My 10 word post was directed at your argument, and a response of claiming this to be a personal attack, followed a lecture on the logic of debate suggests it is indeed time for you to toddle off.

To be fair, as ridiculous as that comparison is, it does not qualify for the award as the most bizarre post on the thread. That award was retired with, and I admittedly paraphrase, 'The problem with Nazi germany was that Hitler was not atheistic ENOUGH.' Whoa.

And these folks have come here to sit in judgement of Cranston.....

A prayer supplicating to a male, patriarchal, monotheistic deity is not “non-denominational”. It excludes Hindus, Wiccans, native Americans, and so on. Nor “benign”, given the disrespect for rule of law and atheophobia currently demonstrated by Christians furious at having a small piece of government favoritism to Christianity revoked.

Nowhere in this thread do I read any post saying anything like your incendiary so-called “paraphrase”, “The problem with Nazi germany was that Hitler was not atheistic ENOUGH”. That’s way over the top, Small Change. Shame on you.

RL wrote, ( and I thank her for doing so...)
=Nowhere in this thread do I read any post saying anything like your incendiary so-called “paraphrase”, “The problem with Nazi germany was that Hitler was not atheistic ENOUGH”. That’s way over the top, Small Change. Shame on you.=

Oh really? Perhaps you missed this then, from your 'fellow traveler'-

=The truth is Hitler may not have been a CHRISTIAN but he was a THEIST. So what Hitler proves is that when one looks out side of themselves for answers, they are more likely to do barbaric things. Religion of ANY KIND makes one look outside of themselves for direction, this relives one of their responsibility for their actions.=

I would say that my paraphrase was pretty spot on. Can you possibly deny that this states that the reason Hitler did such 'barbaric things' was that his views were not sufficiently atheistic?

@Small Change,

I can indeed deny that; Paul’s words, though intemperate, do not actually state that if Hitler had been an atheist, he would not have committed his barbarities. You have read more into it than he wrote.

You call Paul a “fellow traveler”, which I gather is your generation’s slang for “Communist sympathizer”. I do not read anything in Paul’s comments to back up your red-baiting charge.

Get quote's author's meaning , from the author, ME.
1. I was not saying that Hitler was not atheist Enough. Nor was I saying that being an atheist some how guarantees that someone will do the just thing.
2 I WAS saying that Hitler was NOT an atheist. He was connected to the catholic church. He was reported to use occult practices that by there very nature are theistic such as Taro cards that really on a spirit world to communicate with physical world. If Hitler believed in the occult he was a theist, none of his actions can be attributed to atheism.
3. I pointed out that many people confuse being an atheist with not belonging to their religion. To some Christians anyone who is not CHRISTIAN is atheist,
.4 My big point, and I think the one most folks are stuck on, is that religion of any kind asks us to look outside of ourselves for answers and direction. Whenever we do this it is easier NOT to take responsibility for our acts, we are more likely to do things we would not have done if we were more self directed, We see this in Hitler, the witch hunts and the 911 attacks. All of these horrors were caused by people who followed one religion or another, My REAL point was since religion allows you to make decisions based on something OUT SIDE of yourself one is more likely to do things they would not do if they felt the decision came from THEM. This allows them to feel less accountable for their deeds , making religion a scourge that needs to be removed,

Jesse Jackson was the one who wanted to be called, "Africa-American." I think he coined the term. i never wanted to be called "white," others call me that. I think the government should stop asking anyone's race. It is none of their business and all it does is compare one against another. I think we should abolish questions about an individual's race. It is getting ridiculous.

It's very difficult to have a discussion with a group of people whose two main debating points are 1) Words don't mean what they mean, and 2) i never said that thing I said.

@Small Change

Maybe you'd find it less frustrating if you stopped putting words in Paul's mouth and addressed his actual position.

PA continues to thrash around desperately with -
=.4 My big point, and I think the one most folks are stuck on, is that religion of any kind asks us to look outside of ourselves for answers and direction. Whenever we do this it is easier NOT to take responsibility for our acts, we are more likely to do things we would not have done if we were more self directed, We see this in Hitler=

=So what Hitler proves is that when one looks out side of themselves for answers, they are more likely to do barbaric things. =

So - the fact that he had non-atheist beliefs was what made Hitler 'more likely' to do barbaric acts for which he did not take responsibility.
RIGHT? I mean, that IS what those words say.
Yet you conclude-

=1. I was not saying that Hitler was not atheist Enough.=

That is PRECISELY what you just said. Twice.
Again, words do have meanings.

Keep going. You're doing great.

What an idiot you are!!! Last Monday you stated that you made your "last post +1"... I hate people that lie...
So, here you appear out from under your rock again...
The fact of the matter here is simple, people don't care about the banner, this is "STRICTLY" a forum to throw jabs at each other, can't you read?

Speak for yourself. Personally, I care that Cranston West still has not taken their illegal School Prayer down.

Instead of coming here “STRICTLY” to “throw jabs”, Surrender Ed, why not leave this discussion to those of us who actually have an interest in the topic?

Au revoir, Prof. Sweet, I expect we’ll see you again ere long.

Robin, They are not taking it down. They are covering it with box style construction over it.

Robin... I have to say that I think Jessica has been used as a pawn here. I don't see anywhere that anyone has posted to others what "we" should do to help her...
I think that Jessica's peers and school mates should be telling her that "God loves you", and that they'll "say a prayer for her", that they should be giving her prayer cards to "get through these tough times", and that they should also give her a "bible" to study and read along with them....
Maybe when they are all together at a social function they will huddle in front of her and say a prayer for her... It will certainly help...
I think that under those conditions she will see the light... and make her so much stronger!!!
What do you think???

@Ed

I like your change of attitude, from hurling childish insults to trying to think of ways to convince someone.

However, I doubt that disrupting a social function to single Jess out and “huddle in front of her and say a prayer for her” would “certainly help” as you expect. Try putting yourself in Jess's shoes; how would you feel if a group of Muslims, or neopagans, make a scene by huddling in front of you praying for your conversion? Have you considered trying logic and reason instead?

By the way, Jess may already have a Christian Bible, since she has quoted Matthew 6:5-8 on her blog, which your prospective prayer mob ought to read.

Me, I provided more concrete help by sending a donation to the ACLU. Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.

Robin... If I had a group of Muslims, or neopagans huddling in front of me, I would be beaming that they want me as part of their group. I would join with them in a second. It is much better to be wanted than be targeted as a radical and ostricized from the group(s)
As a footnote, I too give to the ACLU and as a taxpayer in the City of Cranston I too will share the burden of paying the $173,000 they are asking for. I'll share my wish with you on this one though.... I am hoping for an appeal in the worst way.... Not that I care about the banner, I want the bill from the ACLU to sky rocket, crazy as it sounds, that's what I want.... and you???

@Ed

Are you really saying you’d convert to Islam in a second if a group of Muslims huddled in front of you and prayed for you, just to be part of their group? Your faith is that weak? How surprising, people don’t generally call _themselves_ sheeple.

Me, I’d like Cranston West to come to its senses and take its illegal banner down, rather than obstinately appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, like McCreary County, Kentucky did with their Ten Commandments courthouse display. (They lost, of course, and ended up owing the ACLU a total of $456,881.)

I suppose that there are 0.07% of the 0.7% who are feeble minded enough to believe that you would have to join the Muslim faith to also pray with Muslims... Should I follow your logic that means I would have to join the Christian faith because I went to a midnight mass in a Catholic Church one Christmas with some friends of mine... See, I don't look at joining friends in prayer or services means you are weak, I think just the opposite, you are strong to be able to reach out.

Also following the 0.07% feeble minded athiests' logic it would mean that if one of my friends or workers were to die and the service was in a faith other than what I believe in, then I am "weak" if I should so choose to attend the service. It also means that if I use $$$ then I have to convert because it says "In God We Trust", the President of the U.S. must convert because he swore into office putting his hand on a bible and "swearing to God"... How cool is that???

As far as the ACLU goes, they pick and choose their battles. They are also too weak to stand up on the $$$ and bible thing which really should be a "Slam Dunk" win for them. I, being a Cranston resident and tax payer have my own reasons for an appeal on the banner ruling. I personally want to see the cost hit 7 figures as we need to beat the $456,881 you stated... and this is the position from someone who will be part of the group to pay this bill...

Ed-I think you have a misperception. Some of my best friends are religious. A minister spent the weekend a week ago. I've been too services of most religions and the houses of worship of likely more than the vast majority of people (not just Christian) I would never want to offend them by going along with things I didn't agree with (I wouldn't pray, take communion, or recite any creeds.) It would be disrespectful. For that reason, I also don't stand outside the church and berate people for their faith. It would be rude. Jews for Jesus, for instance, are IMO highly offensive. I don't know of any atheists that go up to Christians and say, "Boy was I an idiot when I thought like you" When someone asks my opinion or attacks it, I'm more than willing to defend but the kneeling, praying prayer card example seems to me to be something of the Westboro Baptist variety of faith and I would hope we could reach across the religious divide to find such people as offensive.

@Ed

Ah, by “join with” you meant “pray with”. That makes more sense. I had thought you would balk at reciting “I witness that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is a messenger of Allah.”

I too have occasionally gone to religious meetings, not just for friends but also for strangers. Once a proselytizer at my door invited me to a local Jehovah’s Witness service. Curious what JW meetings were like, I attended. She recognized me and was thrilled I came, though when she asked what I thought of it, she was disappointed by my critiques.

Swearing to God is not a component of the presidential oath of office, nor is a Bible. You may remember when, a few years ago, Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison was photographed with his hand on a Qur’an once owned by Thomas Jefferson; that Qur’an also was unnecessary to his swearing-in.

I think the ACLU has challenged the constitutionality of Congress replacing our national motto with the divisive and exclusionary “In God We Trust” in 1956, and also of placing it (sacrilegiously, in Teddy Roosevelt’s opinion) on our currency. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Supreme Court Justice Brennan claimed this phrase, through rote repetition, is now empty of religious content, risibly calling it “ceremonial deism”, even though it’s something no deist would say. I hope we take that disrespect for our freedom of religion, and for religious minorities, off our currency someday.

Americans love and root for the underdog. Americans "hate" bullies who pick on those weaker than them. For this reason, and this reason only I keep beating the bee's nest with the proverbial stick. If the ACLU (Mr. Steve & Co) went up against the government to eliminate the "In God We Trust" portion and that set the standard, I'm all for it, period.

That being said, I totally despise those who pick on anyone they deem weaker than them, don't like their beliefs, their color, or nationality because it's not the way they want society to be. Guess what, if the KKK set up office here and were not treated as they see fit, Steve Brown would be there to the rescue... Right, wrong or indefferent. That doesn't mean I have to buy into it...

When the Alquists determined to pick on the little banner and said "the hell with anyone in our way" and didn't make the stand against the bigger issue, I have no need for them or their position. I don't like or approve picking on the little guy, that's not a win, it's being an a**hole.

It's not the banner I get vocal about, it's the "bully" and I don't need them and the small victory in battle. It's the war, the big picture. They don't get it, and they should get verbally "abused" every inch of the way. They are no better than the KKK...

Now, that will get you fired up, but that's the way many feel....

Oh that poor town of Cranston, being picked on by that sixteen year old girl who thinks they're weaker than her.

----

Kara Russo: That little witch!

Rep. Peter Palumbo: Evil little thing! Clapping seal!

Twins Florist: I will not deliver to this person.

Matt Starchild: Burn in Hell!

Crotchsnot: You're a puke and a disgrace to the human race.

Donna Higgins: I want the immediate removal of all atheists from the school.

Ryan Simoneau: I want to punch the girl in the face.

AJ St. Angelo: Let's all jump that girl. I wanna snuff her.

zombiecamera: I can't wait to hear about you getting curb stomped you fucking worthless cunt.

Ed: They are no better than the KKK...

Robin... Good Point...

How can so many kids in the High School hate her so much?
How can so many people in the community hate her so much?
How can so many productive and intellegent adults hate her so much???

What could this sweet and charming little girl have done to create this firestorm?

I think we should start with the fact that she has a "double standard" yes, that is a fact, she thrives on getting $$$ which clearly says "In God We Trust" and that is OK because it benefits her. But mention God in a banner, it has to come down, immediately!!!

Then she has to show her peers who the real boss is, by not getting them, the student counsel, or any other peer groups involved, she would rather just stick it to them and walk away laughing (look at all the pretty pictures she had taken with a smile from ear to ear)...

After that she figures it's time to show everyone in the community who will have the final say and she just can't get enough media time (maybe she's trying out for a movie?). Even after she won, she keeps the issue going, knowing it will get resolved but she has to ride that horse through out the community....

Good for her... I can't see how any of that would bother the average person? I'm stumped.... Really

When she publishes her book "How to Make Friends and Influence People" I have to buy a copy to figure out what I, and the rest of Cranston are doing wrong???

Ed - It looks like some crackpot (Joe perhaps) has hacked your account and has been posting things to make you look unhinged. Things about the KKK, excusing hate and piling straw man after straw man on the fire they are building. Didn't want you to look bad and this guy is seriously out there and making "Ed" look crazy.

Kevin... "Crackpot", "Crazy"... I don't think those terms fit, I think "Arrogant", "Straight-Forward", "Calling it as it is" and similar terms would describe me.

I so DESPISE people with double standards that it is not funny. They are the SCUM of our society. They cause more problems and hate than any other facet of our society...

If the Alquist(s), yes plural, took the same stance about all government and religion issues, I could swallow that. Example being... If they come out and say that they refuse to deal with any money which says "In God We Trust" and don't because they do everything on a debit card and electronic banking, that would solidify that their position is consistent with their beliefs. I would back that in a second.

Fast forward to reality, the Alquists say one thing, yet do another.... classic "double-standard"... Now come the "Pack Animals" to support her, the .7% of our society. They bask in the glory of a double standard... B.S.

That's why I say "Scum, Scum, Scum" ... I think that accurately describes them and their double standard, and why people of average intellegence have a problem with them and the "Pack Animals"...

Just my point and I'd love to discuss it with them....lol

No, Ed, you come across as a guy who just kicks sh*t for attention.

Jessica Ahlquist's complaint about the banner is something she has
standing to pursue: she's a student at the school, and a witness to
a 1st Amendment violation. She hasn't got the burden of righting
all wrongs.

Other people had already taken up the "In God We Trust" motto on the
money issue, and I don't see even those folks as hypocrites for using
money even as they pursue such cases.

Ross... A double standard is a double standard... Pure and simple. I'm sure that although you defend her you know it is true and accurate...

I never said that they have to take on the "In God We Trust" issue with money.

What I said was they if they believe that strongly in seperation of church and government then "PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH" they don't, plain and simple.

That is a double standard, Plain and simple...

Double Standard = Scum of the society... DON"T SAY ONE THING AND DO ANOTHER....

Can it get anymore simplier???

Ed, you are making too much sense. I think Jessica could have talked about it and got some of those kids on her side. Things could have been done differently. Instead, she went the route of what her parents suggested and got the ACLU involved (parents idea, I'm pretty sure) to sue the school. Of course, everyone is going to get angry, especially when the banner was considered historical. The students haven't recited that fictional prayer in DECADES! They think she is just an ******.

@ccollins

“I think Jessica could have talked about it and got some of those kids on her side.”

She did. Jessica Ahlquist started a Facebook group called “Support the Removal of the Cranston High School West Prayer”, and went to public school board meetings where she argued for removing it. The school board voted 4-3 to defy the law and keep their “School Prayer” up. Then the ACLU contacted Jessica (not the other way around), and asked if she’d be a plaintiff in their lawsuit.

ccollins...

You are so correct... Not only could have this been handled in a different way the Alquists and the group of "Pack Animals" who follow them see nothing wrong with saying one thing and doing another. They feed off DOUBLE STANDARDS and the sad part is they are not consistent with their beliefs... It's OK for one situation when it works for them, and not OK if they decide so...

If they were elected to an office and pulled this crap they would get crushed... Period!!! It's called a DOUBLE STANDARD and only the SCUM of our society practice it....

No, Surrender Ed, the Ahlquists support equal protection under the law for everyone. The ones with a double standard are those who want Christian prayers to get a special exemption from the law.

Robin... Sorry to disagree, The Alquists support what "they" deem to be the theme of the day. They are not consistent in what they say or do... That is a fact, so sorry to shatter your rosey pink glasses...

You just stand behind them because you just don't get it... period.

Just look at your posts, the whole world is wrong except for you and the .7% "Pack Animals"...

You fight with everyone .....

Your son Christian is ok and so is St. Valentines, Since you stole Cupid for it and Pope Paul took it off the calendar it truly has no link to religion. Unless you start saying prayers to a Saint you don't even know who it was or whether they existed and telling others to respect such wackiness, you're ok.
Why are you so disrespectful to pagan rituals by trying to steal them all. Is that hate speech from the minions of Christianity? Go back to sleep and don't worry.

An illegal prayer replacing an illegal prayer that has religious people's knickers in a twist, is bothering those people because they know it is something they shouldn't be doing and it is beneficial only to their "team". It isn't remotely a stretch. Schools are a place where everyone should be comfortable to learn. It's why I wouldn't support a banner that listed all the superstitions and made the religious kids feel uncomfortable. Reality does that to them already and life's tough enough. Your nick could easily be changed to stretch.

The banner was correct and established law, the only way you get to it not being unconstitutional is to get all the religious people to shut up so that you could have made believe it is secular. (or like Scalia twist reality to his Christian bigotry and say a cross isn't really a Christian symbol- that should be embarrassing for any American to accept)

Not to mention the fact that most Christians who aren't Catholics (who some Christians also don't consider Christians - but that is a whole other story) don't believe in Saints so Saint Valentine would be just as meaningless to most Christians as to me. But again, I want everyone to be comfortable. Sorry that not being able to exclude or marginalize others makes some feel offended.

@Manifold

Feel free to name your kid Jesus or Mohammad or Christian. Or paint a prayer on your garage door. Or rent another billboard on Route 10 reading “When you die, you will meet God”. Or use a Hallmark holiday like Valentine’s Day to venerate some obscure saint (don’t expect a day off work, though).

Our *government* must maintain religious neutrality, not private citizens like you. We keep church and *state* separate, so that you may practice any religion you choose.

@Joe the Liar

Wow, 0.7% of the population of the United States, commenting here? That’s over 2 million people! It’s amazing this site can handle so much traffic.

[Ed:] Your unsourced, inaccurate figure probably comes from selective reading of the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, which found roughly 12% of Americans to be atheist or agnostic in 2008: http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/publications/aris-2008-summary-report/

(punches Joe’s card) Hey, this makes 9 times in this thread you’ve repeated your false statistic. One more to go for a free pants-extinguisher.~

I don't think any of these whack jobs live in Cranston. Have they ever set foot in Cranston? I went to Cranston schools and they have not endorced any religion or made students recite any particular pray in decades!!! This is why I call that lawsuit petty.

No, Joe, you seem not to have read the text of this report, but rather misread only a table of responses to an open-ended question of religious identification. Few atheists, asked to identify their religion, respond “atheist” (which is not literally a religion). Most respond that they do not have one, which categorizes them under “None/No Religion – 34,169,000 – 15.0%”. And that's not including any atheists counted under “Refused”.

Page 8, Table 4, of responses to a question about the existence of God, clearly shows that the proportion of atheists is higher than 0.7%: 2.3% answer “no such thing” (hard atheists), 4.3% answer “there’s no way to know” and 5.7% answer “I’m not sure” (agnostics), which comes to at least 12.3% atheists and agnostics (not counting any in the 6.1% Refused).

You are laughable at this point.

You cite a report to argue a point, then when it backfires on you, you try to argue the report is incorrect.

Wow.... you just keep giving..........

No, Joe, I never argued that ARIS’s report was not correct. I explained how you misread it, and where it contradicts your falsehood.

Lionheart,

The table of statistics presented clearly states that of those surveyed only 0.7% of them responded that they are atheist.

Period.

Statistics is about response not about your interpretation and realignment of responses to suit your needs or predetermined outcome.

If more people considered themselves atheists, they would have responded as such. You provided the reference, I am only quoting from it.

The survey result is 0.7% atheist you cannot change the result by you BS.

Page 1 of the report states “Based on their stated beliefs rather than their religious identification in 2008, 70% of Americans believe in a personal God, roughly 12% of Americans are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unknowable or unsure), and another 12% are deistic (a higher power but no personal God).”

You don’t like the survey’s actual findings, so you are dishonestly selectively quoting a single line from a single table to misrepresent its results as your desired result. That's what I call “lying with statistics”, Joe the Liar.

@Joe the Liar

No, Joe, the ARIS report itself says, right on their front page, that they found 12% atheists and agnostics. You don’t want to admit that, so you have cherry-picked a single number from their data in order to lie that ARIS found much less.

“now who is in denial?” Still you, Joe.

@Joe the Liar

You selectively quoted only half that sentence from Adherents.com. The entire sentence reads: “People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious).”

The *very sentence you quoted* contradicts your desired conclusion, so you selectively quote-mined the part you liked, and hid the rest to twist their results. What rank intellectual dishonesty! For shame, Joe.

You then take two worldwide statistics and pretend they refer to “our society”. National statistics differ from worldwide statistics. The United States is not the world.

Okay Lionheart keep reading your own reference. It goes further to say "Although figures vary for each country, average numbers indicate that roughly half of the people who self-identify as "nonreligious" also answer "yes" when asked if they believe in God or a Higher Power" .

That means people who answered "nonreligious" actually beleive in God but do not have a particular religion they belong to.

You atheists are tricky dicky..........

Typical dishonesty from a theist. Are you a "Liar For Jesus" Joe? I think you are.

Also, you are under a deeply foolish misconception. Atheism is not a cult. Christianity is a cult, in that it excessively venerates one philosophy and individual. Atheism is an intellectual position.

@Joe the Liar

Aha, so you will weight the God belief question over the religious identity question, but only when it identifies a theist, not an atheist. Before, you wouldn't count as atheists people who answered there's “no such thing” as God, if they identified their religion as “none” and not “atheist”.

Keep in mind, NO prayers were asked of the students at Cranston West in DECADES. DECADES!

Well said Kevin...

That means you agree that a person who truely believes in seperation of church and government would look at alternate ways to process money transactions such as using plastic (debit or credit) to support their cause...and prove out their point!!!

The Alquists don't.... "DOUBLE STANDARD"... Plain and simple... SCUM of society, plain and simple... They say one thing and do another.... two face B.S.

Thank-You, Thank-You, Thank-You.....

@Ed

Members of a Facebook group have a simpler solution: take a marker pen and cross the unconstitutional motto off all your money instead ( http://www.facebook.com/CrossOutInGodWeTrust ). GodOffMoney.com used to sell ink stamps for this purpose.

That way, you also express your support for freedom of religion to anyone who handles those dollars after you.

Robin... Thank-You so much for proving my point, again!!!

If the Alquists did as it suggests in Facebook then that would confirm their position on the seperation of Church and Government and I would be proud of them being consistent...

Problem here, they DON'T do it!!!! Having a "In God We Trust" in their pocket or pocketbook is totally acceptable to them....

"DOUBLE STANDARD".. SCUM of society do that....

Thank-You, Thank-You, Thank-You.... My point is proved, AGAIN!!!!

Ed - Repeat this over and over. I've lost it, I've really lost it.

Kevin... Please don't tell anyone else, (I'll give you some "In God We Trust" currency)

Ed- I'll happily take your money, it will keep it out of the coffer plates of those who support pedophiles. (Is that how you play?)

Not my game Kevin... Didn't realize you played in that arena...

Ed- I thought if you were throwing around the ridiculous KKK statement that was the rules you were trying to play by.

Kevin... The KKK reference is really not complicated, at least I didn't think it was... They are the most radical group out there and legally can say anything they want and still exsist. (Come on... I can see the gears starting to move in your head, keep thinking)...

Now let's see what you put on the table... Ummm "pedophiles"... Is that a legal group which you acknowledge exsists and are legal???

Help me to understand where you are going with this????

@Ed shouts: “Problem here, they DON'T do it!!!! Having a "In God We Trust" in their pocket or pocketbook is totally acceptable to them....”

How would you know, Surrender Ed? Have you been going through their pocketbooks?

Kevin... Your comment peeked my curosity as with all the training I have had, the light came on, very bright as a matter of fact when you mentioned "pedophiles"... as that is very unusual, for anyone to mention...

Profile defination...
Pedophiles can be anyone -- old or young, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, non-professional or professional, and of any race. However, pedophiles often demonstrate similar characteristics, but these are merely indicators and it should not be assumed that individuals with these characteristics are pedophiles. But knowledge of these characteristics coupled with questionable behavior can be used as an alert that someone may be a pedophile.

You kind of fit in the defination... I think we all have a need to know... (opening up is the first step toward treatment)...

Please tell us...

Ed- The KKK comment was ridiculous, your double standard comment is ridiculous, (your not delivering flowers was childish) I thought that was the level you sought to discuss this on. Since the Catholic Church has for decades, if not centuries ignored the law, morality and human decency and you offered to give me money, I played Ed's rules of discussion and said I would gladly take it so others would not be complicit in a criminal conspiracy of anal rape and ignoring the law and creating more victims. But those are the more moral people in the discussion so you likely didn't make the connection. It is quite obvious to anyone who plays with a single standard and would never condone such behavior let alone subsidize it with cash. Now that is a double standard.

Robin... When anyone makes a stand on an issue, they give the reasons why they are taking said stand???

Correct???

Come on, think here, I know it may be tough....

Kevin... Doesn't explain how you put "pedophiles" out there so quickly...

We know what is on your mind...

The question is "WHY".....

Kevin... Plain and simple... Alquists have a double standard. Should they profess a belief contrary to mine but they are consistent with it, I would value their opinion.

In this case it is plain and simple, they say one thing and do another as it suits them.

That is why I clearly state that those who follow that path (which is nothing more than do-as-I-say, don't-do-as-I-do)... That my friend is what the "SCUM" of our society do....

Get it yet???

Ed- I can't decide whether you are being deliberately obtuse or whether you are truly an idiot. You are starting to tip the scales toward idiot though. No one is under any requirement to solve every problem or NONE. But when you solve something because you can, you should be applauded for it rather than be condemned by small and petty minds for not solving everything.

There was nothing to get, it is a silly, shallow straw-man argument and beneath anyone serious.

Kevin... You, You of all people can't decide??? Come on...

Is your mind also clouded with "Double Standards"......

Ed- That's an easy one. Catholics are the largest Christian denomination. Being a Catholic, when you know they have been creating and covering up pedophiles is a natural connection to evil, it is also one hell of a double standard and the greatest example of cognitive dissonance I can think of. It's your KKK with an actual connection to the discussion.

Kevin... Still doesn't explain how you put "pedophiles" out there so quickly...

We know what is on your mind...

The question is "WHY".....

As in "WHY" you discuss this group??? It is definately within you....

Kevin... Your comment peeked my curosity as with all the training I have had, the light came on, very bright as a matter of fact when you mentioned "pedophiles"... as that is very unusual, for anyone to mention...

Profile defination...
Pedophiles can be anyone -- old or young, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, non-professional or professional, and of any race. However, pedophiles often demonstrate similar characteristics, but these are merely indicators and it should not be assumed that individuals with these characteristics are pedophiles. But knowledge of these characteristics coupled with questionable behavior can be used as an alert that someone may be a pedophile.

You kind of fit in the defination... I think we all have a need to know... (opening up is the first step toward treatment)...

Please tell us...

Folks...

Judge Hager has spoken. There is no longer an issue, as you now have no opinion...