This was suggested by Jessica Ahlquist, the ACLU and others. The school-board rejected the compromise on the grounds they wanted the religious message to stay.

About a year ago on Cranston Patch, Richard Wade proposed rewording it to:

School Pledge
I pledge
To do my best each day.
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically.
To be kind and helpful to my classmates and teachers.
To be honest with myself as well as with others.
To be a good sport and smile when I lose as well as when I win.
To value true friendship, and be a true friend.
To always conduct myself so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

( http://cranston.patch.com/articles/school-committee-approves-placard-stating-historical-significance-of-banner )

I think that's a reasonable rewording, but I'd be inclined to keep the collective note... "We pledge / to do our best each day / etc. etc."

There's also something to be said for renewal... ask the class of 2012 to create the banner that will be revered in 2062.

Given the legal issues in this case are very clear - there is no chance an appeal will succeed given the legal precedents - your faith you will not have to pay is ill-founded.

You're willing to pay taxes for an illegal banner? Would you also like to pay for a pagan statue in the school's cafeteria? If you read the judge's decision, you might change your mind. This case has an obvious answer and to appeal would waste a lot of money.

The question the School Committee must ask is whether they have LEGAL GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL. It is nor a popularity contest

Paul, you are right. It is not a POPULARITY contest. It is an ELECTION process.

Cranston voters expect our elected officials to represent our views.

I share the view of many more Cranston residents that the city should appeal this court decision. We voters expect that our elected officials will do that for us.

All politics are local.

Well, no, that's far from an accurate description of how the U.S. works. How the *law* works in the U.S. is that the Constitution is the ultimate reference for validity of law, and the courts interpret legislation in light of it. While a majority might elect a legislator or school board member, what they in turn enact has to survive scrutiny, by the judiciary.

Others have pointed out that your argument is the same one used to attempt to keep schools segregated, or the races from intermarrying, and those state and local laws were tested in the courts and found wanting. Thankfully, just being loud doesn't trump Constitutional protections.

Well no, that is not how the US works. The whole idea when the USA was founded was to get away from the tyranny of kings. That is not served by your insistence on replacing the tyranny of kings with the tyranny of the masses.

Yup...... sure.

This is a Cranston issue.

I will be decided by Cranston taxpayers and our duly elected local officials.

They are expected to serve the electorate in a way that mirrios the voters views.

Thanks for your concern, but we will handle this locally.

"A representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion." - Edmund Burke

" In the next election I will vote against any public official that opposes an appeal." - Cranston Resident

By the way, Edmund Burke was an Irish statesman who turned English.

Not from The United States.

Not From Rhode Island.

Not From Cranston.

He did not pay taxes in Cranston.

He did not vote in Cranston.

As opposed to that non-English-speaking Galilean Jewish rabbi you're so deferential to?

The beauty of a well-crafted thought, such as Burke's, is that it transcends its messenger to be universally appreciable. (I was reminded of its being used in Stone and Edwards' "1776," where it's spoken by GA delegate Lyman Hall to John Adams, to explain his decision to vote for the Declaration of Independence, despite popular sentiment in Georgia.)

Lol. Primary and secondary schools are financed by local taxes; your attempt to assert a financial stake in this school as a "federal taxpayer" is imbecilic. Did you retrieve your advanced degree from a Cracker Jack box, "Professor" Sweet?

That "non-English-speaking Galilean Jewish rabbi" you refer to is Jesus Christ our savior.

He is son of God.

And God is omnipresent and all-knowing.

He transcends the GA delegate, John Adams, Edmund Burke and even "Ross Stapleton-Gray".

And yes "Ross Stapleton-Gray", I am deferential to Him.

Well I have a suggestion. Anyone who want to appeal should sign an undertaking that in the event the appeal is lost they will be liable personally for the cost of the appeal, including the costs of the winning side. The costs when the appeal is lost (as it would be) would then fall of those who wanted an appeal, and not on those who did not.

If you are so keen on an appeal, and so certain you win what do you have to loose ? Other than your house that is.

@Kimberly writes “what do we have to lose?”

Just another $170,000 more of ACLU attorney’s fees when you lose again.

Kimberly... Although it is highly unlikely they will appeal, I support the appeal 100%. And really, I would like to see it tied up in the court system for years, no matter what the fees are.

As a Cranston resident and taxpayer, I fine with my share of the bill...

What do you have to loose ? A lot. The board already owes around $175,00 to the ACLU in costs. The ACLU did not ask for their full costs. An appeal will likely more than double that if the school-board looses. Are you willing to underwrite the costs will the others who want to appeal, so that if you loose you and the others will pay out of your own pocket ?

Yes Matt, that is my position... APPEAL.

We all pay taxes and a lot of cities and towns pay taxes for stuff a lot worst than this... That is a fact.

Ed,

So when the appeal is lost, will you be paying the bill so that the school children of Cranston do not suffer ?

I'm in for my share and I don't have a problem with that....

That's what is good in America, we all don't see eye to eye... Me, I don't care one way or the other about the banner... BUT, if the Athiests ever lost this all hell would break out...

I think all of the .07% of their population will be here tonight... This is their SUPERBOWL, it is that big...lol

How, in your opinion, has Jessica's family shown “cult-like fervor”? From my point of view, the “crazed, cult-like fervor”—such as conducting school board hearings like revival meetings, treating their opponents as embodiments of evil, terrorism, and “excommunicating” members of the community with ostracism—has all only come from people who want to keep the School Prayer up no matter what.

Someday in the future, I think Jessica should look back on her heroic stand with pride. She’s accomplishing more before graduation than some adults do before midlife. It’s really very inspiring.

Howard... I couldn't agree with you more... The problem is that the girl isn't getting any proper guidence at all... What she is getting is being throw to the wolves so that other adults can live their lives and wishes through her and thus a victory for them.

They are not looking toward her future when she has to look back and tell nothing but sad stories. I'll bet then she wishes she never did it... PERIOD!!!

The problem isn't that the banner offended her. The problem is that the banner is illegal. Nobody disagrees with the uplifting message on the banner. The problem is that it's a prayer to the Christian God being displayed in a public school. If they took out the words that made is a prayer, and simply made it a school pledge (like Jessica proposed to the school board before the lawsuit) then there wouldn't be a problem.

To call Jessica a pawn is a huge insult to her. She knows exactly what she is fighting for. She is one of the kindest, most mature teenagers I have ever met, and I am sure years from now she will look back on this and be proud of herself for upholding the constitution of the US.

@Ed

In Jessica’s own not-at-all-sad words, it’s all been “worth it”: http://cranston.patch.com/articles/ahlquist-fight-over-mural-despite-harrassment-threats-worth-it

Robin... Yes, she says that now, we all agree with that. She has all the Pack Animals coming in from all over to worship her.

Fast forward just 5 years and she what she says when all the Pack Animals went on with life and she's left to deal the Cranston residents who won't forget..

Next speech???

Not a Cranston resident, so I would not be injured financially in an appeal but every American will die a little if the School Board doesn't! As a retired veteran on SS I will make a contribution to help lighten the Cranston peoples costs. For EVIL to Win it requires Good Men to do NOTHING! Trust me this is a tremendous victory for the enemy of Democracy - the ACLU who attacks G-d at ever opportunity but who's silence is deafening when it comes to speaking of the Executive branch of government usurping the Congress of the United States!

It is so evident that letters like this are coming from people who do not even know the structure of decision making in the City of Cranston.

There is no "Banner Committee" in Cranston. There is a Mayor, City Council, and School Committee. They will be making the decision. They are elected by Cranston taxpayers like me who are in favor of an appeal and who are willing to pay for it. We are the people of Cranston who expect the officials we elect to represent our views.

It is nice that all of the atheists who are not residents of Cranston are willing to impart their wisdom on the citizens of Cranston.

Thank you for your concern, but this will be decided by Cranston taxpayers and the people they elect to office.

Mr Eberhard,

I read your letter and congratulate you on getting this issue right.

My guess is, the school board will eventually look at their dwindling budget and conclude that the PUBLIC school system can no longer afford to squander its scrace monies on the religious agenda of Cranston's vocal majority.

The student Jessica will learn what kind of character her so-called Christian o are made up of. What decent grownup attacks a high school student for standing up for principle? Shame on them!

"Mayor, City Council, and School Committee [Board]"=banner committee

As to "It is nice that all of the atheists who are not residents of Cranston are willing to impart their wisdom on the citizens of Cranston." Glad you appreciate that all Americans should be concerned about violations of the Constitution, and not just the local residents in each area where it occurs.

Remember, you're paying those taxes whether the appeal occurs or not. If the decision is appealed, the money goes to fighting against something that has consistently been ruled unconstitutional in many forms for many years. If the decision is not appealed, the money goes to actually educating the youth of Cranston. You can support wasting money that is earmarked for education on an unwinnable court battle if you want, but don't be surprised if people tell you that this is a bad idea.

And the residents of Cranston find the views of atheists who live outside of our state, to be irrelevant to our local decision making.

It isn't surprising you don't understand that constitutional violations are (or should be) of interest to all Americans.

"I'm a Canadian atheist..."

You have my sympathy.

Why does he need your sympathy ?

Sympathy? Is that the best the pious of Cranston can offer? I demand giggles, lots of giggles.

I am going to take guess here that you have not actually read the ruling. Am I right ? And if I am, care to explain why not ?

One other thing. JT Eberhard has been involved in legal issues involving schools and religion for some while, given his position within the Secular Students Alliance. He has actually had experience in this field, and know what the courts have ruled in the past. It seems for some reason you went missing the day you were supposed to cover that.

The Soviet Union had it right in their opposition to organized religion.

Thomas Jefferson, writing Jan. 1, 1802:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Not to mention that actual experts in Constitutional law disagree with you, and instead side with myself and Mr. Eberhard.

Robert Obrien is impersonating others in this thread. The Soviet Union comment was him.

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/big-vote-on-prayer-banner-appeal-thursday#comment_2490001

Testing a hypothesis...

Can you yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Can you utter 'fighting words' and have limited recourse against an attacker?

Freedom of speech is in the constitution, and there's nothing about restrictions upon it. Yet, there are restrictions--many, in fact.

Funny how common law and jurisprudence works.

Well JT's father has also shown he has an excellent grasp of the law in respect of separation of church and state in schools. More than you show.

I note your snide comment about their brains. Not very classy. Let me guess, you are a Christian right ?

Oh, and learn how to use the reply function. It is not very difficult, so even should be able to manage it.

Mr. OBrien:

I'm sure you can find those who will accept that your educated version of our constitution and established jurisprudence surpasses that of decades of Supreme Court justices. Of course,there are likely a good plenty who will snicker and figure that generations of judicial experts got it right and you didn't. I know where the smart money is going on that bet.

For the rest, I'm assuming that since name calling and ad hominems are all you have to offer, that you really have no good arguments to present, but are desperately hoping that someone will get down and roll in the mud with you.

Have a nice day.

Now O'Brien, John Eberhard's reply to you is classy.

Would you care to explain just why you your interpretation of the law is right, and decades of legal opinion from the Supreme Court and other courts is wrong ? Only it seems a bit arrogant of you to be claiming you know the law better than they do. How long have you been qualified to practice law ?

I bet you think you know better than scientists when it comes to evolution and climate change as well.

As a "professional atheist" JT stands up for a minority. Specifically he stands up for a minority within high schools across America. I'd say that's a decent, fulfilling "real" job if I've ever seen one. I'm not sure what you mean by "con law," because JT only site the constitution and court cases that have already been settled which uphold the rights of religious (and nonreligious) minorities.

Also, I believe you might be confused. John (his father) posted the link to the letter which was written by JT.

Robert,

You either did not read the letter you're electing to comment on or you've chosen to ignore it. Whatever my expertise on the matter, I don't have to be an expert to point out that the experts disagree with you - and did so in the letter.

"There is no question that the overwhelming majority of church/state separation cases in what has undoubtedly and unarguably been a nation of Judeo-Christian background have nevertheless come down on the side of separation. Let’s face it: until recently the population has been around 90% Judeo-Christian. That is the background of every single Supreme Court Justice ever, and clearly and consistently “separation” has been the winner. They haven’t done this because of their religious beliefs, but in spite of them. Those demanding an appeal will believe they know more about applicable legal historical context than generations of Supreme Court justices, but no objective on-looker will buy that story."

In the letter, I also predicted that people would use this specious argument in precisely the way you just have. Am I a prophet or what?

For your separation of church and state not being in the constitution argument, I've rebutted that here.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/01/23/separation-of-church-and-state-isnt-in-the-constitution/

"Article 3 gives the SCOTUS the authority to make the call on separation, and they have made it. The legal precedents are well established, that bell is rung, and you can’t unring it."

I think the relevant point is not whether you, me, JT, or his father are experts on Constitutional law. The relevant point is that U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux is. You're arguing to spend money that should go to educating the youth of Cranston on a legal battle that you will undoubtedly lose. Funny how us atheists seem to care more about the health of your educational system than you do.

It is now apparent how low the atheists will bow in order to hijack this discussion and turn it into a cicus.

THE STATEMENT ABOVE WAS MADE BY A PERSON WHO HACKED INTO MY PATCH ACCOUNT AND IS NOT MY VIEW.

ATTENTION PATCH MODERATORS: PLEASE DELETE THIS ACCOUNT AND YOU ALSO MIGHT THINK ABOUT INSTALLING SOME GOOD SECURITY SOFTWARE.

Cranston Resident learn some terms YOUR ACCOUNT WAS NOT High Hijacked someone created a new account with a name similar to yours, "Another Cranston Resident". That is not " hacking" nor is it "high jacking" any one that can read can see the difference between "ANOTHER Cranston Resident" As an Atheist I would say that the idea of having an account with a name similar to yours is silly and childish.

As usual you have not made an augment based on evidence rather you are making a point based on emotion and conjecture. You Jump to the conclusion that this was done by an Atheist. The only way you know this is to KNOW who set up the second account. if that is the case NAME them. It is possible for ANYBODY to set up a new account, with any name even one similar to yours. I COULD be an atheist. It COULD REALLY BE another Cranston resident-someone else who lives in the city who does not like the things you say and the light you put the city in. Another possibility, I am not saying this is the case but it is on the "list of possibilities" it could be YOU! It is not unheard of that a person might have more than one account. You could have opened a 2nd account posted something and then complained about it to make you look like a Vitim

Paul,

You are incorrect. This person originally named the account Cranston Resident and then renammed it after I objected.

It is a transparent ploy brought about by a group here that has lost their arguments legitimately.

Now you have made it apparent that the culprit is you.

Grow up.

Cranston Resident did not make a mistake here. "Another Cranston Resident" originally read "Cranston Resident". I can assure "Cranston Resident" that their account was not hijacked; I used the normal registration procedure. I am an atheist and have been following this story for some time. Reading through the comments, I let my emotions get the better of me and, stupidyly, I registered and left a felicitous comment in an attempt to illustrate a point -- that point being that there are some principles in this country that we don't get to ignore at a local level just because we disagree with them. I chose "Cranston Resident" because I thought that it was some sort of generic username assigned to folks registering on the site who elected to not give their real name. In retrospect, that sounds dubious but again, I had let my emotions get the best of me and was acting hastily. As soon as the real "Cranston Resident" replied, I realized my error, of course. So, I changed the username to "Another Cranston Resident". In summary, the charge from the real "Cranston Resident" was mainly correct in that the original username I chose was the same as theirs (although no "hacking" was involved).

Paul/JT -- I apologize for wrapping you all up in this -- you all are fighting the good fight and this idiotic action on my part only distracts from that.

To "Cranston Resident" - It was not my intent to act as though I posting as you *specifically* although it turned out that way. My sincere apologies.

Another Cranston Resident,

That was not me. That was a sock puppet made by Robert Obrien.

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/big-vote-on-prayer-banner-appeal-thursday#comment_2490001

No apologies necessary.

Thanks JT.

Nonetheless, I still owe an apology to "Cranston Resident" and to all the other atheists on here who are acting in good faith which I failed to do. Won't happen again.

Joe Geiger

Forgiven, That said I hope you will take some coaching. I take these issues very seriously, The term culture war, is an accurate description it is a war. A war for freedom of though and reason. The religious right likes to talk about the "war on religion". The truth is the church is not under attack, rather the church is waging war on reason. It is easy to get your buttons pushed in these conversations, you can't let that happen. The only thing the religious right has is emotion and they are masters at manipulating people's emotion's to their own ends. We have empirical evidence, reason and logic. When we mix these things with compassion we can start to heal, ourselves and those who have had their lives tainted by religion.
Playing games dose nothing to heal. Always stay evidence based, be upfront and logical.

if you would like to know more about how I came out of religion check out my youtube, many people say that I should not let these events dictate my view of god or the church. Keep in mind the events discussed in this video are why I LEFT the church. They do not motivate the stand I take against ALL religions, not just Christians. The activism I do now is to protect people from religion and is based on my graduate training in counseling and Educational Psychology, years of pouring through controlled studies and working with folks one on one. so the events in the video got me to leave, reason and compassion move me now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAlle_fsdcs

Incredible! You've really never studied law? One can only wonder why you are in this thread and not, say, in a court room explaining these things to experts on law with years of studying but who have somehow never heard this argument.

Of course, what use do you have for the experts? In your last comment you expressed disdain for the opinions of those in the black robes on the subject of law. It always seems that this type of arrogance is only ever found in the heads of believers playing martyr.

Do you also think you know biology better than biologists? Perhaps you believe yourself to be a savant on physics, with greater understanding than the consensus of the experts on that subject.

Perhaps you think access to google (and to others who think they know better than the legal experts) allows you to view yourself as more clever than people who have spent their lives immersed in the law (and who are given the authority to make that call by Article 3 of the Constitution you claim to love so much).

""The problem is that the banner is illegal"
No, it is not."

Well, according to the judge hearing the case: Yes, it is. He is the one with the legal authority at this point in time to make that call, now isn't he? Surely it isn't Robert OBrien. Robert OBrien would like the readers to believe he knows more than and can overcall those legally deputed to make the call.....but he doesn't and he can't. However, he wants you to bet your money on his constitutional analysis of the issue over that of the judge who has already declared him to be wrong. While his version is entertaining, it has failed to convince generations of justices. Note: Even if he were right (he isn't), he will not get the court to overturn decades of established precedent. It's your money,and if you would rather bet it on his constitutional interpretation and legal precedent over that of U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux, have at it. Unfortunately , not only is it your money, it is money that is earmarked for the education of kids. It isn't just your money you are gambling, it is their education dollars.

"No, it is not."

The judge, the one with the authority to make that call, and virtually every judge in the last century who has faced a similar case, has said otherwise. You probably know better though.

"She is fighting for a phantom Constitution that does not exist."

The judge, the ones vested by the consitution with the authority to make that call, and virtually every judge in the last century who has faced a similar case, has said the intent of the Constitution was separation, just like how they've said the intent was in opposition to slavery, even though those words are not in the document. You probably know better though.

Of course, how do we tell the difference between you and some random guy without so much as a law class under his belt who has somehow found the arrogance to believe he knows better than the consensus of those who have spent their lives dedicated to its study?

Well a judge who is a position to make a ruling on the matter has said it is. Since it is judge's opinion that matters and not yours, your claim that it has not been ruled illegal is both wrong and dishonest.

Care to explain why you are saying things that are both wrong and dishonest ? I presume your intention is not to make us think you a fool.

The judge hearing the case has the final say, and the judge is sympathetic to our cause.

Once more, the John Eberhard who said "The judge hearing the case has the final say, and the judge is sympathetic to our cause" is a sock puppet, a false account. Click on its name to see its comment history.

This has likely been done by Robert OBrien who later cites John Eberhard saying something that is completely absent from this thread (run a ctrl+f search for "The Soviet Union had it right in their opposition to organized religion" to find my explanation).

What does this tell us? It tells us that someone is worried enough about losing in the discussion here to be dishonest. Also, if you have evidence that atheists wish to remove religion from society (rather than just thinking it's silly), you generally don't have to fabricate evidence to that end.

Proof Robert Obrien is the one making sock puppets.

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/big-vote-on-prayer-banner-appeal-thursday#comment_2490001

Bottom right of the pane your comments appear in. It defies belief you can claim you have not seen it.

This is a puppet account with only one comment on this whole thread. It was not left by John Eberhard. Click the name to confirm this.

What does this tell us? It tells us that someone is worried enough about losing in the discussion here to be dishonest. Also, if you have evidence that atheists wish to remove religion from society (rather than just thinking it's silly), you generally don't have to fabricate evidence to that end.

Robert Obrien is the one doing this.

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/big-vote-on-prayer-banner-appeal-thursday#comment_2490001

And we will tear the banners from your walls!

Again, the John Eberhard in this thread is a sock puppet. It's someone posing as John Eberhard. You may click this John Eberhard's name to see the sock puppet's comment history.

I suspect this is Robert OBrien. Below he quotes John Eberhard as saying something that John Eberhard never said (see "The Soviet Union had it right in their opposition to organized religion." use a ctrl+f search if need be).

Proof that Robert is the culprit.

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/big-vote-on-prayer-banner-appeal-thursday#comment_2490001

No, you have done nu such thing. You have shown you do not understand US constitutional law.

However please go at it. Take the ruling apart paragraph by paragraph showing why the judge got it wrong, and why the precedents he cites do not apply. Not doint this is not an option open to you, since you are required to be honest and honesty requires you do so.

The quote presented here as being from Mr. Eberhard has not been posted anywhere else on this thread. Why does Robert think it has?

Unless, of course, he is the one who made the puppet account and didn't post something to which he was already planning to respond.

Tell me again how religion makes people better morally.

I am sorry for the confussion. I did write that comment.

Proof here. http://cranston.patch.com/articles/big-vote-on-prayer-banner-appeal-thursday#comment_2490001

Or you're that guy! :)

Yes, yes...something about how I shouldn't write about subjects in which I don't have an academic background (even if it's just citing the consensus of the experts).

How does that gel with...

"...so are the people upon whom you rely, whether they wear black robes or not."

And now, back to ignoring you.

O'Brien,

Please explain how the following are incorrectly cited by the judge:

Engale v Vitale
Valley Forge Community School V Americans for the Separation of Church and State, Inc.
Chicage & Grand Trunk R. Co V Wellman
Industrial Communications V Town of Alton, NH
Lujan V Defenders of Wildlife
Elk Grove Unified School District V Newdow
Abbington School District V Schempp
Lee V Weisman
McCreary County V ACLU
Lemon V Kurtzman
Hunt V McNair
Freedom From Religion Foundation V Hanover School District
Lynch V Donnelly
Orden V Peary
County of Allegheny V ACLU
Santa De Independent School District V Doe
Edwards V Aguillard
Stone V Graham

You will be familiar with those rulings, or at least heard of them, since they are cited in the ruling, which you have read.

Wait I did write that.

Sorry.

Robert is bearing false witness again. Click the link for proof.

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/big-vote-on-prayer-banner-appeal-thursday#comment_2490001

Odd you should say that. Above you quote "John Eberhard" as saying "The Soviet Union had it right in their opposition to organized religion"

I could not find that anywhere else in this thread. But just recently it popped up. The problem is there is a difference in their time stamps.

When you quote "John Eberhard" it was at 2:34 pm.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/files/2012/02/liar1.jpg

But when the comment actually got posted it was at 2:50pm.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/files/2012/02/liar2.jpg

Now how could you have known what "John Eberhard" would say 16 minutes early? Perhaps god really does answer prayers...or perhaps you were engaging in behavior that was juvenile and dishonest and served no purpose.

Of course, it does serve a purpose. It exposes you for being a liar, it concludes that religious faith doesn't help make people more moral, and it suggests there is no evidence that atheists really believe the things you were saying with your sock puppet - otherwise you'd just cite them rather than fabricating quotes.

See above. Someone is impersonating John Eberhard.

It's you.

Wait.... no I did post that.

No I didn't.

Yes I did.

Who am I talking to?

Me.

Do I relly exist?

Or am I just a figment of my imagination?

Ohhh....

Now Obrien is impersonating me. Please click people's names to ensure that it is not merely one of Obrien's dishonest sock puppets.

It's you.

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/big-vote-on-prayer-banner-appeal-thursday#comment_2490001

This guy is a liar and a troll. I'd ignore him.

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/big-vote-on-prayer-banner-appeal-thursday#comment_2490001

So you admit to seeing a reply button, which is something you denied earlier.

What is it about using the reply button that you cannot understand ?

I have a clue.

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/big-vote-on-prayer-banner-appeal-thursday#comment_2490001

Hi there. To start with, you ought to know that Christian Arabs refer to God as Allah. However, I get your point. I do not care to address hypothetical situations, although I will say (or rather write) this, however: just because we do not like the potential ramifications of a Constitutional argument does not mean we are free to dismiss it.

Likely because it took me more than three minutes to write the comment. You're a liar and you got caught.

Likely because I was still assuming it wasn't present.

For those curious what we're talking about, click here.

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/big-vote-on-prayer-banner-appeal-thursday#comment_2490001

Oh, give it up, Robert, you're nicked.

By the way, would you be the same Robert O'Brien who was banned from the Dispatches from the Creation Wars blog, and whom they name their Idiot of the Month award after? ( http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/category/robert-obrien-nominee/ ) The math teacher?

Where do I make that claim that I read the ruling? These sorts of rulings rest on a rotten foundation and I need only argue against that.

You claimed the ruling was wrong. To do that you must have read it, since otherwise you cannot know why the judge ruled as he did and without knowing that you cannot know the ruling was wrong.

Now please address the issue of precedents Legeuex cited, and explain why each and everyone of them is wrong. It really is quite a simple request for someone who claims to have your grasp of US Constitutional law, and claims to have done the checking you claim to have done.

Or are you just a liar ?

Danke.

I would appreciate it if you would confirm that I am not impersonating anyone.

May I suggest O'Brien be banned for his admitted dishonesty ?

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/big-vote-on-prayer-banner-appeal-thursday#comment_2490001

"I would appreciate it if you would confirm that I am not impersonating anyone."

Well I think you have been trying to impersonate an intelligent person, but have been failing miserably at it.

You just use the reply button on the original comment.

It is not hard. I would have thought an idiot could work it out, but you have proved me wrong on that.

For what company, Ed?

So you said already, Robert. So, what you're saying is, "I say so, that settles it," again much like your religious belief. Please enlighten us with your sophisticated legal analysis that is apparently more perspicacious than all of the federal judges who have ruled on this issue over the years. And while you're at it, you might want to check out the "Dunning-Kruger" effect and ask yourself if maybe that applies to you. As I said, willful ignorance is not a virtue.