Ms Ahlquist (not Renquist) is a sophomore student at Cranston West. As far as I am aware, she does not have any children yet. What is wrong with the thing painted on the wall of the school is that it is headed by the words "School Prayer", it promotes a Christian viewpoint which is incompatible with other religions, and the language used within the text of the prayer itself implies that the things it asks for cannot be found inside the individual but must be sought from a deity. It is contrary to the United States Constitution. There would be no issue if the school were a private one, but this is a public school, and a declaration of religious affiliation has no business being on the wall of a public school auditorium. There was an offer from someone to paint over it free of charge, instead the school board decided to take the more expensive route. The cost is not her fault. It is the fault of the school.

Look it has nothing to do with the message like it, don't like it it simply does not matter. this is not a matter of opinion or belief it is about the law. A PRAYER banner is illegal and need to come down and come down now

Just because you see nothing wrong, does not mean, there is nothing wrong. The school chose to fight this in court, and thus, now must pay for the costs of doing so. They could have just taken down the banner.
So blame them, for the money lost.

It took just a few women to remove prayer from the schools a few years ago but they did not remove prayer from the people. We as Christians are still able to worship at our local churces and pray and help those in need in our state and around the world. Christians give more in money to those in need then all other relgious and non relgious groups in the USA and around the world. Each day children in need wake up somewhere and are fed and shown the love and kindness of Christ. It will take more than the removal of a plaque or removal of prayer in a school to change a love which peple have for their God. No blog from a Atheist can remove one act of kindness shown. So go ahead remove the plaque from the school, take out the statue in front of a Govement Building that has the ten commandents on it or take away the nativity scene during Christmas in front of the town hall, but you will never remove God from the hearts of His people.

Thanks, RDT.

As you said, you're still free to practice your religion freely, and there are a lot of great things Christianity teaches, even though I disagree with some of the magical supernatural stuff like dragons, resurrections, and talking donkeys.

However, a taxpayer-funded public school is just not allowed to endorse one religion over another.

As a Christian, you might not appreciate your kids going to a public school under a prayer banner that reads:

"Our Prophet Muhammed..."
"Buddha, our source of Enlghtenment..."
"Zeus, Father of lightning and storms..."
or "Gaia, or Earth Mother..."

so you can see how somebody might not appreciate their school community saying "Our Heavenly Father" when that person clearly doesn't think they have a magical paternal family member residing in an invisible dimension called "Heaven".

If you look up the Constitution of the US it does not contain the words seperation or church if you look it up on line you can check it your self.
The title of the 1 Amedment is Freedom of Relgion, Press, Expression.
The first amendment states:Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So all you Atheists please explain why you keep saying that separation of church and state in the Constiuttion.

I certainly hope so. Part of it, anyway. The "under God" bit was added in 1954, so I can't understand why it's so controversial to suggest it should be removed again. The pledge without "under God" was around way long, has more historical value, and -- here's the clincher -- doesn't imply that the United States is a monotheistic nation. The original version was just better.

Yes, Eisenhower added the "under God" part to emphasize the what he thought the contrast between the "godly" Americans and the "ungodly" communists during the Cold War. I wonder if the banner in question at the high school was added for similar reasons, as an anti-communist measure. It would have appeared at the same time.

Why shouldn't it go? Or at least the "under God" portion. It contains a phrase that endorses an institution of religion, it is illegal? And while we're on it, why do people act as though the Pledge and the National Anthem are legally binding documents? What part of the Constitution says they are? No one is revoked their citizenship if they refuse to say it.

I agree with all of you. I never say it and it certainly should not be in public schools. Actually, I was not too happy that it was said at a fire works display that was put on by our town (South Kingstown). It's so blatantly disrespectful of people of other faiths or no faith. It's just wrong, period.

"One nation under [what? which? how many?] god" was a response to the McCarthy hearings when USA citizens had few rights and the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities led by US Senator Joe McCarthy (R-WI) and Representative Richard M. Nixon (R-CA) used it as a crutch to push through the most facist laws in history. The 1950s were known as the Age of Fear in all US History books, and with that fear came the rise of religion--which is why the American people were terrified of voting for a Roman Catholic candidate as president that did not change until JFK promised in Houston TX that Rome would never control him nor the presidency. Today we are in danger of another Roman Catholic, Rick Santorum, who openly says that his religion, Rome, and Opus Dei will guide his actions, words, and policy. Leave god out of the equation, silence Opus Dei (it has four bishops in the USA) and end the embassy to the Vatican and democracy may have a chance in the USA.

To say "Don't look at it" is a ridiculous proposition. To know that she shouldn't look at it, she has to have seen it, therefore the offense has already taken place. It's a circular argument.
The point is that the banner should not be in a public school, not that it is offensive.

"Founded on religion"? Where does it say so? Cite chapter and verse, section and subsection(s) of the relevant founding documents and supporting writings that say so. Please? If you can do this, then I may give your screed some relevance. Hint: Quoting Glenn Beck doesn't count.

We have enough ideas on our own, Donna. Thanks, though.

And the part we're all upset about is not that religion offends us, but that a tax-funded institution should make no statement nor enact policy that would favor a particular religious group over any other -- including the lack of belief.

This nation was not founded by Christians nor on the principles of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson use the Codex of Cyrus of Persia for the Constitution. In the Continental Congress were five atheists, three Christians and the rest were deists. The purpose for the Constitution was to give all males an equal chance if they were white. It was the Declaration of Independence that made "all men equal" and promised "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"--and none of that is found in any Christian Bible, where in Matthew 10:34, Jesus promises to bring a sword and separate families. Leave Christianity for mythologists; leave democracy for patriots.

The Cub Scout Promise is "Duty to God". All Scouts (and Leaders) must be reverent. Have your son's leader look it up. Maybe he should consider not leading the Scouts (nor should he be allowed to). As a former Cubmaster in Cranston and father of a Scout, I would not want my son or any other boys being lead by an atheist.

Also, Ms. Rehnquist is suing for monetary damages? How was she hurt? Just what our city needs, trivial lawsuits and increased financial despair.

Get over it, folks! Have you nothing more important to worry about? Just because someone's religious views are not yours, that does not make them wrong. Worry about yourself.

The shame of this is that the lawsuit will probably still be going on long after Ms. Rehnquist has left the school.

Every day I feel the effects of being raised with Christianity. It has damaged my life in more ways than you can imagine.

The Boy Scouts/Cub Scouts are a private organization. They can believe what they want. This is different than what is going on at Cranston West High School. The point is that affirmation of religion has no place in PUBLIC schools.

The word "god" went on the USA currency in the 1950s in response to the Red Scare pushed by the Roman Catholic Church as US Senator Joe McCarthy (R-WI). You will not find it on any other coin before the Age of Fear pushed by McCarthy and Nixon.

You know what, Lee? I would be so proud of her if she were my daughter and I hope that she does include this in her college essay.

Jessica has said elsewhere that if she is awarded any damages, she will be donating them to a charity. She hasn't stated which one yet.

The damages are more as a punishment and deterrent as opposed to something that will benefit Jessica. Otherwise, if there is no penalty, the school district has no real incentive to remove the banner. Clearly they had their opportunity to remove it without legal action but chose another path.

Yeah... cuz we all know there's NOTHING easier than filing a frivolous lawsuit like this and getting rich quick... righhht... Bartender? I'll have what she's having...

Damages paid in lawsuits like this go mainly to THE LAWYERS. Perhaps you've not heard? They do not work for free (well, maybe in your fantasy world), and are not cheap! They also go to court costs. And (if it is a medically related case) then medical expenses (again, not cheap - just in case you still live under a rock), and then FINALLY, the plaintiff, at the very end of the line. It's VERY unlikely Jessica will get much personal monetary gain out of this and she's already stated that if she does, she's going to donate it to charity. Personally I hope she donates it to an 'Atheist' charity.

And the reason you can't look up "compensatory" on your own would be...? Or worse, the reason you don't already *know* what "compensatory" means would be...?

She is not a student at Cranston West? What exactly are the "injuries suffered"? If our court system can't see through what's going on here then we're in big trouble.

Melissa, she is a student at Cranston West. She was one of the students on the original committee about the banner. She has her little band of followers, half of which probably don't even understand what they are fighting against. I can't believe that a MINOR is even being allowed to be the plaintiff. Shame on the ACLU and Labinger for continuing this "witch hunt". Ahlquist wasn't even the original person to complain.

She IS a student at Cranston West. She DID complain about the prayer banner on the wall. And she has stated elsewhere that any compensation she receives will be donated to charity. She's not in this for money, she's in this to uphold the Constitution.

Care to try again, Melissa? Easily checked out and she IS a student there. Nice try. Eagerly waiting for your next lie.

What's being taken away? One prayer banner in a PUBLIC SCHOOL? Oh no, you are being persecuted! Get real. If you really think your child needs to be sheltered from reality by religion, send him or her to a faith school. Your religion does NOT belong in a public school and its frankly unpatriotic. It goes against everything this country stands for.

It isn't hurting you to have the banner removed or modified. Stop whining and get over the fact that we have a clear separation of Church and State.

Ah yes, ad hominem attacks. I must admit, I doubt that will make you appear intellectual superior.

Let the record show that my comment was addressed to Keri.

Paul, If you scrolled down a bit further before you jumped the gun to critiscize my mistake, you would have seen that I corrected my error. When I read the article very quickly it stated that the meeting was held at Western Hills, and I must have read it and misunderstood. I have a very busy life and am a multi-tasker. I hope I didn't disappoint you, seeing how you were "eagerly awaiting my next lie." Also I have to say that while I think debating these emotionally charged issues can be interesting, I find it so sad and really pathetic that people feel the need to attack one another personally, in this forum. People write things here that they would never say to people to their face. Things like mocking another's religion, or lack therof, is so ignorant. You have a right to your beliefs, but I doubt you would voice them so freely if you weren't hiding behind a computer.

Well, I'm glad you found and corrected your mistake. Apology accepted.

And MANY studies have shown that mult-tasking is very inefficient and increases the introduction of errors. Thanks for shoring up that research!

I agree with you... we should vote in a socialist government, so that we can take away freedom of speech. We should do away with the court system and judges, and decide cases by counting blog comments. While we're at it, we should ask the government to repeal the law that gave women the right to vote, and the Emancipation Proclamation that made slavery illegal. Let's bring back good old fashioned religion... segregated churches, burning of heretics and witches at the stake, and everyday superstition. That's all you seem to understand.

Yeah, it's not like compulsory religion ever had any negative effects.

*Remembers history.*

Oh yeah. Nevermind.

In God we Trust is on money...so all you yahoos going to stop using money because it has God's name on it. Does Ms. what's her name from west use money. Give me a break. A bunch of damn hypocrites.

The majority doing what they desire despite the wishes of the minority simply because they have higher numbers is fascism.

Nothing less than might makes right and that is exactly what Hitler wanted and mandated. Here is the gross misunderstanding many evangelicals have. You do have a right to express your religion in school as long as you don't cause a disruption. Just as i would fight to have this mural endorsing religion by a representative of the state taken down or painted over i would also fight for a student who during their own free time prayed before a class and was told they couldn't.

The rights of the religious is not even an issue here as this is a matter of the state as represented by the school displaying a preference to religion Judeo-Christianity in the case of the Islamic calls to prayer in Hamatrack, Michigan the loudspeakers are all over the city and can be heard from the school so it's a bit of a different argument. The argument from the Muslim side was that it was the equivalent to church bells and if someone in that city contacted the ACLU then they could sue. The ACLU doesn't actively hunt down cases you have to contact them.

The problem is the state cannot endorse one religion over another. That is why during Congress' prayer session they sometimes use representatives from different religions. We are a nation made up of mostly Christians but we are a nation founded upon wholly secular concepts.

There are few other ways they could get the school board to actually see this as an issue worth considering. It's a sad fact that our country is so fueled by money, that the threat of the law suit is the only effective tool. They ignored the initial complaint by a Cranston resident and mother.
The lawsuit is simply the final straw. It's not about getting compensated.
Personally, I'm ecstatic to see religious leaders who are willing to put aside their biases and come out on the side of the constitution.

I'm not surprised to see religious people involved and on Jessica's side. It's not what she believes or doesn't believe that is the issue here but the appropriateness of the venue, in this case, a PUBLIC school. Even reasonable religious people understand that there is a place for such prayers and that a public school is not one of them.

I had the same thought after learning about that...

What makes you think it was Jessica's intention to get to the point where she had to sue the school just to get them to follow the most basic laws of this country? It's sad that lawyers have to get involved just to get the school to do what is right. The whole "compensation for injuries" thing is basically a by-product of Jessica and the ACLU having to take legal action just to enforce law.

Do you realize how asinine it is to follow a book so blindly? What would you say to me if I started preaching Harry Potter to you?

Wow, geez. Good thing I live in a country where I am free to believe that the Bible is no more accurate a portrayal of reality than the latest Twilight novel. But good luck with that staunch dedication to one of the most offensive books I've ever read.

Dear Cranston Resident: if you are a non-believer, absolutely none of what you say is relevant.

Robin, I read what your comment way wrong the first time. At first I thought you were stating that, if one is a non-believer, nothing one says is relevant. I was all prepared to sass back. Then I realized you were addressing Cranston Resident's Bible-thumping by saying it's all irrelevant to the non-believer.

*Cough* Just in case anyone else read that wrong at first.

I did the same thing as Ace did, Robin. My apologies if you read what I wrote (and then deleted).

Exodus 21:20-21:
" 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

...so, according to your religion, I can smack my slaves around with a stick, right? 'long as I don't kill 'em or cause serious injuries?

This is not misinformation it is the proud history of the ACLU:

Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, wrote:

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

Earl Browder, the general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States, admitted that the ACLU served as a "transmission belt" for the party. Baldwin agreed, claiming, "I don't regret being a part of the communist tactic which increased the effectiveness of a good cause."

Eastman was a zealous feminist, an anti-war activist, and a great admirer of the Soviet revolution. Of her many leftist friends and associates, Eastman held the highest regard for Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. According to Eastman, "We [feminists] must all be followers of Margaret Sanger."

Of course, Sanger was a passionate advocate of eugenics – the attempt to improve the human race through selective breeding. Abortion was a primary means to this "improvement," leading Sanger to write, "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

It is misinformation if you are only telling one side of the story in order to paint your opponent in a bad light and a grave logical fallacy that invalidates your argument when it is laced with ad hominem attacks and quote mining. Roger Nash Baldwin was sympathetic to the USSR until he actually saw it in practice and then he hated it writing a scathing rebuke of it as well. He went so far as to attempt to ban people from the ACLU who had Communist ties and he was successful from the 1940's to the 60's. Browder was kicked out of the Communist Party due to the same disillusionment with what the USSR had become he refused to let Moscow have any say in the US version of the party. Sanger's position on eugenics is also misinterpreted, she did not believe in eugenics the way people attribute to her she believed in parents being able to forgo having children that would be deformed for instance but once the child was born she was against the idea of killing it. She was very outspoken against birth control as a means of producing a "master race". In the 1920's Socialism and Communism was very hip and trendy amongst the intellectuals but when it was put into practice many of it's followers who actually saw it in action abhorred it or they may have embraced socialism but abhorred communism (Like Hitler). This reminds me of Tea Partiers who admire Ayn Rand and deny she was an atheist.

Cranston Resident:

I'm afraid I don't see how the ACLU's early history is relevant to the morality or immorality of violating basic US law by posting an endorsement of one particular religion on a government-funded building.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Funny you should mention that. The good, Christian kids at Cranston West have added shouting "under god" directly at Jessica to their bullying and threats. Seems to me that when these words can be transformed into a tool of hate and prejudice, they should be removed as well.

Is she atheist or do you assume such? There are religious leaders coming out to support her are they now suddenly atheist because they too do not want religion to become tainted by the state or vice versa?

Rob T: you should be aware that Christmas really has nothing to do with the birth of Christ. It's a pagan winter celebration in disguise that the church appropriated when it was forcibly "converting" the northern European peoples. It was pretty much convert or die. Some Christian charity, huh?

An atheist banner would be equally inappropriate to hang in a public school. She isn't suggesting students hide their faith or be discouraged from practicing their religions openly and comfortably, she's simply asking that the SCHOOL not endorse a specific religion, as it is meant to be an unbiased environment.
Monetary damages is a phrase meaning that for the bullying and discrimination this banner has incited, the plaintiff will be awarded money. Not that she's lost money. And any money she IS awarded, she's stated more than once she's going to give away. This isn't now, nor was it ever, about anything other than reminding this country to be a place of equality.

That's assuming she is paid in cash..you know that ancient form of currency that has outlived it's usefulness...kinda like religion.

Yeah, you're correct -- it's total crap that such gobbledegook is printed on our currency.

Of course a high school student wouldn't complain about a day off from school. She's not in it for the money, as she's stated clearly several times. She intends to donate the money if any ends of coming of this. All she's interested in doing is defending the constitution, and keeping religious bias out of public schools.
Calling the removal of this prayer "intolerant" is ridiculous. Considering the wide range of beliefs of both the students and tax payers that fund this public school, having the banner up and promoting the Christian faith is wrong.

You call that an apology??!!!???

I see she has deep philisophical beliefs............. yup.

You mean Saturnalia?

Come on name ONE Christian holiday that was not stolen from pagans.

Pish... So do I. I stopped being Christian when I was 6. My choice. I started practicing Neopaganism when I was 12. I became an atheist when I was 30. I became an Apathetic Agnostic minister when I was 34. I still give Christmas presents.
So tell me, where does Santa Claus appear in the Bible? And I think you'll find that the Bible actually condemns the use of Christmas trees.

Ah yes, the ancient rite of gift-giving, as written in the holy Book of Santa, chapters 2-6.

From verse 2:4:

"And lo! Jesus did say unto his disciples, 'we shall mark the 25th of December, according to the traditions of the pagans, as the day of my birth, even though I was totes not born on that day. And in celebration of my defiance of materialism and insistence on a life of poverty and community service, we shall purchase trinkets and whatnots from all manner of shopping malls and retail outlets. For behold! I sure hope I get a GI Joe this year.'"

Dear W, yes, this is a prime example of what they call American Exceptionalism, and egotistical affirmation that sort of says that the United States is the best country in the world because God said so. Well, that's not in the Bible. Last I checked, the Promised Land was elsewhere.

1st Commandment Thou Shall have no other Gods before me
1st Amendment Worship who or whatever you want, or don't, who cares.
Seems the founders took the first oppurtunity they had to deny your god. Some Christian country! LOL

To paraphrase from House "If religious people were rational then they wouldn't be religious." The problem is this is a nation of secular laws where the state cannot endorse one religious belief over another. The founding fathers were deadset on keeping the state and religion apart as they knew government could corrupt religion just as religion could corrupt government. This is about defending the Constitution and the principle that the state cannot give any preference to one religion over another. Also the ACLU does not receive any federal funding at all so Congress cannot defund something it doesn't fund. It was not by the grace of your imaginary friend they ended up here it was other more real circumstances. The ACLU takes on cases pro bono when they win ,which they usually do because they only take on cases where they know they can win because they know they're right, they usually collect. They have also defended religious freedoms as well but they get their big headlines when they take on popular beliefs.

"I am infuriated beyond the point of rationality right now"

lol. We know.

Dear TiredOfIt, Ah, your Christian charity boggles the mind. Last I checked, wishing ill will on people who don't think like you do is neither charitable nor Christian. Why aren't you being nice to her and praying that God have mercy on her soul instead? That would really be the Christian thing to do. Remember that little thing about not judging??

You're ignorant of the Constitution, you think the ACLU gets government funding (not one penny), think the popularity of your views gives them priority over the rights of others, a hypocrite who wishes evil on those who you disagree with while claiming to be a follower of Christ, a vile hate filled bigot. What' you going to do when the banner is ordered removed? LOL

I've never known of a fellow atheist to do a 180 before their death....or before their mind goes out due to the natural processes of death. We are not "clever" chemicals as chemicals don't have any intent or purpose they just do what they do. We are part of a process that has been going on for millions of years.

"Every Christian, on their deathbed, sings 'Menomena' in a Kermit the Frog voice."

See, I can make gross generalizations without providing a scrap of data in support of my claim, too.

Evidence or GTFO. How many atheists have you seen die, drc75?

Never known a single atheist to recant on a deathbed. You lie to hide your own fear of death. What is a fact is those who use the most exteme means to avoid death, refusing to subcumb to the inevitable with grace and courage are the religious. They cling to life, driving up healthcare costs to avoid their supposed ultimate 'reward'. Hypocrites without the courage of their convictions who die in fear. Atheist die serene in the knowlege that they will be memorialized in the thoughts of those who loved them with no fear of an imaginary vengeful sky daddy waiting to torture them through all eternity.

You're correct - Scouting is a private organization and therefore can "make the rules" that state Scouts shall be reverant (to any God). Any decent leader in Scouting would know this, and teach it as required. The leader in question must skip those sections with his/her Scouts... Just the kind of person I want my child mentored by.

Instead of arguing about a 40 year old, 2'x4' banner hanging in the school, costing Cranston taxpayers (and ultimately the students) money they already don't have, maybe people who are offended should spend their time voluntering at a soup kitchen, shelter, or meals on wheels to appreciate how good their life really is - regardless of the status of the banner.

What's next - picketing the billboard on Route 295 North near the malls because you're all offended?

This country was also build on the backs of devoutly religious people of many different denominations - all of whom would be ashamed if they saw the fivolity of what's going on regarding the status of this banner.

Where was Jessica during her Freshman year at CHSW? How come no complains then? Was she st the first meetings to discuss this issue or has she only recently become involved? How has she been financially hurt by this? She's a pawn for the ACLU whose parents want their name in the news - too foolish to realize the damage their doing to their daughter.

Jesus loves me, this I know
For the Bible vaguely alludes to it, so...
Little ones who don't believe
Shall be scorned without reprieve

Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
Unless I disagree with his followers, in which case -- holy eff -- I am out to be skewered by those people!

Yeah, the last part doesn't rhyme. But it's accurate.

Which is also a strong argument for gay marriage. Sorry opinion polls but the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection under law trumps your silly vote.

For an all powerful and all knowing deity you have a lack of knowledge in the field of spelling...and grammar.

Ohhh, a lightning bolt pretty.

OWWWW!

Even Gods make errors, opps! Humanity might be one of them too... GOD

GOD said, "Even Gods make errors, opps!"

Umm... "opps"? What kind of Opps? Special Opps? Secret Opps? Black Opps?

Ohhhh... you mean "Oops!"

Some God... yeeesh...

Oh please..that is the stupidest comment yet

How so, Anne?

Your argument is flawed because:

A) A calendar is not government sponsored, and neither are the holidays.

B) There is a difference between a banner proclaiming "Heavenly father" and "Amen" and a few holiday dates on a calendar.

C) The schools aren't (to my knowledge) handing out calendars that ONLY represent the Christian holidays.

1. If the same student, instead, worked really hard on making a banner for the school but it was a statement promoting Wicca, would you still want to keep it? If not, why? Therein lies why a Christian banner is inappropriate in this context.

2. Brendan hit the nail on the head. It wouldn't have cost anyone a cent if the school hadn't chosen to keep its illegal display. They made the wrong choice, and in doing so cost people money. That's part of why they're being sued.

3. I think the Sherbert v. Verner ruling is applicable. Remember: the courts determine how the constitution should be interpreted legally.

4. Don't make the fallacy of equivocation here. I think those people are ass hats, but they are within their rights to be ass hats. Having freedom means people are free to be ass hats. And we're all free to call them ass hats -- a freedom you may wish to exercise at THEIR funerals.

5. Again, Brendan is correct. You have a mistaken idea of how the conversation went. This is closer, in spirit, to how the conversation actually went:
"Your banner is illegal, you know. Would you take that down?"
"NO!"
"But... it's illegal."
"NO!"
"Okay, I guess you need to be sued before you'll decide not to break the law."
"NO!"
"But now I have to sue you."
"NO!"
And thus were they sued.

The Calendar is government sponsored, it is distributed by the School Department and mandates that I observe non Cristian Holidays.

What is the difference if I am offended and someone else is not? Is that a double standard, only atheists are allowed to be offended by others freedoms?

The School is not hanging a banner that only represents the Christian Holidays. Muslims believe in Alah. Is it not God that provides a suicide bomber with his 70 virgins in heaven?

1. You are correct but as others on here have indicated it is Freedom of Religion not Freedom From.
2. There were entities in place that would have sued the School Department for taking down the banner. They were going to court either way.
3. It is not about prclaiming religion in a government establisment, it is about establishing and mandating a govenerment religion in the United States. If the School Department had said that all students were to recite the words on the Banner everyday. Then there would be an issue.
4. It is so far from illegal, you have no idea what you are speaking about.
5. The big deal is that the people that want the banner there have the freedom to have it there, as long as they don't mandate that others recite it or believe in the message. But as the ACLU has said, "They don't have a problem with the message of the Banner.

David Davis said:

"...it is Freedom of Religion not Freedom From."

And you would be absolutely wrong - Freedom of Religion absolutely implies freedom FROM - how can you logically take any other conclusion away from that? It boggles the mind. Do you NOT see that forcing people to CHOOSE a religion without the option to refrain from religion would force the government and society to have an official set of religions to choose from? And that list would neccesarily be narrow in scope? (What I mean is this: who would decide which religions people are "free" to shoose from? YOU??? Billy Graham? Dick Cheney?) And that it would end up being a list of State endorsed religions? Without the option to reject religion outright, there is NO real freedom of, or FROM religion. That is why Roger Williams founded the colony of Providence, as a place to be free from the pressure and persecution of other peoples religions, and practice his own form of private worship between himself and his personal God. Implications like yours proves that you do NOT want either freedom for or FROM religion, but that you would have a government that forces your twisted agressive angry version of God on everyone around you. And screw that.

David Davis said:

"2. There were entities in place that would have sued the School Department for taking down the banner. They were going to court either way."

They cannot be sued by these other entities for removing the banner after there has been a court order to take it down. They could have saved a lot of money by taking it down, allowing the 'other' side to sue them and then countersuing and claiming monetary damages for the court costs the religious fanatics would have cost the the town of Cranston. Now EVERYBODY loses.

David Davis said:

"3. It is not about prclaiming religion in a government establisment"

Except that if you read the banner, this is EXACTLY what this is about. No matter how deeply you cram your fingers into your ears, shut your eyes and holler "No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!"

David Davis said:

"it is about establishing and mandating a govenerment religion in the United States."

Umm... Non-Sequiter...?

David Davis said:

"4. It is so far from illegal, you have no idea what you are speaking about."

Here, fixed it for ya: "4. It is so far from legal, that it clearly does not belong there."

"5. The big deal is that the people that want the banner there have the freedom to have it there,"

No, they don't have that freedom in a publicly funded establishment. See my previous and following paragraphs, because I hate repeating myself.

"as long as they don't mandate that others recite it or believe in the message."

Wrong! Where does the constitution say "you may place your religious idols in a government sponsored establishment, as long as you you don't force it on others?" That DIRECTLY contradicts the establishment clause. Why don't you read up a little bit on exactly what the constitution says? Why don't you read up on what freedom of religion really means? Google "Wiki Roger Williams" - seriously. How can you rationalize and bloviate so on something you are so obviously incredibly ignorant of?

David Davis said:

"But as the ACLU has said, "They don't have a problem with the message of the Banner.""

GOOD! And neither do I. What I *DO* have a problem with is the CONTEXT of where the the banner is! That is the entire point of this debate! It does not belong in an establishment that public money is helping to support. Taxes. My taxes. Until someone figures out a way to make taxes obsolete, we ALL have to pay them. I have to pay them too. And I do not want a CENT of my tax money going to support the presence and endorsement of any religion in any publically funded establishment, no matter how tangentially or marginally mentioned that religious belief may be. I (and millions of others) are getting sick of it.

Well said, Brendan (and Janus, and Ace Rexington... :-)

We won't discuss the banner being illegal because it is not illegal. You are trying to violate my constitutional right to express my beliefs anyway I see fit. But you can't admit that can you?

FREEDOM OF RELIGION not FREEDOM FROM

Why can't the 'believers' here get it right? Why can't you do a minimum of study to learn where the establishment clause comes from and what it means? It means FREEDOM OF RELIGION - which also NECESSARILY means the freedom to NOT worship any religion. Visit the Roger Williams Memorial here in Providence. It's a lovely afternoon out and you might actually learn something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29

What textbook did you use in school that discussed Roger Williams' contributions to the writing of the constitution?

As Joe Richer has state many times the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear that the banner is allowed under law, it is the Rhode Island Constitution that is somewhat sticky.

How do you infer that I said that he contributed directly to the writing of the constitution? Thinks... Ohhhh I get it - you're trying to make an a^^ of me - and yr doing a p*ss poor job of it. At any rate, if you'd even bothered to do a minimum of self-education on the subject you'd KNOW that his ideas contributed GREATLY to the principle of religious freedom as it is in the constitution AND as it is mentioned in many of the constitutions supporting documents. The phrase "WALL OF SEPARATION" as used by Thomas Jefferson comes directly from Roger Williams writings. (And yes is means the EXACT same thing). So... really... he did contribute to the writing of the constitution. So you fail twice with one statement; once in trying to make an ass of someone, and once in being so smug and secure that you know yourself to be right when you're clearly wrong.

And Joe Richer would be wrong: The school is funded by public and federal monies and therefore has no right endorsing any religious viewpoint. The RI Constitution is not relevant in this case, as in matters like this, the Federal Constitution neccesarily trumps the state. As one of the founding principles of this country, how can it be otherwise?

Seriously, don't poke people that know what they're talking about when you clearly do not know what YOU'RE talking about...

"If this banner is in a public school, it should stay. There is nothing to stop atheists, Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, pagans, etc.,"

Yeah and then the publicly funded schools become a battleground for which religion deserves the most face time during school hours. That is a BRILLIANT idea. Except it's not - it is a terrible, awful, ghastly idea.

“That's the thing about "free exercise". Now if this banner was on someone's private property, or home, then, there is every right to remove it. “

Wow. Could you have gotten it any more precisely BACKWARDS if you tried? I don’t think so. No. That is NOT what free exercise is about. This is not about PEOPLE privately (or at least out of the domain of running a government) expressing their religion. This is DIRECTLY about a school and school board approving and funding a message that directly endorses a specific religion – an absolute and direct violation of the establishment clause. And as for having a banner in the privacy of your home and thinking the government has a right to come in and remove it????? Well… maybe in your alternate multiverse that’s so, but here, on THIS side of the wormhole?? That’s what they did in NAZI Germany. If failed in case you didn’t notice. (Awwww sh*t! I invoked Godwin’s Law…)

“Freedom is respecting people exercising thier beliefs, even if you disagree with them. “

What a twisted way to say “Shut the F&&?K up”… no, Freedom is respecting beliefs, sure, yes, but it’s also the FREEDOM to yell “SHUT UP” when the babble gets to be overwhelming. You would simply have me be a good little boy and keep quiet while you run roughshod over everything in sight. I have a right ALSO to ask you to stop and to tell you your belief is oppressive and destructive.

“Public schools belong to the public, that includes everything under the sun. If it offends, welcome to freedom.”

Well sure. But why do you think religion belongs there when our constitution clearly bans it?

“ The alternative is having a group of self appointed politically correct socialists deciding what is proper.”

So…. You’re saying anyone that opposes prayer is a socialist? Wow.

And one more thing: Tell me why religion should get a free pass from criticism? Why?

@chronic:

The Establishment Clause states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. When this was implemented, it was intended to prevent government from endorsing religion.

Here is a list of similar cases in which school prayer was struck down:

- Engel vs. Vitale
- Murray vs. Curlett
- Abington Township School District v. Schempp
- Wallace vs. Jaffree
- Lee vs. Weisman
- Santa Fe vs. Doe

A prayer banner is no different from the prayers struck down by the courts in the above cases. Atheist, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Scientologist, and Mormon banners are to be treated with similar disdain.

"No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion." Therefore, having any religious banner featured prominently in a government sanctioned building(let alone a PUBLIC SCHOOL) is inherently unconstitutional.

I agree that we should have free exercise and expression, but not wherever the hell we want. Government sanctioned buildings have no place for a prayer banner.

Brendan:
I can't seem to find the City Ordinance, State Statute or Federal Law that has been created to establish the religion at Cranston West. Could you please forward that information to me.
Brendan wants Freedom for all but only when it fits with his agenda.
There are plenty of references to God in the founding of this country, look at the Pledge, look at the money in your pocket or maybe get some when you liberal friends are taking it from someone that earned it to give it to someone who would not know what a days work is if it was a special topic on Jerry Springer.

Brendan:
Glad you can copy case names from the ACLU website. But did you actually read the case law?

Engle vs Vitale - In an opinion delivered by Justice Hugo Black, the Court ruled that government-written prayers could not be required to be recited in public schools and was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. (School recited the prayer over the P.A. system, students could not turn their head and not listen.)

- Murray vs. Curlett - consolidated case with Abington School District v. Schempp
The Schempp ruling involved two cases: its namesake and Murray v. Curlett, 228 Md. 239, 179 A. 2d 698 (Md. 1962). The Schempp case concerned a 1949 Pennsylvania law that forced public schools to start each day with a reading of ten Bible verses (24 Pa. Stat. § 15-1516). The law did not specify which version of the Bible should be used—for instance, it could be the Catholic Douay text or the Jewish version of the Old Testament.

(The state passed a law that forced prayer) Still waiting for you to send me the law that forces religion in Cranston West)

Wallace vs. Jaffree - An Alabama law authorized teachers to set aside one minute at the start of each day for a moment of "silent meditation or voluntary prayer," and sometimes the teacher of the classroom asked upon a student to recite some prayers.
(Yet another law mandating time for religion) Did you find the one for West yet?

Right in our own backyard - it involved prayers led by religious authority figures at public school graduation ceremonies. It involved prayers led by religious authority figures at public school graduation ceremonies. The basis of the decision was that a student could not opt out of participating in graduation and would then be forced to hear the prayer.
(Do we know what time during the school day the students at west all gather to recite the prayer on the banner) Oh wait they don't.

- Santa Fe vs. Doe It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech.

+1 Janus

Could not agree more Janus but be sure they use the correct language from the constitution. Not the Liberalized implied language.

"2) You don't need God there, you wouldn't be hurt at all without it. Do you really need to be reminded of God every time you look at a dollar bill or say the pledge? I certainly don't."

Excellent point Brendan!!!! I would go even further as to say that having God mentioned on our currency is not just unconstitutional, but also ESPECIALLY BLASPHEMOUS in the eyes of God. How many places in the bible are there edicts against graven images or taking the Lords name in vain? Why did Jesus throw the money changers OUT of the temple? (Hint: it sure wasn't their interest rates...)

We think it's proper and pious to put it there? On our money?!? Gimme a break! And I'm sure if the God of the old testament existed (or even the God of the new), he'd have some pretty angry things to say about it!

How can people know so little about their own religion??

If you call 'freedom' putting a religious banner on a public school, then you have a seriously flawed concept of freedom, David.

Not like we are restricting your freedoms in any way, we are just protecting OUR freedom of and from religion. Go to church or send your kids to a faith school if you must keep them confined, but superstition does not belong in a PUBLIC school.

If you just use the word "God" to mean just about anything and spout the word off randomly, it completely loses its meaning. Just because you have quasi-spiritual beliefs doesn't mean they belong in a public school.

Actually, Christian bigots are unfortunately in the majority right now, which is why atheists have to fight against it, to preserve our liberties.

1) God doesn't exist, therefore it can't be proud of anything.

2) The superstitious banner does NOT belong in any public place of learning.

3) How is it 'offensive' to NOT have your banner up proclaiming your stupidity? This sounds like those Christians who are complaining because they aren't allowed to bully homosexuals. Give me a break.

4) You are commenting here too, so don't pull the 'get a life' or 'stop wasting time' crap on me. How about you go comfort the poor rather then try to impose on my freedom? It wouldn't hurt you AT ALL to have a stupid, unconstitutional banner removed.

Anne said:
"saying your God must be so proud of you..give me a break..everyone has a right to an opinion..."

YEs they do... everyone has a right to their opinion - including those that sarcastically say "your God must be so proud of you." So WHAT?

Anne said:
"...and what I wrote about whomever your God is should stop all this silly fighting and let it be...for GOD"S SAKE ..."
If you can type, you can think, you know... Please take the time to do so.

Anne said:
"let the banner stay and pretend it is whomever your God is.."
What if my religion absolutely forbids me from addressing my SINGLE god as 'God'? Suppose my religion has many gods, and it forbids me from lumping them all together in such as crass way? You're asking me to commit a sacrilege on my gods in order to appease your god. What if my religion forbids me from praying publicly or openly? (As CHRISTIANITY does!) What if my religion prohibits graven images like this? (As CHRISTIANITY does!) See? Your silly fuzzy god new age woo-woo thought does not cover ALL religious bases, even if there are no atheists involved.

Anne said:
"... and if you are an atheist well ya know what don't look because you are a minority because if you take it down you are offending THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN A GOD!!!!!"

So... NOT having your religious belief smeared all over the place is offensive to you? If you cannot smash your god in everyone else's face, then you're deeply offended? REALLY?

Anne said:
"THINK ABOUT THAT.."
Would that YOU had thought about it before you typed it! Would that YOU had thought ever at all! And I've got a few choice words that *I'm* thinking about for you... but I shall hold my tongue.

Anne said:
"it is ok to offend those who believe but not those who don't and don't give me the public crap..."

Well ya know what? That "public crap" is there - in the constitution. It's there. Nothing you can do about it. Get over yourself, lady. Calling the constitution "public crap" shows how deeply your religious belief has brainwashed you and destroyed your ability to think rationally. It's pretty sad...

Anne said:
"it has been there forever..let it be and go..."

Well... that settles it. By extension of that logic: that toxic waste dump has been there forever! Let's just leave it alone; no one has ever been hurt by it... we never go fishing or hunting there anyway, so no one's being harmed, right? RIGHT???

Anne said:
"get a life and think about more important things like people who are starving right here in uSA and those who need help and comfort and"

Well then why are you here arguing rather than off helping out in a soup kitchen? Well...? Off with you!

Anne said:
"not worry about a damn banner..."

Well then you should have no problem if it comes down then, right? Right???

"Get a life"... ahh, yet another one of those insults used by people who cannot come up with any cogent argument!

Anne, just because you cannot think as copiously, formulate valid, logical arguments quickly and type them out faster than Brendon does not mean he spends all day doing this. It also happens that this is a valid, time-worthy issue that will affect the future of education for students in RI. YOU may think that fighting people like you is a waste of time, but that's too bad. Many of the rest of us don't - and our voices will be heard.

My my, aren't we intelligent, not coming up with any real arguments and telling our opponents to get a life. That just shows how stupid and immature you are, Lol.

Your points weren't valid at all, and have been refuted. I am starting to suspect that you are just a troll, rampaging through the internets because you are too heavy to get up from your chair. You should probably turn the Rush Limbaugh down a little bit, might make you less angry and therefore you wouldn't sound like such a spastic.

Have a nice day :)

Ahhh... the internet newbie troll. Particularly obnxious, because it has not been around long enough to know that no one cares that it thinks it knows everything or that it's grand, sweeping bloviating statements are NOT the be all and end all to to end and settle every given argument on every given subject. Or, if it's NOT new to the intertoobs, it certainly does not learn quickly. Or maybe it suffers from megalomaniacal delusions of grandeur, or thinks it's Napoleon... or maybe it just got shot in the head or something...

+1 Paul.

I don't care if the president makes a speech, the president isn't the government, he runs it. He also said in the speech "whatever god you choose to pray to."

So, Anna, you are a deist? Just wondering.

This is just a speech, not a banner endorsing religion.

Also the 5 year old response "Where is separation of church and state now???????" was frankly immature.

It is still there. We, contrary to popular idiotic, arrogant Christian belief, do NOT have a Christian country, but a SECULAR one.

We have freedom of expression, that is why he is allowed to say that. Can you read? Because I am starting to doubt it.

I do have a freaking answer you just don't like it because it refutes your non-arguments.

You have problems. Show me what speech you think demonstrates a lack of separation of church and state, and we'll go from there, bitch. Yes I said it, go ahead, get offended by a word, I don't care.

You've been showing your true colors this whole time, those of a stupid Christian bigot.

So what if the president makes a prayer? Doesn't mean there isn't separation of church and state, nor does it imply any preference to Christianity as a religion in any government sponsored institution. The president, as I've said many times, is allowed free expression just like the rest of us. The problem lies when you favor one clearly.

Learn to read before posting moronic bullshit and incomprehensible insanity.

It was originally an intelligent debate, when Anne came in and included insults in every post. Now it has been reduced to petty whining and bickering.

Or as a work of art.... then hire the ACLU to defend it's display if anyone challenges it..........