Hey Chief Marco Palombo Jr. SUCK MY GLOCK ! ! !
"Called in for questioning" Ha, Ha! Just TRY it!

Hmm yeah. Threatening with someone with violence for asking that the law be upheld is a totally proportionate response (/sarcasm). How dare she deprive Christians of their right to force their beliefs down everyone's throats!

Commenters at the Providence Journal site posted her home address and called for physical brutality against not only Miss Ahlquist, but her younger siblings and her sick mother. People have the right to voice their opinion, but not to threaten physical violence and murder. To suggest otherwise is to deny the tradition of civil discourse that made this country great.

I'd like to provide you with a link to some of the comments made about Miss Ahlquist and her family: http://jesusfetusfajitafishsticks.blogspot.com/2012/01/ahlquist-screenshots-if-by-christian.html

Read through those, if you have a strong stomach, and then come back and tell me if you think that those reactions are justified.

Edward,
The people that are continuing to post these reprehensible threats are as ignorant and opportunistic as the original posters. Continuing the display of this garbage is also a continuation of the abuse that Ahlquist is being subjected to.

Cranston Resident,

Assuming you're the same "Cranston Resident" who's been posting on this site for the past couple days about this case, don't give me the "I care about Jessica Ahlquist and want the best for her, you're hurting her :( " act. You don't care about Miss Ahlquist, you just don't want people to see that so-called Christians threatened her life, because that would hurt your religion's image. Those screenshots aren't going to go away, CR, and suggesting that condemning the statements is equivalent to making the statements in the first place is disingenuous.

What doesn't the Judge understand about the Constitution, Mr. Davis? It seems that he was pretty clear on the establishment clause, at least. Are you more of a Constitutional authority than the man who's spent his life studying it? If so, what exactly was the judge's mistake?

Why are the police not investigating those that threaten my freedom?

Becuase David, as far as I know, no one has threatened you saftey or you life, Are you really that unintellegent?

Clearly not as unintelligent (unitellegent) as you seem to be. I never said anyone threatened my life or my (of you would say me) life.
Grammar much?

Gee Dave I am so sorry about a few typos, As I have mentioned in other posts I have Cerebral Palsy this makes keyboarding difficult. So no Dave the typos are not a result of my IO, rather they are a result of a disability, That said I should have proof read more carefully and caught those things.

The more interesting thing here is that you hid behind the typos in order to not respond to my actual point which was that you are comparing apples and oranges. I never said that you said your life was threatened. I was suggesting that your so called "threat to your freedom" which you never provide a concrete, real life example of most likely did not involve a threat to your life, or a threat of bodily harm. so you experience cannot be compared to what Jess is going through. If your safety or life is being threatened then by all means you too should have police protection. Up to now you have not given us any evidence that your freedoms are in jeopardy in any way shape or form. Which freedoms do you reefer to? Can you tell me how YOUR LIFE has been effected by the judge's decision?

During the entire ordeal Jessica never said a single insulting or hateful thing about Christians, or their beliefs, yet you're all making a point of hating her because she dared to oppose your beliefs and ask that US law be respected. I think you'll find that you're the amoral ones, not her.

Moonshell,

I have read every entry on Jessica Ahlquist's blog, and every relevant message on her Twitter page, and have not seen one hateful thing that she has said about Christians. Can you quote me something of that nature and provide a link?

Read my comment again. I didn't say it was Jessica making these offensive remarks. But if you read the rest of the posts on this thread and others related to this issue, you would see that many atheists on these threads have posted remarks which are offensive and insulting to people of faith and some even immoral.

I agree 100% with you. It's not ok what people are saying about this anti-christian freak family; yet the immoral things I found that the anti-christians posted are ok though? This stuff is so offensive I can't even believe it! Here's an example---a fake twitter page one of them made about a girl who told the atheists off: https://twitter.com/#!/taylercrocker

>>"it's not ok what people are saying..."

Good! I'm glad we agree!

>>"...about this anti-christian freak family!"

Oh. Way to contradict yourself there, Melanie.

Wonderful Kathy!!

I did not say that all people of faith are good. They are certainly not.

I am saying that some atheists are not good and are making immoral comments on these threads. Read before you comment.

And please do not patronize us people of faith in the way that many non-believers do. You would characterize faitha as "comforting" and as having "blinders of religion" or as "shackles of an ancient superstition". Many very intelligent people of faith happen to see the reality that all that has been created and exists did not happen by chance.

So you see these comments you have made are insults to us even though you do not recognize them as such. And any rationalization you present to defend your rude and innacurate description of faith will not make your comments any less offensive to us.

Please do not justify your own ignorant remarks by saying they are a response for rude remarks left by some people of faith.

This is exactly the weird logic that Jessica is fighting. "Our Heavenly Father" is a Christian-only term, many non-Christians do not see any value in prayer and the banner does, in fact, violate the Constitution, if you read the judges decision. If you spent two seconds researching past Supreme Court decisions, rather than just reading one book over and over, you might begin understand the nuisances of Constitutional Law and Constitutional Rights.

"Commenters at the Providence Journal site posted her home address and called for physical brutality against not only Miss Ahlquist, but her younger siblings and her sick mother."

Is that mere "venting," Ed? That sounds like a terroristic threat made by these bullies. Making terroristic threats is a violation of the law. There's nothing "rightful" about it. Please read some of the statements made by Jessica's schoolmates, then see if you can defend it as simply blowing off steam.

You can find the threats here: http://jesusfetusfajitafishsticks.blogspot.com/2012/01/ahlquist-screenshots-if-by-christian.html

First Ed let be be up front here and state that I personally don't or approve of the things that were written and the threats that were made.
My point is simple here, her school mates don't like what she did, period... They are venting to show their dissatisfaction with it, (Psychology 101).
They are all doing it on their keyboards behind the safety of their computer screens in the comfort of their houses. There is no one going to her house, harming her or her family... she will be fine unless she provokes someone in another way in a face to face situation. Then I would think that would be a problem but I'm positive she has already been told that by the police...
That is why I said it is venting, it is a hot topic and they are all feeding off each other, it will calm down shortly...

Edward Vidakovic...
I am so sorry that you are out of touch with today's youth... As I stated before and I will state again, they are only venting behind the safety of their computer screen...
If everyone followed your rational we would have the National Guard posted at her side 24-7... You just don't get it, period...
I don't approve of the comments either, but you need a touch of reality...
Nuff Said...

What a puddle of intellectual mush.

Denominationalism isn’t required for a prayer to violate the constitution, but anyway, if you actually meant the prayer to be non-denominational, you simply failed. Intentions or concepts are irrelevant.

The banner has always been unconstitutional. It's unconstitutionality has now finally been litigated and brought to light in court.

Apparently your "moral standards" involve violating the US Constitution. That’s just pathetic. Morality is not simply adhering to your bronze-age superstitions, and the rest of us are moral without them, thanks. Witness the wonderful moral behavior of the Christians now hurling foul expletives and threatening physical violence against Jessica. That’s the kind of morality your banner has contributed to: narrow-minded, bigoted, exclusive, absolutist, hateful, and reeking of wanna-be theocrats.

Your simple minded moral theories are quaint and worth a nostalgic smile for an imaginary time in the past, and thanks for the reminder of Ozzie & Harriet and the Beaver, but such childish ideas aren’t really useful in a constitutional republic of diverse peoples and beliefs.

Furthermore what role do you play? Where is your responsibility? You have every right to the feelings you have about seeing your creation removed. You worked hard on it and it was a part of you. You and others also have a right to follow any legal course you wish to overturn the ruling. But you also have a responsibility to speak out against the treats and violence committed in the name of saving the banner. I have not seen you do so. Now, just because I have not seen it does not mean you have not spoken out against this. Have you?
You may remember me; I have a disability and spoke at the final meeting where the decision was made to go to court. (the only reason I bring up the Cerebral Palsy is it helps people identify me. It is a bit more significant the “brown hair” ) I noticed the difference in the two sides that night. And it has become even more pronounced. I point out the pro banner folks often booed and hissed as people spoke in favor of taking the banner down. While the people advocating for the removal of the banner din not cat call. When I pointed this out there was no one that challenged me on that. Why did no one challenge me? Because it was an accurate statement. This divide has grown by leaps and bounds, and has evolved from cat calls to death threats. Are you ok with that?

Tell me how has the behavior of the "keep the banner people” lived up to your prayer? I REALLY want to know.
Grant us each day the desire to do our best,
is threatening and harassing really your best? Is there not another way to make your dismay known? You have a right to being disappointed, but does sending death wishes really reveal your "best"?
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically,
How does this behavior show moral or physical growth?
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers ,
Is calling a student "puke" helpful or kind?
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win, So good sports want the winner to die? Or call the winner “a trained seal” I don’t see many of you smiling
Teach us the value of true friendship,
Where is the friendship here, Jess threatened no one. Yes you have a different world view. Jess took a legal and fair action to reach a goal. But you side can’t see beyond that. There is more to life than a banner.
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.
Threats, wanting to run here out of town deport her kill her. Does this bring credit to Cranston High School West? The truth is not only have the “pro banner people disgraced the school, but they rendered the pray null and void, and if there is a god I am sure he has turned his head in shame and will no longer look upon those who claim his name.

How do you feel about or explain the fact that people who support you writing have threatened Jessica? I am not asking you to comment on the decision I am asking you to comment on the reaction to the decision. Do you support people threatening someone who took a legal path and got a result that they do not like? Is this in the spirit of your prayer?

I love the ideals in the prayer; I just don’t think we need someone from the outside to impart them to us. We need to work at cultivating them within ourselves. In fact this is one of the problems I have with the banner. It teaches people to look outside of themselves for answers that they need to relay on an outside force to give them the ability to do the right thing. It takes responsibility away from people for their choices. That is unhealthy, I say this as someone who holds a Masters degree in Educational Psychology, and have dedicated by life to helping children develop into healthy adults. The message of the banner is unhealthy and harmful, it says you are not responsible for your behavior, if you don’t do your best, are not kind, growing in all areas of life, are, not helpful, if you can’t keep you wins and losses in perspective, and forge meaningful relationship. It is not your fault. It has nothing to do with the choices you made. The Heavenly Farther simply has not given these things to you, that’s how the banner is harmful.

Dave I truly want to be respectful of you. Not just as the author of prayer but as a human being let me ask you a few questions, and I am honestly asking. I wrote this out in word and pasted it here backwards so it would flow when one read down. I am asking honest questions hoping for honest answers.

I think I pasted it wrong please use the time stamps to read my not in order

Hey Paul,

If ever there was "puddle of intellectual mush"....
your five consecutive posts would certainly fit that description.

So Cranston Resident ,this shows that ,unlike you, I can think beyond "bumper sticker" mentality, I am well aware that this was posted publicly and anyone has the right to read it, but no one is required to, if you did not want to read all five post why did you? Keep in mind it was not addressed to you, so if you did not want to read it you have every right not to. What I find even more interesting is that neither you or David Bradley, the person that it was addressed to, bothered to respond to the content of my posts. To be fair David may not have seen it yet, so he could not respond, But you made a point of the fact that you have seen and read it, and borrowed someone's dig (because you lack the ability to come up with one of your own) which really did not bother me because it was not like you were using my own words against me. However you made it clear that you read all five posts, something I am sure was a challenge for you. Could you comment on the content instead of the length? Since you have a bumper stick mentality I found a web site to help you gather your thoughts. now all you need to do is cut and pate like you did with your borrowed dig. See you don't even have to think http://www.zazzle.com/politics+bumperstickers

Maryann Papa Jessica's family are tax payers as well. As tax payers they have the right to utilize the police as needed, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT THAN GO POUND SAND. If we are going to use your logic then we must apply it across the board. That would mean the fools on you school committee who wasted tax dollars on a fight they were doomed to loose and you did loose should pay for the legal fees out of their own pockets. If they agreed to this then I would support charging . At least the legal fees are not something the members of the school committee ALREADY PAID FOR as is the case with the police duties, the family is simply getting a service they already paid for through their tax dollars. I have an Idea, if we want to make some one pay twice for a service, why don't we charge the families of those threatening Jessica for the police services they created a need for,

Taxpayers like you were happy to have a constitutional violation in a public school and the taxpayers' school board had the opportunity to remedy the crime before trial but refused, partially because of political pressure from taxpayers like you, and now you deny responsibility or complicity for the crime, but instead want the victim to pay the costs. In the same way, because taxpayers and their children are threatening physical violence to the Ahlquists - the victims who REMEDIED THE CRIME (!) - you want the victims to pay for the police protection? What delusional thinking. The criminal pays the costs of litigation, whenever possible, not the victim. And if you want the perpetrators and parents of perpetrators of actionable threats to pay for the police protection, a more plausible idea, go to civil court to get a judgment against them, if you can. But you're simply dissatisfied at the judgment and reacting irrationally. What bizarre inversions of right and wrong.

Maryann: You must know that the deck has been stacked, since at least the LBJ 60s, in favor of the ACLU. If Cranston wants to fight they have to pay the ACLUs bills as well as their own. This has been the key device of the ACLU all these years; to pick on weak or marginal cities or entities and dare them to defy lawsuits against morality and patriotism. 'Nuff said. The Cranston issue is just another ploy by the ACLU and Jessica "what's her name" is nothing but a trained seal doing their bidding and getting 15 minutes of fame.

whats good about it ED?

No, thanks…can't get on board your sinking ship of fetid theocracy, but thanks for your contribution to the "wouldn't it be nice if we could just go back to the 50's" show, and support for bronze-age mythology, here in parochial RI.

There are, in fact, constitutional grounds for removing the banner. Cranston High School, as a part of America's public school system, is a facet of the federal government, and is therefore subject to the constitutional prohibition on establishing one religion above another religion, or above a lack of religion. The banner advocated Christianity and was thus in violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. Jessica Ahlquist was not "warring on Christianity," as many have stated; she was ensuring the integrity of the Constitution and the fair treatment of religious minorities.

Also, I'd like to respond to your statement that "there are no constitutional grounds for prohibiting prayer in school." You're absolutely correct. That's why prayer is not prohibited in public schools. Students in public schools can pray whenever and however they like; it's called "Prayer Group" or "Christian Club" or "Bible Study." What is forbidden by the Constitution, and what you and others appear to want, is prayer to one specific deity, the Christian God, mandated by school officials and government employees. This would violate the establishment clause of the Constitution.

I'm glad you ignored the response to your previous comments and are instead posting pithy one-liners. It proves that you have no legitimate argument better than I ever could.

In response to the one-liner: There is physical evidence for atheists. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that atheists exist.

The opponents aren't violating free exercise, because they haven't taken away the right of anyone to pray when and how they like; they're simply ensuring the integrity of the establishment clause, which states that the federal government (of which Cranston High School and America's public school system is a part) must not establish one religion over another or over a lack of religion. The banner exhorted prayer to a monotheistic deity using specifically Christian language, meaning that it was in violation of the establishment clause.

The one-liner - "God does not believe in atheists, therefore; atheists do not exist." - is based on faulty logic. Most atheists don't believe in God because they see no physical evidence for his existence; however, there is much physical evidence for the existence of atheists, such as the fact that I'm typing this right now.

Thanks for the prayers; I'd suggest, however, that you pray first for the people who threatened the lives of Jessica Ahlquist, her siblings, and her mother. Best wishes.

So Joe you support the harassment of a teen age girl? And How can 2% of any population over run anything?

Actually, atheists now make up 16% of our society, and that number is growing rapidly. You should check out the latest census data.