I see NO vile statements.
I do "Wish and Hope" that she gets what she deserves.
"Wish and Hope" sorta a non-believers PRAYER!

MoonBeamWatcher: Want to see some vile, filthy, statements about Jessica? Go here:http://jesusfetusfajitafishsticks.blogspot.com/2012/01/ahlquist-screenshots-if-by-christian.html

If I was a Christian I would be ashamed about the dirty comments posted about Jessica. Nothing but pure filth but, on the other hand, they are doing it for Jesus.

Gotta' love those RI CINOs . . .
Nice people.

"They attempted to reject and trivialize the message to preserve it" labinger said, that and the comments from the "christian" students shows disbelief on their part as much as Miss Ahlquists'. Christianity has always been, never will be anything more than fund raising, point blank!

Way to go Jessica! Stick to your principles; you're doing the right thing.

The atheists, as dogmatic as the most fervent religious, are an especially vile, smug group. I can't speak for all Christian denominations, but as a Catholic with a doctorate, I can assure you that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not taught in our schools. It's incredible to me that the 8% would think the 92% all idiots. Get over yourselves; I'm in favor of this decision on account of the law -- the separation of Church and State is as much for protection of the Church(es) as the State. And please stop misinterpreting the Treaty of Tripoli and misquoting Ben Franklin. I really pity the atheists.

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.
If you read the Constitution you will see there no place where the word church is or the word seperation is. In the First Amendement it does not st we can only express our religious beliefs anywhere except in a school or goverment building. Some refer to the letter written by Jeferson which talks about seperation of church and state but that is not the Constitution. Just because liberal judges has said prayer in schools should not be and have had prayer plaques and other religious things taken down does not change the fact it is not in the Constitution.

Our Heavenly Father,
Grant us each day the desire to do our best,
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically,
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers,
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others,
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win,
Teach us the value of true friendship,
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.
Amen

"This country keeps getting worse."

Yes it does! It just keeps filling up with a bunch of ignorant, self-righteous evangelical prigs who know nothing about the Constitution and even less about the origins of their mythological beliefs.

BenfromCA

Another lunatic from California?

I Know right, who does she think she is trying to uphold the constitution, she should have just left them alone to break the law, the cheek of some people!

This person has no idea what they are talking about. Religion has no place in public school. You may not like it but it's the law outlined by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

All you nay-sayers are doing is making your town look woefully ignorant and uneducated.

We are all in debt to Jessica for her excellent work in helping you express your rage and anti-Christian attitudes . . .
Apparently, it didn't take much since you are reacting exactly as the rest of us expected you to do.
CINOs, gotta' love 'em . .

Pity you don'e have the guts that she demonstrated

Cranston Resident, I'll give you some old fashioned advice I got from President James Madison (often referred to as the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION so he's probably more of an authority on this subject than your dear old dad):

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

What does this rubbishy old "homespun wisdom" even mean here? They BROKE THE LAW why is it so hard to understand?

I think her following through on this despite the firestorm of pathetic ignorance it created shows just how well she can "stand the heat."

How about this for some advice: If you don't understand the constitution, don't get pissed off when it's upheld correctly.

We can't stop now... When the elections are done this fall we have to remove all bibles prior to the swearing in to take office.
We also have to get this "In God We Trust" off our money.... Agree???

If you can't stand the Constition, get out of our country.

Totally inappropriate as it was Jessica who stood firmly in that heated kitchen and saw her beliefs through to the very end. It's the losers who had hoped to cram their religious beliefs down the throats of others that fail to come to terms with a 223 year old part of our constitution. Get over it folks, you don't have the right to bring your religious beliefs into a public school. Now if you'd only all just chip in and pay the legal bills..........

Ed, unless there's another commenter with your name, stop trying to troll as an atheist. We've all seen your other posts.

However, that aside, yes! In God We Trust should be removed from the money, especially since it wasn't added until the 1950s, due to the Red-hunting climate instigated by Joseph McCarthy.

She's handling the heat just fine, thank you. She is a shining example of standing by one's beliefs and having courage in the face of adversity. I am proud of Jessica.

forthedumbgirl, the problem is that it was unconstitutional. If you're proud of your country, you should not let unconstitutional things stand. Jessica didn't try to waste taxpayer money. She went to the administration and asked to take it down. She let them know that it was unconstitutional. All they had to do was remove it. They chose not to. Then the ACLU also approached them, telling them that they would pursue legal action if they didn't. The school still held firm. The school chose to spend the money to fight it instead of just complying. It was the school's choice to use taxpayer money to fight a case for something they were doing that was wrong.

Here are some things the majority didn't have a problem with throughout our history:
Taxation without representation
Inhumane executions
Torture
Slavery
Women's rights

Along with things with less emotional impact. However, none of those were right. The minority, the group that knew what was wrong, had to stand up and be vocal. And so they did, and we have a better country. You're saying that there's no tolerance, however I'd suggest you read how tolerant the religious people are being toward Jessica by means of things like twitter...

http://coffeeshopatheist.com/blog/2012/01/jessica-ahlquist-wins-her-lawsuit-prayer-banner-in-public-school-comes-down/

And you're saying Jessica's the one with the tolerance problem?

Remember, the school chose to do the wrong thing. Not Jessica.

In the face of how prevalent religion is in our society, in the face of how much power and benefit they confer their own, why don’t we atheists just go home, sit down, and shut up about our beliefs, while the religious folks go about their business of running our countries in a theocratic manner? Why don't we atheists just stay, so to speak, "in the closet?"

Religious folks, despite already being in the majority, fight daily to push their religions further into the public sphere, to push back the separation of church and state that most democracies wisely build in.

We atheists have been silent for a very long time; our voices are understandably rusty. For every encroachment into our personal space — for every incentive that discriminates against faithless — for every demand that people be allowed to share their love of God with others — we are being told to shut up, to stay silent, to dare not demand the same right to share our love of reason, our love of logic and our love of science.

That is why I do not merely allow people to preach their faith through my government and I reserve the right to counter people’s vociferous shouting or unfair double standards or ridiculous pandering or antiscientific nonsense with my voice — rusty though it may be. I reserve the right to scream out, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more!”

My voice defends the wall of separation of church and state. And short of death, my voice will not be silenced.

What you said is irrelevant It was AGAINST THE LAW you can't pick & choose which laws to follow, & i thought the whole point of democracy was to protect the minority, you must think it's just fine that the Saudis don't allow Churches, because let's face it Xians are a minority over there?

Actually, the ACLU contacted the school in regards to this issue. They clearly explained how the school was violating constitutional law. School officials were given every opportunity to remove the banner, or at the least, change the wording so it didn't marginalize students like Jessica. If you're going to be mad at anyone, be mad at the school officials who chose to allow this to become a costly legal battle, rather than simply follow the law. They wasted taxpayers money. Not a little girl who stood up for her and her fellow student's rights.

Ever heard of the Constitution? Lots of people gave their lives to obtain it. Give anyone an inch and they will take a yard.

This advice columnist does not take sides in the matter, but basically says exactly that!
http://www.asktazi.com/2012/01/extra-edition-prayer-banner-in-school.html

Now Sven is quoting the banner to admonish people who oppose Ahlquist's views????

ummmm okay.

I think some of the atheists here have shown themselves equally vile and ignorant.

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.
If you read the Constitution you will see there no place where the word church is or the word seperation is. In the First Amendement it does not state we can only express our religious beliefs anywhere except in a school or goverment building. Some refer to the letter written by Jeferson which talks about seperation of church and state but that is not the Constitution. Just because liberal judges has said prayer in schools should not be and have had prayer plaques and other religious things taken down does not change the fact it is not in the Constitution.

So you're suggesting she be thrown out of school for fighting to uphold the Constitution of the United States? And you don't see a problem with that?

We have the separation of church and state for a reason. If you have a problem with it take it up with the founders of the US Constitution, not a child who clearly understands history better than you do.

One more time - They broke the LAW not her...DO you understand yet?

Are you alluding that somehow your sentimental memory of something as insignificant as a banner is more important than constitutional rights?

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.
If you read the Constitution you will see there no place where the word church is or the word seperation is. In the First Amendement it does not stated we can only express our religious beliefs anywhere except in a school or goverment building. Some refer to the letter written by Jeferson which talks about seperation of church and state but that is not the Constitution. Just because liberal judges has said prayer in schools should not be and have had prayer plaques and other religious things taken down does not change the fact it is not in the Constitution.

freedom of speech....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.
If you read the Constitution you will see there no place where the word church is or the word seperation is. In the First Amendement it does not state we can only express our religious beliefs anywhere except in a school or goverment building. Some refer to the letter written by Jeferson which talks about seperation of church and state but that is not the Constitution.

Jim Dawson:
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.
If you read the Constitution you will see there no place where the word church is or the word seperation is.
Where does it state in the constituation that religion has it place? It does not.. You need to read the Constitution...

I have been a home owner in Cranston for 31 years and I would never have thought my neighbors were this ignorant but I am beginning to wonder.

no smarty pants maybe you should read the constitution and show me where it says the words seperation of church and state.

It is a city not a town... are you a phd?

another insulting reference from an atheist.

This seems to be your pattern.

Make yourself feel more intelligent by calling people of faith dumb.

Jesus can hear you... do you have a phd or what is your education level

You are correct i'm from the UK & found this from the Friendly Atheist blog, i only came casually to skim it but some of the comments really confused me, how could someone who actually read the article get it so wrong it's as if "God Glasses" changed the words or something as a lot of replies missed the point completely. I suppose i did assume that most of the comments would be from locals although i thought it would be pretty typical generally of the US. Reconsidering, i may be mistaken?

Hmmm.... religious freedom in the U.K.

How's that working out for the Irish?

@Joe The Plummer: "Hmmm.... religious freedom in the U.K. How's that working out for the Irish?"

Pretty well, actually. They are finally starting to break away from the Catholic Church due to, you know, all the child rape cover-ups and all that 'Christian love'. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14224199

Lucky for them they have the religious freedom to be able to express these views without, you know, the government forcing Christianity on them. Kinda like the US Constitution's First Amendment that Jessica Ahlquist bravely defended.

I went to Cranston West!! 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.
If you read the Constitution you will see there no place where the word church is or the word seperation is. In the First Amendement it does not state we cannot y express our religious beliefs in a school or goverment building. Show me where it states that in the Consititution....

You can create all kinds of petitions, but the bottom line is that religious items have no place in a public school. Perhaps you can start a petition to put the petition in your church. You should be very proud of this young woman for her bravery, and her understanding of the law and the Constitution of the US.

Your petition cannot override the Constitution.

There is another side? That seems quite improbable.

Create a petition to have the school donate the banner to a church or association or some other private ownership.

Seems like a fine prayer and a nostalgic bit of history. It just is not appropriate for display in a governmental location.

You're right. Shame on the school for ignoring the requests from Jessica and the ACLU to comply with the law and instead letting it get to the point where a lawsuit was necessary.

Exactly what Rob Sims said. The banner was a clear violation of the law, and the school chose to spend that money to continue to break the law.

Yup. Shame on the school for entering a legal battle they should have known they wouldn't win. Shame on the school for wasting tax payers money. Shame on the school for ignoring every opportunity to address the issue and correct it without shelling out a fortune in legal fees, all in the name of further subjugating a minority population of CHILDREN in their care.

I know, the school really need to be censored for this blatant waste of scant resources in the furtherance of their religious ideals at the expense of students, i assume an official complaint will be forthcoming from the parents of said students & i will keep an eye here to see the reaction from all those outraged by the actions of these christian zealots, OR shall i not bother wasting my time?

What law was broken? Lets see it in writing .

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.
If you read the Constitution you will see there no place where the word church is or the word seperation is. In the First Amendement it does not state we cannoty express our religious beliefs in a school or goverment building. Show me where it states that in the Consititution....

I agree wholeheartedly with you; however, I believe the treaty was approved under President John Adams, not Washington. Not that it makes the sentiment any less valid, of course.

It's said he never told a lie.Do i win a prize?

Now your bringing up abortion wow, so lets get this straight you want to abort as many children as possible so they dont have to be born will save the tax payers money. how would you feel if your mother had an abortion and you were not born?
.

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.
If you read the Constitution you will see there no place where the word church is or the word seperation is. In the First Amendement it does not state we cannoty express our religious beliefs in a school or goverment building. Show me where it states that in the Consititution....

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.
If you read the Constitution you will see there no place where the word church is or the word seperation is. In the First Amendement it does not state we cannoty express our religious beliefs in a school or goverment building. Show me where it states that in the Consititution....

It's obvious that you didn't read any of the other responses to this same statement, so I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply because you probably will ignore it since you won't have a coherent response. But...

The school was not sued immediately. She approached the administration and asked them to take it down, as it was NOT LEGAL to be there. The school ignored it. The ACLU also approached the school, before any talk of lawsuits, and asked the school to comply with the law. That's all. The SCHOOL CHOSE to continue ignoring the legality of it and it was the SCHOOL'S DECISION to spend the money and fight a lost cause in court. Blame the school, not Jessica.

Though, as I said your willful ignorance to everyone else who tried saying the same thing along with your ridiculous pathos attack about the homeless makes me think you'll never respond to this, just like everybody else who realized how wrong they were and weren't willing to face the music. Keep attacking Jessica through the veil of the internet like the big men you are.

You're right. The school board definitely should have considered that before they decided to take Jessica Ahlquist to court. That's who you were talking about, right? I mean, you wouldn't try to spread disinformation about a 16-year-old girl, right? Because that's not the Christian thing to do, you know.

You're right, I slipped up. I meant to convey that the school board had the opportunity to end this by removing the religious language.

And now we know what is wrong with the education system when we have Teachers like you. Are you not doing exactly what you profess to not doing. Pushing your beliefs on to your sturdents. You have just elevated yourself to all knowing status. Please do not put youself in a position of educating my children based on your beliefs.

Allen Miller, it does not seem that Khanh is pushing their beliefs on students at all; quite the contrary. This teacher is defending the right of students to attend public school without the specter of a state sanctioned religion hanging over their heads.

Can teachers not express their opinions anywhere, allen? Khanh isn't talking to her students, she;s posting anonymously on a message board.

Yes, yes this! I wish you had been my teacher, if your always this sensible i think any school in America would be lucky to have you!

Wow ! What a convoluted adaptation of that old lament coming out of WWII. I applaud your adaptation but not your conclusion. Going back to the Reagan years the Christian right ( silent majority) has engaged this nation in religious hostility both within the courts and our society at large. Thus far the wishes and foresight of the founding fathers has remained intact even in light of the ferocious battles stemming from the evangelical zealots who wish to subvert the constitution to make exception for their particular beliefs. For those who disagree please read Thomas Jeffersons thoughts on the separation of church and state and his ability to convince the signers of the constitution of the importance of it.
Witty little anecdotes do nothing to ameliorate the need for folks to understand what the CONSTITUTION actually says in this regard. If there is a religious war it is being waged for our freedom FROM religion, as folks like you want to bring your particular brand of it into the public square where it does not belong.

"I would like to see what the courts say if a Muslim put a prayer up on the wall or they forced the school to give them a prayer room just for them."

The courts would say that that violates the establishment clause of the Constitution, just as they did in this case, because most judges in this nation are fair-minded and know the law.

It's sickening that you would use such a powerful poem in defense of the ignorance presented in this situation. There is no war on Christianity. Stop trying to convince people there is, all you're doing is pushing yourself further away. If there was a Muslim prayer put up on the wall, the courts would respond in the same way. There is no official religion in the United States, and no religion is free to ignore the ideals of a wall of separation between church and state.

Once again, I'm utterly disgusted that you tried to use that poem for your cause.

Keeping you from forcing your religion on innocent children is not making war on you. You just can't seem to keep from breaking the law. Stop doing that, and we'll all take a vacation.

"A war on Christians" Do you have ANY idea how the US is seen by the rest of the world? Here in Europe we see you as a Religious Theocracy with all this talk of the Bible coming from each President, we see it as Silly so don't take them too seriously. It's thought "They're only saying that to get elected" We could be making a BIG mistake here but if/when you get a real Evangelical in the Whitehouse we'll not see it as so silly then. Personally i'm terrified!

sue sue sue. go go go americans. thats where you are good at. so has this move helped anyone who doesnt have a home? has this provided a solution to hunger in america? it hasnt. she can have a mural removed because it simply bothered her, but shd didnt consider that the money spent to fight for her stupid cause was hard earned money by hte americans that coudl have been spent on more important causes.

Marley, the school could have avoided the lawsuit but chose to fight for their right to break the law. That was foolish. No one to blame but the school.

Haha, don't worry Rachael. Hard as it may be to believe, most of us who are commenting about the crazy Christians in this article know that not everybody is like that. One of my closest friends is extremely religious, and I know if I presented him with this article he would side with Jessica. The comments we make are directed at the militant, ignorant ones. Not those of you who actually consider everything. :)

So Rob,
How about thos crazy, militant, ignorant atheists who hav posted insults to people of faith here?

Most of us people of faith realize that not all atheists are rude, insulting pseudo-intellectuals. In fact I have one friend who is an atheists and he is really quite a nice chap.

Good for you, Rachel, for being able to exist peacefully with others and of course, for that whole not bursting into flames thing.

Joe,

If anyone has insulted you, that's wrong. However, there's a world of difference between calling someone an idiot on an anonymous message board and threatening to come to a 16-year-old girl's house and beat her down.

Please let me know where I was attacking people's religion. I have been showing those who wish to blatantly disregard a fundament of this country because they like a banner catering to their religion. I may have used some terms such as ignorant and militant... but that's because i was describing their attitudes.

You're right, this girl hasn't been around for 20 years. Yet she knows what's right, and pointed out that the school was doing something wrong. It's impressive considering some people who have been around for 40 years or more don't understand why the school lost the lawsuit. Or maybe simply choose not to. Again with the ignorance part.

Also, using the term "nazi" does nothing for your argument besides make it look like you're trying to grasp onto anything you can to paint the girl in a bad light.

Again, please show me where I was attacking people who have religion, besides pointing out the awful flaws in their argument.

Maybe just the use of phrases like "willful ignornace" when describings someone else's beliefs and opinions is the kind of inflamatory language that taunts people into reacting in kind.

How can you try to take the higher moral ground when you call Christians who disagree with you as "crazy"?

Well, Joe The Plumber, you can either continue to skew my words or spend time to actually respond to the problem. Right now you're doing the former, care to do the latter?

The "willful ignorance" was NOT in any way describing someone's belief. Step away from your emotional regard for what's going on to calmly read where I'm saying that. I at no point said something along the lines of "your belief in God is ignorant". Their comments ignoring the Constitution, precedent, and a general well-being between other humans however was ignorant, and I can only assume they were doing it willfully as all the information they need is readily available.

I never called simply the people who were simply disagreeing with me crazy. If you note that person who posted an email about discussing the petition to keep the banner, we had a brief discussion about his views. I never once used inflammatory language. The people who I did use it on, however, were people posting comments like one of Harry Balzonia's early one suggesting she be thrown out of school. Or, you know, all the posts (on Twitter, Facebook, other sites) from her peers, adults, and even the RI representative mocking her, insulting her, and threatening her. That's not crazy at all, eh?

Ball's in your court. Continue to ignore the context of my words to make me the bad guy or respond rationally. I hope you pick number 2.

Maybe Rob, if you made an equal effort to understand what I was saying you would comprehend what I meant.

"How the law works" is open to interpretation and clarification by the courts (or in this case an appeal of the court's decision) with regard to what the original framers of the law intended.

For you to call someone's disagreement with your interpretation of "How the law works" a "willful ignorance" is insulting. I am surprised you do not recognize that. I guess therein lies your problem.

You do not win arguments by insulting people who disagree with you.

Again you're ignoring parts of my argument so that you can make your counter work. Come on dude. I'll quote Balzonia's post again because it's such an easy one to deal with. He suggests she be thrown out of school as if she went on a crusade and somehow single handedly tore down (or painted over, as it may be) the banner, slaying everyone opposing her. Ignoring that the court system has thus far agreed with her and ruled as such. To call him willfully ignorant of the courts doing the work here is not an insult, it's a statement of fact. The fact that it was so easy to not be ignorant of such a thing is insulting. Calling somebody ignorant isn't an insult in and of itself - but if they should have known better, then they should rightfully feel insulted. But they have nobody but themselves to blame.

Now note that at any point when I entered into an argument here I didn't insult them personally. I did insult the people posting vile statements against her, calling them crazy and militant. Perhaps you feel that those calling for her rape and death (thankfully this page has been more civil) shouldn't be called such words. I don't.

So again, calling somebody ignorant is not an insult. I am ignorant of a lot of things. I have no eye for art except for music and I am completely ignorant as to the rules of rugby. But if I entered into a serious discussion about either, I would deserve to be called an idiot if I made an idiotic statement because of such ignorance.

R Sims,
Get ready:
JTP has learned through painful experience over the months of his participation in these Patch threads to adopt techniques of avoiding discussing content in favor of attacking people and technique with false accusations. These straw men and ad hominem attacks are meant to deflect attention from his unsupportable ideas, and therefore your accurate descriptive words get labeled as insults and inflammatory. In the later stages of debate, when his every word has been repudiated he usually resorts to the following techniques: the use of expletives which often cause his posts to be deleted by the Patch; bible thumping; hyperbole (verbs like “spew” and “distort”, and adjectives like “hateful” and “vicious”. The phrases “pitiful existence” and “pompous ass” are favorites); claiming that his opponents are engaging in a “baseless and cruel attack on Christians”; asserting that his opponents have trivialized the debate “into an adolescent shoolyard brawl”; calling his opponents LITERALLY “demons” who will end up burning in hell, “more specifically Circles 8 and 9” of the “Inferno” as defined by Dante,or will wind up as “worm food”; endlessly repeating his misrepresentations of statistics on religious belief; using conspiracy theory in endlessly repeating that a sinister atheist cabal is trying to corrupt the thread and the world; misspelling a name like a child scrawling potty insults on a truckstop bathroom wall.

Haha, thanks Liberty Janus. Can't wait to see when it gets to that point. Call me a glutton for punishment... or just bored. ;)

This wasn't a question of emotional harm. It was a question of legality. Some have talked about how it may cause emotional harm to have it up, but that point is moot. The courts did not rule on that. They ruled based on the legality of the banner painted on the wall.

Really? Really?

It’s almost a shame to have to reply to this. Unfortunately you deserve it.

Did you read ANYTHING about this issue before you got online to post your comments? There’s simply no excuse for being this ill-informed about something about which there is extensive information readily available. None of what you say has ANY relevance to the issue (and to NEITHER side of the debate), which is that the banner violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution by constituting a government establishment of religion. “Harm to the student” is not the issue, and so your fanciful extrapolation of your mistaken assumption that it IS the issue, to conclude that since ALL posters harm someone somehow means that ALL posters must be removed, is just one long, embarrassing faux pas.

If anyone is missing the point it is you Janus.

"Harm to the student" or in a more general sense "harm to an individual's liberty" is the very essence of the laws you seem to think you are so well educated in.

It all comes down to the interpretation by the courts of the laws you cite. History is full of court decisions that were wrong or overturned (especially in this judge's case).

So the fact that people are disagreeing with the decision is perfectly appropriate and your characterization of their disagreement in a derogatory fashion is rude and insulting.

There are lot of things on the walls of Cranston West that can "cause emotional harm to the student"....So why add to it, surely it's in the best interest of students to minimize any harm, not increase it?

JTP,

After all these months of comment threads you still don’t understand the law surrounding the establishment and free exercise clauses and encounter difficulty by conflating related but different issues.

Harm IS NOT the issue. Had there been harm, emotional or otherwise, but no establishment, the banner would not be unconstitutional. This is a simple distinction, and there really ISN’T any excuse for not understanding such a trivial thing.

In the sense that “harm” underlies EVERY prohibition you are correct. Harms are meant to be prohibited by laws. That’s a trivial observation, however, and not the point.

In relevant case law, harm to the student, and offense and exclusion, are relevant to determining whether establishment has occurred but are not the central issue; ESTABLISHMENT is itself the central issue. This is what I said and is the fact. This is addressed in relevant Supreme Court judgments. Many people have made this simple observation in comments, but you somehow still don’t get it.

Already you’re engaging in straw men and ad hominem attacks? I never said that disagreeing was inappropriate. I pointed out an error so obvious that its advocates would appropriately be embarrassed to so advocate. And already attacking people personally with false characterizations? Golly, I’ve never seen you do that before!

There was a post from a law college that if it is appealed the decision would get over turned as it was wrong... Can you believe that???

I agree Sheldon, but now that she quit school I think we have to add high school drop-out, now she'll fit right in...

I totally agree, while i am the first to admit that we Atheist are sometimes hardly blameless when it comes to "Ranting" it is usually in response to something objectional. I would like us ALL to try being a bit more tolerant of each other as long as it's not something dangerous.

Also it seems that it's OK because it's been there so long, well the constitution has been around a lot longer so all else being equal that banner to go, yet they STILL havn't removed it only covered it!

Reg,

Maybe you have devised the ultimate solution to this problem.

Let the banner stay on the wall covered.

If the school simply complied with her request, or the ACLU's request, she would be getting no attention. I'm not sure that makes it qualified that she only did it for attention. Maybe if she went straight to lawsuit.

You could be right but I'd need more info to rethink it. Do we know what parent brought this to the ACLU in 2010? Any relation to Jessica? When the school did not comply with the ACLU's request, what was the ACLU's follow up? There were public meetings going. She had to know that a student simply asking to have it removed wasn't going to do it. Plus, the Uncle and his organisation, they are very important in this.

RSouza,

Your assertion of motives is, to say the least, unfounded, and contradicted by the voluminous material publicly available about and by Jessica and her Uncle, and these kinds of straw men are merely sour grapes intended merely to distract from the main issue, which is that the banner is unconstitutional and must therefore be removed, and to deflect blame to the victim instead of placing it on the perpetrators of this constitutional violation where it belongs.

That there might be multiple motives seems obvious, and they probably include: to maintain separation of church and state; to reinforce the legal weight of the establishment clause; and to remove an objectionable and offensively flagrant violation of the Constitution from their own community. These might all be motives, and probably are, and are to be embraced proudly. They MIGHT also have some motive of seeking attention, but until you produce some evidence for this it’s merely your unfounded assertion and must be considered false, and such a motive anyway remains irrelevant to the fact that the banner violates the constitution and is therefore to be removed.

What is your evidence that all they wanted was attention? What good would attention do her? I very much think you are mistaken given the number of tries to get the school to follow the law before ACLU went for a lawsuit, and I really think that it was the school grandstanding for the local conservative voters that has caused the lengthy battle. The law is clear here.

If we're a group angry at the threats the girl has received and people, even in this article, who would discard the entire legislative process, then a mob is hardly what I'd call it. But call it what you will. If somebody makes a post that can be torn apart, it rightfully should be. Multiple people may do it. If someone says that they think the banner should stand, why shouldn't we question it? We, all of us including you, should accept coherent responses. Instead people, such as yourself, respond by talking about how we pig pile them instead of actually answering and backing up what they say.

And "The Eye of Providence" aka The Eye Of Horus is on the Dollar Bill. Are YOU going to sue the Treasury, or admit to being a sinner for accepting such a blatantly pagan symbol in your wallet? Perhaps you didn't realise your money's symbology also is important in Buddhism, and Freemansory, which, last I heard, ultimately reveres the Eqyptian god osiris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence. Any plans on burning your own dollar bills just now?

MJC, so no regard for tradition? I'm pleased the people of Pitman, NJ won out at Christmastime. Where was the outrage when the banner was hung in 1963? Where was the outrage in 1983? 2003? What is bothersome about other peoples' beliefs? The distaste people of belief have for atheists is NOT their lack of belief, nor the fact that they won't "sit down and shut up," as someone else said above, it's the condescending, contemptuous nature of it. Misquoting the founding fathers and re-writing history; mocking religious doctrine, then scolding believers for not conforming absolutely to it. It's the riding the coattails of the Constitution, as if religious entities don't benefit from it; it's suggesting that there are only 8% of people with a brain. It's the thought that if religion would just "go away," this country would be a better place. It's the dogmatic Dawkins quotations, and references to the Treaty of Tripoli. Atheism is it's own religion. Fortunately, the internet has given the 8% a voice; what they don't realize is that the increased volume of your protests has caused an equal pushback: a digging in of the heels of the religious. I regret that it has manifested as hatred and threats of violence, in this case.

@biff_roughneck - when bible-addicted morons and koran-addicted morons and torah-addicted morons sit down and shut up then atheists won't have any reason to return your contempt with our own. how you like that, sparky? Shoe's on the other foot now, isn't it?

Except that it never happend. Style over substance. Typical of those who would supplant the secular Constitution and rule of law for a neo-Medieval theocracy.

I lean liberal more than anything else, and public prayer rooms like those also disgust me. No matter the religion, it should not be supported in public schools. However, that does not suddenly make this okay. I would love to see the prayer rooms gone as well, but their existence does not mean we shouldn't support this. If the prayer rooms were brought to court, and the court ruled fairly and correctly, the rooms would be in violation.

So - do you have a problem with the prayer rooms and not the banner? Or do you have a problem with both? Or neither?

Are you referring to this story that Politifact gave a “pants on fire” rating to?

“Victoria Taft says Rigler Elementary gave prayer room, rugs, special treatment to Muslim students” - http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2011/jan/23/victoria-taft/victoria-taft-says-rigler-elementary-gave-prayer-r/

Politifact says what really happened was two students asked for permission to pray during their lunch period at Ramadan, and the school (with no resistance) allowed them use an empty office to do so. (And no, no prayer rugs were provided.)

If the school maintained a neutral position toward religion, and would allow a similar accomodation for students of other religions, that seems reasonable to me.

It’s not like the outright favoritism Cranston West showed with its eight foot mural of an official Christian school prayer.

Yes, we won. By the way, God isn't real, and you and others who believe like you are becoming increasingly irrelevant. In fifty years, no one will share your delusions. How does it feel?

Another militant lunatic atheist heard from!

And another reason to hate atheists.

It is no wonder that you and your cult of crazy people only represent 0.7% of our society.

In 2000 years your beliefs have been that unpopular, and in another 50 you will still represent the lunatic fringe.

There he goes again. Joe The Liar’s been constantly claiming that atheists make up 0.5% or 0.7% of our society, over and over, ad nauseam, week after week.

Actually, the study Joe cites for this figure, the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, says on its front page that: “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).”

Joe doesn’t like this result, so he cherrypicked a number from Table 3: Asked to identify their religion, a few atheists answered “atheist” (0.7%) (even though atheism is not a religion), but most were among those answered “none” (15.0%). And for weeks, Joe has misrepresented ARIS’s results, vilifying “militant atheist pseudo intellectuals representing that 0.7% of our society” and so forth.

Though we’ve exposed his distortion several times, Joe persists in lying with statistics, perhaps hoping we’ll get tired of correcting him. Joe sanctimoniously calls atheists “denizens of immorality”, but his hatemongering disinformation campaign shows how Christianity has not instilled good morals in him.

Of course, percentages don’t matter; even if a minority did comprise only 0.7% of our population, we must always respect their civil rights.

Edward Vidakovic says "Yes, we won"...

I only saw one name listed as the plantiff...

If it looks like swine, smells like swine, and acts like swine; it must be swine. After all isn't that what swine do? Take credit for what others do...

Have a swine day Edward Vidakovic....

Lion'sAss really gets very defensive over the fact that there are only 0.7% atheists in our society. Even after she referenced a report and survey conducted by ARIS that puts atheist respondents at 0.7% of our population.

I can imagine that it is difficult believing in some silly and unpopular notion that only 0.7% of others in our society share with you, but that is a fact. And atheists are very good at ignoring the facts (ie. God exists) in order to try to make sense of their crazy beliefs.

@Joe The Liar

◦ “Lion'sAss really gets very defensive over the fact that there are only 0.7% atheists in our society.”

No, like I say each time, percentages don’t matter. It wouldn’t matter if it _were_ true; I keep pointing out that it’s not the case just because you keep _lying_ about it, over and over and over.

◦ “Even after she referenced a report and survey conducted by ARIS that puts atheist respondents at 0.7% of our population.”

No, it doesn’t; you’re lying again. I invite readers to read for themselves what ARIS really found ( http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/publications/aris-2008-summary-report/ ).

◦ “And atheists are very good at ignoring the facts (ie. God exists) in order to try to make sense of their crazy beliefs.”

That’s your opinion, not a fact. And atheism has no “beliefs” per se; rather, it’s not having a belief in any gods.

Your immaterial being with magic wish-granting powers that circumvent the laws of physics is a very extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. Absent exceptionally strong evidence, nonbelief is a proper and rational default stance.

@Joe The Liar

Even if you wish to ignore soft atheists, Joe, the data does not back you up. For example, page 8, table 4, first line, reports 2.3% of respondents saying “there is no such thing” as God.

Clearly, this study found more hard atheists than the 0.7% who identified their “religion” as “atheist” rather than “none” (or “refused”, for that matter). That’s why, on its front page, ARIS said “Based on *their stated beliefs* rather than their religious identification, 70% of Americans believe in a personal God, roughly 12% of Americans are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unknowable or unsure)...”.

Joe

Cult? Since when has not believing in a deity become a cult? However, belief in something that doesn't exist can be called a cult. I also don't believe in God for much the same reason(s) you don't believe in Zeus.

"And then scold all of us who criticize them and think we should give them love and kindness."? Aren't you supposed to love your enemies? Who was it who said you should do that?

"Dillusional" (sic)? Since when has not believing in stuff that doesn't have any actual testable evidence to back it up constitute a delusion? Conversely, we typically think that people who believe in something which is demonstrably untrue (e.g. believing that they are immortal, that they are Napoleon etc.) are delusional.

Mythology? Well if something is a myth (i.e.not true) and yet people still truly believe in it, how much credence should be given to people who base their world-view on it?

"Confused", "Unsure", "Doubtful"? People who base their world view on supposed evidence which cannot be verified and whose tenets are hugely contradictory are much more likely to be confused and uncertain than those who do not.

"Enemies of God"? How can one be an enemy of someone or something in whose very existence you don't believe exists? I am not an enemy of Yahweh, Dagon, El, Baal, Mithra, Zeus or any other deity. I am an enemy of many of the customs and/or traditions of the followers of such deities, however, which is not the same thing.

@JTP

Atheism’s a cult like not believing in Scientology is a cult.

Joe, according to his Holy Qur’an, you too are God’s enemy and God will deliver his wrath upon you: for your idolatry, your judgment shall be a painful doom forever, and you shall wear garments of fire, and your food shall be to eat from the tree of Zaqqum which shall burn in your belly like molten brass, and you shall have no appeal, for God shall not relax your punishment, and you shall be speechless with despair. (Qur’an 98:1-8, 22:19-23, 44:40-49, 43:74)

He has made it known that it shall not end well for you, Joe. It ain’t gonna be pretty.

But me, I’m not afraid of Allah’s nor Yahweh’s wrath. Nor of what Osiris’s tribunal will find when he weighs my heart against a feather. Nor the hardships of a four year posthumous journey across Mictlan. Because they’re all ancient myths of primitive peoples.

We already conversed about that in the “Prayer Banner Removed” comments. I refer you back to my response there.

@Annabelle
“Nobody was being forced to pray, worship or attend a church service.”
Not today, but in 1962, yes they were. Cranston High led students in reciting that School Prayer daily after the Pledge of Allegiance.

“I believe atheists want to push atheism because it empowers them, not because they really care about society. They have no real cause. They believe in nothing but themselves because they have nothing to believe in.”
In this case, atheists fought for the cause of separation of church and state for the betterment of society, and did not push atheism.

“If it were about tolerance and acceptance, the prayer wouldn’t bother them.”
That’s backward. If Cranstonites were interested in tolerance and acceptance of non-Christians, taking down a Christian prayer wouldn’t have driven them to such rage.

“They preach tolerance while they try to silence those who disagree with them.”
Also backward. Jessica wasn’t trying to silence anyone, but many Cranstonites were trying to silence her.

“Some call it hypocrisy.”
Hypocritically.