If it was the City that was sued, and not the School Committee, will the same legal team be involved and offering free services now that the City is the only defendant?

This is diheartning, this is driven by greed and money. If this was about rights and frredom against religion then why ask for damages. This girl should be ashamed of herself and the ACLU should be ashamed. With all the problems in the world why are we wasting time with this.

In whom do we trust? Sal

This has nothing to do with money. This is a clash between people who feel they have a right to impose their religious views on everyone, and those who appreciate that the Constitution protects them from such imposition. Had the School Board voted to remove the Prayer Banner (and they knew full well that it would cost them up to a million dollars to defend it) then they would not be in this position. When you violate the Constitution, you pay the price.

Governmentally sponsored entities ( schools, public buildings etc ... ) MUST exhibit religious neutrality regardless of history, tradition or personal feelings.

Erase history? On the contrary. It is an action designed to alter a "situation" that was incorrect from the beginning. Emotions should not cloud the reason the lawsuit was brought about by the ACLU.

I am not 100% convinced what side I am favoring at this juncture but what I do am sure about is that this matter at Cranston West should be re-examined regardless of the time the banner was displayed, unchallenged.

Just my thoughts.

Explain to me how this banner constitutes anybody "imposing their religious views" on somebody? Nobody HAS to read this. Their is no penalty for NOT reading it. Therefore nothing is being imposed on anybody. The only ones "imposing their views" on anybody are the heathens demanding it be taken down so NOBODY can read it - even if they want to.
If it offends you - don't look at it. There are plenty of things/people that offend me. I ignore them.
Quite candidly, if the message from this banner offends you that much, you are in for one miserable and difficult life on this earth.

It is a banner that was a gift of art from the first clas of Cranston West, this is about $$$$, anyone who thinks other wise is a fool. You can file the same suit and get an attorney for free to fight to have the banner taken down, I wll say that again an attorney would have taken this case for her for free and filed suit to have the baner taken down. Going after $$$$ shows what these people are all about.

Does one "ignore" or "look the other way" when something is offensive and in plain view? No. It makes it convenient for those who favor the offensive entity.
A student, citizen or whomever has every right not to have something present that would make that very same individual initiate " looking the other way".
Stand up and challenge what you may find offensive and maybe some won't look the other way so often.
Sometimes, one has to take a stand, firmly place your feet on the ground and say " this is wrong and it has to change even if years ago it appeared proper". Is that NOT how this country became so great?
Money, religious feelings and morality aside.
The question is .... is that banner, on government property, "religious neutral " ?

I have my opinion. Do you ?

Jim C,
You say "A student, citizen or whomever has every right not to have something present that would make that very same individual initiate " looking the other way". "
Probably and fortunately, there is no "right" not to be offended. I see girls tattooed and pierced from head to toe. I find that offensive, and it makes me look the other way. Are you going to argue it is my right that she can't have those tattoos/piercings, or perhaps go near me where I might encounter her?
That is absurd.

Jim Hackett,

I'm not going to argue with you at all. You have your thoughts and I have mine.

No offense.

Enjoy the day !

Leave the banner as long as MY religion (The Church of the Oversized Syphilized Bloody Penis) can also have a banner... Offended? Look the other way.

Hey Steve... it has everything to do with money, that's why you're looking for monetary damages... it's okay to be greedy, just at least admit it. She wasn't offended at all last year and all of a sudden she's "injured" this year? You saw a chance for money and your name in the headlines and you jumped at it. Good for you... go for it! Just don't play it off as "Constitutional Rights".

This is the most rediculous thing that has ever been presented. This girl is CLEARLY just doing this because she CAN. So, this girl has been a student since freshman year, and now all the sudden she cares? This is in NO WAY a violation of church and state. Students at west are not required to pray, nor are they required to even LOOK at it. No one is even in the auditorium ever. It is historical, and is in no way going to jump out and bite her. There are plenty of athiests in this school, who dont care either way, and aernt going to be bothered by it. And what about the religious, we have a right to have it up in the school. one could EASILY say that they are offended by it being taken down. Its not fair to the religous childrn in the school. Jessica should be ASHAMED of herself for taking up a case against the school system in a room that she does not even go in.

I am offended that the Cranston Public Schools allowed Atheists to address the School Committee at a recent meeting. I did not want to look the other way at that meeting so I have asked the ACLU to represent me in my case against the School Committee because they allowed someone to discuss being an atheist at a public hearing inside a school. I am asking for 100 million dollars in damages.

When she sues, and goes to court, won't she have to put her hand on the Bible and raise her right hand to God? Maybe we should just add that to her "injury"!! Is Greed a religion?

RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY IN GOVERMENT FUNDED INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SCHOOLS.

UNSURE ?

READ ABOVE AGAIN

Can we just stop the silliness? It's on money, it's on buildings all over Washington DC, it's in the Pledge of Allegiance said ever day in school, its in the Star Spangled Banner that is sung at every high school game (although not in the first verse). References to God are ALL OVER this country in PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.
Why pretend it isn't?

Must be difficult to spend your entire life walking around offended by the religion all around her. It's a miracle she is able to make it through a day!!

There is just one problem with this. The girl claims she is an "Atheist" and is asking for religious neutrality. However, Atheism is not a religion. Religion is a belief by which to live by and answers questions after death. Atheism is a belief that there is no gods. It does not explain existence or life after death and is therefore not a religion. How can it be included in religious neutrality if it is not a religion itself.

Also, the definition of heavenly can refer to "sublime, delightful, or enchanting." Father, could be anyone's father. Amen simply means we believe. This does not say what to believe in nor does it advocate the christian faith. It is simply a prayer(which can be defined as "a fervent request" and does not have include a god) that advocates for students to strive to do their best work. It is a fervent request to our delightful dads that we may do our best work and act appropriately through our years at Cranston High School West.

Heavenly Father
Amen

Two key phrases that are contained within the "banner"
Two Religious Key phrases
Two key phrases that violate the separation of Church and State
Two key phrases that are key ingredients that violate religious neutrality on Governement sponsored buildings including but not limited to schools

Before anyone writes that " In God we trust " is on US Currency" or " God" is mentioned in courtrooms etc....remember to keep the topic at hand ( CHSW) in perspective. This is NOT a debate that should allow other constitutional issues to present themselves. Keep the debate simple.

Is the banner at CHSW inappropriate since it mentions Heavenly Father and Amen in a government sponsored public building? Personal feelings,morality, history, ethics aside. Is it ?

I have my thoughts. Do you ?

Joe,
Valid point. But look at the borader picture. It is NOT the level of offensiveness " on a wall" ....it is something much greater than that. It is a questionn of Constitutionality whether it be Federal or Local as was pointed out. There are issues that are of grave concern. You mentioned some in your post. But, the topic at hand is not about Riots in Greece, Unemployment or anything similar.
It is about whether the banner violates the religious rights of the student who is a self prefessed Athiest, respectfully.
Remember " I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it"
( paraphrased)

The issue is exhausted but we stand by and watch it unfold.

This matter is NOT personal as some here have made it ..... it is about doing WHAT IS RIGHT.

Jessica Ahlquist said on last nights episode of Freethought Rhode Island

http://freethoughtri.com/?p=587

that she will donate any money she gets from this case to charity.

The issue is NOT to defend any religion or non religious beliefs. The issue is the banner and if it violates state or federal law.
There need NOT be a hidden agenda here and if there is and it is designed to promote or enhance any one particular religious view(s) or organization ..... well, the point in mute.

Lets remain focused

I have to admit, this topic has brought about a very thoughtful and wide variety of comments. I am impresssed with the majority of these great points of view!
I actually have a re-newed sense of "out of the box" thinking. My opinion remains the same in that this is an inappropriate banner to be in that school ( most of us did not know it was there and the students up until now did not question it ). I do believe that the "historical" argument would have ended decades ago had the banner been challenged..... but never was. But, I enjoyed reading many thoughts here.
In any event, to those contributors of this topic here .... well done !

How much money does the ACLU make off of our schools?

My answer was spot on ! You inquiry was leading. Nobody will experience a "fat wallet". Relax!

Does she get offended when she uses money??? Just saying. look at our currency what the heck does it say.............IN GOD WE TRUST!!!!!!! So I ask is she so offended that she is going to sue the federal government and say that she has been violated again? Where the heck do you draw the line. That girl was in school for how long and now all of a sudden.... give me a break.

Part 1.

The defensive response to this lawsuit, and the kinds of comments attacking the lawsuit in this thread and others, clearly illustrate why lawsuits like this are necessary to prevent the steady encroachment of the raging irrationality of religious believers from encroaching in yet another area of our culture, and one in which the establishment clause of the constitution, and case law interpreting it, are well established as preventing banners like this from being displayed in a public school.

These precedents prohibiting religious displays in schools and public places exist for a reason, and the founders inserted the establishment clause for a reason: that ALL citizens should be protected from a state sponsored institution promoting any particular system of religious belief. The founders understood that that kind of promotion is a step, even if just a tiny step, towards tyranny, and therefore specifically prohibited it.

Is it any wonder that, faced with yet more examples of staggering irrationality and lack of facts in support of things like this banner, the growing number of atheists in this country are standing up for the rights the constitution guarantees them and are refusing to have the country they love and the culture they value, warped and buried under the deluge of unthinking, uncritical belief awash in this country.

You must be dizzy from all of the spinning you are doing.

Part 2.

The religious push and push, and attempt to force their majority beliefs on the minorities who disagree with them, and now the comments here betray the hysterical paranoia the religious develop when confronted by a determined, rational opposition refusing to have religious irrationality crammed down their throats yet again in a public school.
This IS America, where individual rights ARE still protected, and where there IS a constitution that protects minorities from aggressive majorities, and where rational people, with a rational world view, can yet try to prevent this country from careening without a fight into the pit of ignorance represented by the rigid, intolerant adherence to the world view of ancient, literally ignorant, sand peoples.

This IS America, where individual rights ARE still protected?

In your world it would only be the rights of the minority not the rights of everyone!

The irrational thinking that a piece of cloth hanging on a wall can do harm to a person, the irrational thinking that a student might think for themselves and have the capacity to make their own decisions.

can yet try to prevent this country from careening without a fight into the pit of ignorance represented by the rigid, intolerant adherence to the world view of ancient, literally ignorant, sand peoples.

Your ignorant view that your way of thinking is the only correct way of thinking, we all have the right to believe and not believe what ever we want.

ancient, literally ignorant, sand peoples. So wonderfully intolerant and racist of you.

Thanks, Jim,

Part 1.

Others have said this already, and requested a response, but I haven't seen one:

Postulate a neighborhood in Cranston , or any town in America, with a Muslim majority, and therefore a primarily Muslim student body. They put up a Muslim prayer banner in their auditorium. A Christian child, now in a tiny minority population, with the backing of the ACLU, sues on the grounds that the banner violates the establishment clause of the constitution. How many Christians, now in the minority, will leap to defend the "majority rights" of the Muslims? Honest, thoughtful responses would be nice. Current banner opponents would oppose the Muslim banner also, on the same constitutional grounds. (Europeans are already encountering similar situations).

Majority rights? Defending a rather obvious violation of the constitution with "majority rights"? This is basic American civics. Why do so many not understand their own country's founding and principles, which are being defended with this lawsuit? (a rhetorical question, because the answer is obvious - but.... another time). America was made a CONSTITUTIONAL republic by the founders and they inserted the establishment clause for very good reasons. They also allowed for changing the constitution, but rather than seek legal change the majority just forces their beliefs into public contexts, because they have the sheer force of numbers, which compels others to defend the constitution with lawsuits like this.

Thanks Jim,

Part 1

Others have said this already, and requested a response, but I haven't seen one:
Postulate a neighborhood in Cranston, or any town in America, with a Muslim majority, and therefore a primarily Muslim student body. They put up a Muslim prayer banner in their auditorium. A Christian child, now in a tiny minority population, with the backing of the ACLU, sues on the grounds that the banner violates the establishment clause of the constitution. How many Christians, now in the minority, will leap to defend the "majority rights" of the Muslims? Honest, thoughtful responses would be nice. Current banner opponents would oppose the Muslim banner also, on the same constitutional grounds. (Europeans are already encountering similar situations).

Majority rights? Defending a rather obvious violation of the constitution with "majority rights"? This is basic American civics. Why do so many not understand their own country's founding and principles, which are being defended with this lawsuit? (a rhetorical question, because the reasons are obvious - but... another time). America was made a CONSTITUTIONAL republic by the founders and they inserted the establishment clause for very good reasons. They also allowed for changing the constitution, but rather than seek legal change the majority just forces their beliefs into public contexts, because they have the sheer force of numbers, which compels others to defend the constitution with lawsuits like this.

Sorry for the second part 1. Patch was telling me the first one was refused for too many characters.

Part 2.

It would be nice to have substantive issues responded to, but emotional backlash is typical in these situations.

Many non-believers are simply refusing to continue to allow unreason to retard progress in America and the world. And some are tired of tip-toeing around superstitious nonsense. Bronze age people were literally ignorant in many ways about the world. They literally didn't know. They believed the world was flat. Ignorant. That the sun revolved around the earth. Ignorant. There were thousands of superstitious creation myths. All ignorant. They created myths to explain what they didn't know. Eventually one of these cults acquired a huge number of adherents who believed some very ignorant things.

And now, it's the 21st century, not 2000 BCE. The sun doesn't revolve around the earth; the earth isn't 6000 years old; a sky-being didn't create himself in a second human form and then have himself killed on a cross to save humans from original sin caused by a snake convincing a woman made from the rib of a guy made from dust to eat an apple from a tree in violation of the sky-beings orders. And the constitution says that a banner that advocates that school of superstitious and dangerous thought can't be put up in public schools. And that's a good and a non-trivial thing.

Thanks Thomas Jefferson.

The banner on the wall .... whether it be on the gymnasium wall, the bathroom wall or the wall between corridors one and two ... in it's PRESENT context DOES NOT BELONG.
I do not want the money I contribute through my tax dollars directed toward an institution ( High School in this case) that essentially sponsors and condones a particular religion.
I am insulted when someone write " It's ben there for years, it's history, leave it aloe. What's the problem!"

Well, the problem is that the public is ony NOW becoming aware of its existance. Hence, the overwhelming outrage and the call for its removal.

I am NOT anti-religion, thankyou. I am, however, against a public institution turning a cheek when they KNOW perfectly well that the banner does not belong there.
PERIOD !

Spare me the " your an anti religious zealot" OR " your bitter like the rest of the martyrs"

I am the opposite. I stand and stake my claim when I know something is wrong.

Lastly, there is NO money to be mande here people. So, thje ACLU has nothing to gain. The only people gaining here is you and I .... knowing your children are free to learn in an environment free or religious propoganda and influence.

Sorry ..... learn to deal with it.

Spelling errors? Probably !

Thanks Joe for the direct response. Refreshing.

You believe there should be a line drawn to comply with the constitution, but where would you draw the line? You wouldn't allow a morning assembly prayer, but is there somewhere a prayer should be allowed? If you allow a Christian prayer, should it be accompanied by a discussion of atheism, a Muslim prayer, a Jewish prayer, a Wiccan prayer, a Mormon prayer, and on and on and on? How do maintain objective balance in a school that must be, what, 98% Christian? If you'd allow a bible in the library, would you allow a church to place complimentary copies in every student's home room desk? And if you allow Bibles in the desks, do you have to place alongside every Bible a copy of the Koran, the Torah, Dawkins' The God Delusion, and every other possible religions' texts? Guest preachers? Does every Christian talk have to be balanced with a few thousand other speakers who have different religious beliefs? And would any of that kind of silliness really not constitute a state institution effectively promoting religion anyway? The majority of court cases have been pretty clearly on the side of a fairly strict separation, but of course, a conservative Supreme Court might move the other direction to favor their interpretation. But all this is why the establishment clause exists and why Jefferson explained it as "building a wall of separation between Church & State".

By the same logic, the Emancipation Proclamation was a successful attempt at "erasing history" and freeing the slaves. Similarly, the women's suffrage movement was another successful attempt at "erasing history" and giving women the right to vote. I guess the school district feels threatened by progress, human rights and anything to do with equality - especially when it involves freeing this country of superstition (or at least not having taxpayers fund superstition - as in public schools).

Joe,

Your line of argument defending what you interpret as a minor religious artifact not constituting a constitutional infringement appears genuine, in contrast to some comments. But, yes, the simple existence of religious writing on a wall does constitute state sponsorship of religion. What...would five banners cross a line? Or would it take 100 banners, in your opinion? Does quantity or media type determine where the line gets drawn? Is it okay for the Christian school board to put up a Christian banner, and then just silently wait for a lone Muslim or atheist or whatever to request equal exposure? Really? Is that really not a form of bias and religious-self-promotion to you?

The religious have every right to practice and promote their religious beliefs at home, in their churches, and any other non-state venue they want, as has been pointed out over and over in comments. I support their right to believe whatever they choose. I don't support them using a state sponsored institution to promote their religious ideas. This is a simple distinction. And yes, in a state sponsored institution, everyones should be protected FROM state sponsored religion, because this is part of the broader protection FOR all beliefs. The founders thought this through and meant to accomplish both. They weren't confused about the difference. The constitution soundly prohibits religion from state sponsored institutions.

Stay the course and stay on topic ..... Emancipation? Koran? Slavery? All interesting topics.....
However, The comments re-define the fine art of being VERBOSE!

Question: Does the banner promote one particualer " higher being ? "

Answer : YES

Solution: Removal of Document

Serene enough for you ?

Hi Joe,

But you didn't answer my questions. You just sent my question back to me in regard to libraries. I don't dispute historical importance. That's not an issue. The constitution isn't concerned with that either, only with state sponsorship of religious belief and the protection from and for such beliefs by omitting religious promotion from state institutions. Where do you propose to draw the line? Why support this 1 banner but not 10 banners? You raised this defense, not me, so how do you draw the line?

(Partial responses required by character limitations).

Thanks Joe,

I know, Jim, I do go on..appreciate your accurate terse summary. Editor wanted?

Important issue, though. Non trivial.

Yes, Joe, a banner is advocacy and promotion, just as a Gap ad would be. If words read by people didn't MEAN something they wouldn't be used! The banner is seen and read by thousands of impressionable minds. An assembly was held just two days ago in which the mayor of Cranston pointed at the banner and advocated that it be kept, to loud cheers and whispered comments regarding Jessica Ahlquist, the plaintiff, who was forced to attend. Non-promotional? Do you really believe the banner's religious words have no content specific impact? And again, would 10 banners cross your line?

Can you honestly maintain that a Nike banner ad in the gym would be promotional but this banner isn't promoting something?

Excuse me.... but ranting and raving about topics that are NOT on the "agenda" will lose the reader. Not because of the inability to understand rather because a topic such as this can be "DISCUSSED" with much less psuedo intellect. Yes, we ALL can fill the page with tri- syllable words .... but get to the point.
NO need to put lipstick on the pig.
The banner promotes religion .... remove it.
In fact, I'll bet my Koran that the School Dept will lose this battle.
Then again, this IS Rhode Island ...... anything is possible....
Roger Williams must be turning in his grave !

It makes the topic much more interesting .....

GET IT NOW ?

Lastly, ALL good comments ! Seriously.... I do appreciate the input ....
Joe, Liberty and all others !!!

I will ask one more time - just saying that the banner constitutes state establishment of religion is not proof of same. The onus is not on the community to prove it does not because the banner is already there. Those bringing the suit will need to prove their case in order to have the banner removed.

Since rates of enrollment in Christian churches is down since the banner was posted - the proof is going to be difficult to find.

By the way, since you've brought up Roger Williams - why don't you take a look at the RI Constitution - you guys win on that document since it DOES build a wall that constitutes "freedom from religion".

I only make these arguments because I want people to truly know and understand both the US and RI Constitution and stop using useless and misleading statements like "separation of church and state" when the feds only preclude establishment not acknowledgement. For goodness sake, mass was held in the capital itself up until the 1830s or so.

RI DOES preclude acknowledgement for all purposes and intents.

Ouch Jefferson. Useless and misleading??! The phrase: "building a wall of separation between Church & State", I quoted directly from a very famous letter Jefferson wrote, and the founders discussed this issue with great seriousness. The establishment clause uses different words, but again, so far the bulk of court interpretations support fairly strict separation.

A good summary of the legal interpretations of the establishment clause as interpreted in school contexts:

http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/establishment-clause-and-schools-legal-bulletin

Joe, your request for a statistical summary of harm is beside the point, as Jim reminds us less verbosely. Words mean something. They don't mean nothing. The meanings of "heavenly father" and "amen" are utterly and completely religious in this context. It's difficult to seriously consider your representing them as innocent of promotional intent (" 'Amen' really should be interpreted just like 'have a nice day' ") and therefore requiring some rigorous proof that they're not promoting religion. You might as well have me prove the sky is blue. This subverts any basic understanding of speech and writing. This flipping the standard of proof technique is one standard fundamentalist tactic in first just doing what they want to promote their bizarre beliefs and then forcing the opposition to battle to get compliance with the law. "It's easier to apologize than to ask permission."

Good point Liberty .... Joe has select valid points and I absolutely do not, by the way, need nor do I require an internet lessen on the Constitution. Thanks just the same Joe !

The truth is, as Liberty pointed out, the Words " Amen" and Heavenly Father" are of a religious context.
Any right minded religious self proclaimed "Patch Scholar" knows that but maybe he/she has gotten so deep in their argument that it would be less than humble to admit that.

Quite frankly, I think I contributed my points of view and to re-iterate them repeatedly, would undermine my view.

So, one last time.

The banner at CHSW has religious overtones to it.... and regardless of how many years it collected dust and regardless of the amount of adoring eyes read the banner (or those who truly did not care that it advocated a specisifc "GOD") I maintain that the banner needs to be removed.
Initially, I wrote it SHOULD be removed but after reading certain posts here, I now advocate that it NEEDS to be removed .
Why has it taken so long for the public outrage that it exists? That's easy. Up until now, the public ( outside of that school) was unaware of its existance.
I am dismayed that an educator in that school has not challenged the banner in the past. But that's a topic for another day..... right ?
Peace

Three words? That's all it takes to set some off into apoplectic rage? Seek help!

You really are an idiot.... no offense !

If you chose to use words such as " apoplectic", be ceratin to sue them in the RIGHT context. Nobody here is in a rage, hysterical, or stroke bound. It is about healthy debate.
You obviously decided to make it personal by suggesting someone " seek help".

I do believe there are other areas you can offer your words of wisdom. Certainly your mastery of the english language ( uh hum ) will springboard you into a more intellectual, " apt yuo on the back because you are right" atmosphere.

Yeah ....Good luck with that!

Breath easy ... inhale, exhale ..... Have a nice day !

Apoplectic .... hahahah

The irony of your Puritanical intolerance is not lost.

ok ..... very good

Ok .... you guys need to get along.
All good points.
Keep it civil

Joe, my language about flipping burden of proof was in regard to your argument that the onus of proof was on banner opponents to prove that the banner words "Our heavenly father " & "Amen" constitute religious content and that a banner constitutes promotion. That was your defense of the banner. Of course you're correct that in court the plaintiff has legal burden to show proof of violation.

In regard to requesting that proof is required that these words are religious, you assert a reductio ad absurdum. This what I was referring to. I merely point to a dictionary, maintain that words have meanings, and maintain that when these words are used they carry the meaning of the word, not some other meaning, If you don't grant this then your defense is literally absurd. In that world, 2=2 can equal 5 and one can leap from a plane and not experience the effects of gravity.

You assert that a banner does not promote. This is also pushing a point to absurdity. In what universe does a banner not promote? It's what banners do! That's why they're called banners!! Read a simple dictionary defintion for "banner".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/banner

Also, you have failed to respond to numerous questions and objections to your point by a few commenters, and there is little else to say to you if your defense continues to be that religious words don't have religious meaning and that a banner is really not a banner.

(Character limit) See next comment...

Joe, if you simply assert that we have to prove your comments wrong, then refuse to address questions to you or address the objections raised to your comments, then no further discussion is possible with you. You refuse to discuss it!

By the way folks, here’s the three part test the courts have come to use:

“The Lemon test, based on the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman, is the standard of judicial review in cases involving the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The Lemon test involves three criteria for judging whether laws or governmental actions are allowable under the establishment clause. A negative answer to any of the three questions means the act is unconstitutional.
• Does the challenged law, or other governmental action, have a bona fide secular (non-religious) or civic purpose?
• Does the primary effect of the law or action neither advance nor inhibit religion? In other words, is it neutral?
• Does the law or action avoid excessive entanglement of government with religion?”

By the way, Joe, and others...

Comments here don't always appear promptly, and may appear to be responding to the last comment appearing but actually be responding to a comment a few postings away. I just saw one of Joe's comments that appeared well after a number of other comments appeared. Several comments were posted before Joes but when Joe's did appear it appeared several comments back, so I didn't see it until I just went back through the posts. So, Joe, I wasn't ignoring that post where you admit the banner IS a prayer and DOES promote religion. Glad to hear the recognition of the obvious.

The three part court test I posted above should demonstrate pretty obviously why, under present and historical court interpretation of the establishment clause, your argument that a single banner doesn't violate the constitution is incorrect. You admit religiousness. You admit promotion. That means that the banner "advances" religion. And a specific religion, to boot. Violates test #2.

Stick a fork in tis topic !!

I do believe it is done.

Maybe you two could meet at Panera and duke it out .... I'm sure those around you will offer a collective YAWWWWNNNNNNN !!!!

First one defense, then retreat to another, then on to another......

Now, apparently, the court interpretations that form precedent in interpreting the establishment clause aren't the law. Numerous web sites summarize the precedents which are, though not statutes, nonetheless the law. The actual texts of the numerous court opinions/judgments are online. I guess the constitution means what any individual says it means, despite case law. Let's use my opinion today, then tomorrow my auto mechanic's. Apparently if interpretation of 200 plus years by the Supreme Court, and the founders' well documented opinions about why the establishment clause was inserted and why, doesn't match one's opinion, the law is therefore stilted. Yes, the establishment clause might have been interpreted differently through the years, but it wasn't. Because it's purpose always was and remains "building a wall of separation between Church & State" (Thomas Jefferson's words that have been re-quoted by Supreme Court Justices as support for legal interpretation of the clause).

I didn't allege the three part test closes the argument, I pointed out that it IS, in fact, presently, as it has been for years, the strong basis for determining application of the establishment clause under present law to where and how to preserve the separation.

Must we refute the coin argument yet again?

Once again many comments appearing late so we're responding to earlier comments, not the most recent.

Makes the thread appear very disjointed.

By your logic, Joe, it would not be an establishment of the Christian religion to teach Bible study classes 4 hours a day in public schools because there isn't any prohibition on teaching Koran classes or Torah classes. Your principle cannot distinguish between ANY small portion of exposure to Christian ideas and 100% exposure. Frankly, that's ludicrous - and I mean that descriptively, not personally.

Cheers

Wait! It just hit me! I get Joe's latest pro-banner argument, I think! The establishment clause means that Christians are free to have their religion be "present-in-state-sponsored-institutions-but-simultaneously-not-established-there-through-state-sponsorship" but so are other religions! It's not the Christian's fault that there aren't any Muslims, or Jews, or Mithraists, or Hindus, or whatever, in Cranston taking up the offer, because they could also have banners there "present-in-state-sponsored-institutions-but-simultaneously-not-established-there-through-state-sponsorship"! It's breathtaking!

Sorry, I'm reduced to satire. That's the logical end of literalism.

Yes, I agree, Joe, that, serious debate about serious issues is a good thing, and I think you're serious, but it's an idea that's extre-e-e-e-e-mely far from the purpose the founders intended, and disregards the entire context of the enlightenment thought from which the founders came, in which the dangers of state/religion entanglement were clearly understood, and 200 plus years of legal interpretation. But you must know that. Are you a constitutional literalist? Perhaps you could have said much earlier: "I defend the banner on grounds of constitutional literalism." It would have saved everyone from my mini-novels. Maybe a topic for another forum?

The solution came to me this morning, just place a plaque on the opposite wall of the auditorium stating that the "Blank" wall is placed by the Ahlquist in support of their atheist religion. After all that is what their religion stands for absolutely nothing. Case Law in Cranston proves that as long as you open it up to all religions it is allowable.

But we choose not to look at case law on this board. The only religion accepted here is Atheism, I don't think I could go through life believing in nothing.

Liberty Janus,

Jefferson also wrote:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. "

and:

"Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion"

and he said and is often quoted by opponents of religion:

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, "

But nobody bothers to quote the end of his sentence which is:

"but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion."

Jefferson had a great faith in "the Holy Author" otherwise known as "Our Heavenly Father" and many of his writings including the Declaration of Independence was base on his faith in God.

These writings are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial Monument, one of the most public of buildings in our country. Would you have us erase these inscriptions too?

And here's a site full of quotes demonstrating that Jefferson was not in any way a conventional Christian, nor maintained a Christian concept of God, nor felt that religious belief was justification for allowing religion to be intermingled with the state, and that he in fact demonstrated (especially privately) almost disdain for much religious thought:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

There's good example of religious believers omitting the bits of one of his quotes that demonstrate his opposition to organized religion (paragraphs 3 & 4).

We can cherry-pick and trade quotes all day indicating Jefferson's nuanced general views on religion but the most relevant are the statements by him and others that pertain more directly to the founders ideas about the establishment clause. The quote about separation is the single most relevant quote and as I said has been directly incorporated into establishment clause jurisprudence. Constitutional literalists regard this context as irrelevant but the courts have regarded it as relevant.

By the way, the founders who were Christians understood that their right to practice their religion was PROTECTED by the establishment clause. Some of the religious commenters here understand this but most don't.

One of your own Jefferson quotes ILLUSTRATES both the establishment and the free exercise clause, which the founders meant to protect religious freedom precisely by prohibiting religion from intermingling with government.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

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

The atheists, or whatever they believe themselves to be, think we're talking about the Salem witch trials here with their meandering, apocalyptic tirades against imaginary enemies

You contradict your own argument with your final quote, The only way congress or any legislative body can establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof is through LAW. A banner hanging on a wall does not establish a religion and certainly does allow for the free expression thereof unless a law has been passed to say that the banner must hang there.

I tip my hat to the men that fought for freedom on this Patriots Day. There efforts are more important now then ever as some would want to take those freedoms away from us.

Joe .....

yada yada yada .....YAWNNNNNNNN

verbose windbagory !

How about those Red Sox

Liberty,

Your attempt to link what is going on here specifically to Christianity is puzzling.

A Christian banner isn't linked to Christianity? Seriously?

By the way...it's "windbaggery'.

The sign should be removed, which should be obvious to anyone who has ever read the US Constitution and respects what it stands for. If they consider it a historic sign, fine, just post it on PRIVATE property, like at a church. But it is not legal to post that sign on public property.

Liberty:

You seem to be an expert on what christian prayer is.

Please indulge my ignorance on the meaning of prayer and explain in detail what makes this a christian prayer instead of just declaring it as one.

In Judaism, God is called Father because he is the creator. In fact God is called Father in many monotheistic religions including Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith, but is also present in Neoplatonism and in Hinduism and Sikhism.

So please tell me what in this banner makes it specifically Christian as you have vigorously argued here.

Please show us numerous citations of non-Christian religions that have a common prayer form beginning with "Our Heavenly Father" followed by the body of the prayer followed by "Amen". When you find them, Call Rabbi Stein, who sat in with the plaintiff's during their press conference to express his objections to a Christian prayer. Here's the Patch article with his words:

http://cranston.patch.com/articles/aclu-files-lawsuit-against-prayer-banner

Then try and convince ANYONE not a Christian seeking to force their artifacts into public schools that a prayer that arose in a Christian community, with Christian school board members, and now is being rabidly defended by Christians in the community, could be Hindu, or Islamic, or Jainist, or Sikh, or Buddhist, or whatever. This kind of defense would be comedic were it not so dishonest. One of the Supreme Court opinions ruling unconstitutionality in another case of a Christian practice in a public school noted that the defense's misrepresentations of this kind could only have been advanced on the assumption that the justices were actually stupid, and couldn't detect an obvious lie when they heard it.

These are mere tactical ploys. Smoke and grimy mirrors. Also an example of why Christian dissembling and tactical fabrication in trying to have their obviously unconstitutional artifacts foisted on the public are so hypocritical relative to the morals some Christians profess but few possess.

Simply amazing! Three words provoke such profuse and endless condemnation. Might I suggest the problem is not the banner.

Liberty Janus:

So, when asked for proof that this banner has its origin in a specific religion you simple spew more derogatory anti-christian rhetoric and simply make another "Libery Janus Declaration". And because you cannot prove it, you resort to the typical inept argument that you and your ilk use in debate and refer to other radical proponents of your ideas like Rabbi Stein as proof of your assertion.

It is obvious that you have a militant-like bias against Chistianity. We all get that.

But if you are going to be so disingenuous in your radical rants against Chistianity you should at least admit to your bias.

You still have provided no credible legal argument or proof that his prayer is from any on specific religion.

Here, on the other hand is proof that it is not:

Jewish Prayer:
AVEENU MALKAYNU: OUR FATHER OUR KING
Aveenu Malkaynu, we have no King except You.
Our Father our King, You are a God who hears and answers prayer.
Aveenu Malkaynu, we boldly come before Your throne of grace in time
of need.
Our Father our King, we bless You for dealing kindly with us.

A Baha'i Prayer for Humanity:
"O Thou kind Father, God! Gladden our hearts through the fragrance of Thy love."

Sikh prayer :

"O true King ! O loved Father ! In these ambrosial hours of the morn we have sung...."
"Save us, O Father, from lust, wrath greed, undue attachment and pride : and keeping us always attached to Thy feet. "

Not one "Our Heavenly Father" in the lot. Yes, "father" is common to many religions, but "Our Heavenly Father" is not (although it appears abundantly in the Bible - because it's a notoriously Christian expression), especially in a Christian community, with a Christian school board, on a banner bearing the heading "school prayer". Your own evidence argues against you and then you attack me personally, and Rabbi Stein, rather than mount a defense of your own argument. This is dissembling and nothing more. This kind of behavior is one of the reasons, as I noted above, why Christians lose these cases: the justices can see a transparent lie when they see it.

Of course, you dislike people capable and willing to oppose this nonsense and the blatant attempt to force your opinions on students in violation of the constitution. Just as in trying to force creationism into the schools, your arguments are all tactical - calculated to appear reasonable when they're not - and attempting to force your opponents into endless disproofs of nonsense rather than admit the obvious.

I've made no attempt to disguise my opinion, nor been disingenuous, as you assert. On the contrary. Nor is opposition to your fairy tale radical. A sizable minority of people in the US disbelieve these superstitions, and majorities elsewhere in the world, and we're now speaking up. Fortunately the constitution prohibits the foisting of these bronze age superstitions onto people in public institutions.

I hear a lot of people whining "Oh, what's next, remove God from the money and the pedge??? Get over it, will you?"

First off, if you saw a banner in the school saying 'praise Allah' you would be equally upset. Second, God doesn't even belong in the currency or the pledge in the first place. God was ADDED to the currency and the pledge in the 1950s as part of an anti-communist spirit. Such phrases do NOT belong in any government institution. Contrary to popular belief, this country is NOT a Christian country, despite it being the most predominant religion in the country(read the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11 if you disagree). This country was founded upon freedom from oppression, and the founding fathers made it very clear that minorities needed to be protected from the majority. They agreed that the Church and the State should remain separate. To have religion in a government institution goes against everything this country stands for.

Thirdly, it isn't hurting you in any way to have the banner removed. You say the banner isn't hurting anyone, so why bother? The same argument applies to you. It isn't hurting you in any way to have the banner removed, and it isn't hurting you to have the currency and pledge returned to their original state.

This banner directly contradicts the 1st amendment of the Constitution.

If you need religious comfort that badly, you can pray at church, or attend a faith school.

The banner is unconstitutional, and no amount of self-righteous griping will change that fact.

As good fortune would have it I am in our Nation's Capitol this week with my family. While I see the word God on government buildings everywhere, from The text of the Gettysburg address to the Naval Hymn on the Naval Memorial. I think the most poignant of these have been the quotes by John Adams, our Second President and probably the most intellectual of the framers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, one on the exterior of the Museum of American History and the text I found in the Archives from a message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts. And I quote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Any questions?

Answers. Not questions.

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" James Madison.

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" John Adams

This is the text of George Washington's October 3, 1789 national Thanksgiving Proclamation; as printed in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal, on October 17, 1789. And I was under impression that this speech was treason in Rhode Island.

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

"Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?" Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Benjamin Franklin:

"I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches" Benjamin Franklin

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
it" John Adams

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" Thomas
Jefferson

Cherry-pick quotes all day, as we can....nonetheless the legal precedents support a very strict separation of church and state based upon the establishment clause. Your religious revisionist longings will not subvert that the founders you quote placed the establishment clause in the constitution, nor subvert their reasons for doing so, nor change the legal interpretations.

Also, typically the founders' private opinions were often critical of religion while their public statements pandered to religious voters, much like today.

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

Thomas Paine

Regardless of random quotes and speeches from the founding fathers, the constitution and the bill of rights are COMPLETELY secular and provide absolutely no religious preference whatsoever.

Besides, I don't see why anyone would be proud if this country WAS based on God. Is it being superstitious and feeble-minded really considered a virtue?

Look in the Bible, look at all of the the horrible things it contains which Christians completely ignore.

Good point B.

Let's let the Islamic nations enfeeble their people's minds and enslave them in their bronze age prisons, both mental and physical, with their fundamentalist embrace of irrationality. Fortunately, the enlightenment shone here for a long enough time to prevent religious irrationality from infecting the constitution and to lawfully prohibit it from public institutions.

Brendan is right, as others here have also observed, the constitution has ZERO mention of religion, or of any god, except the mention in the first amendment, which maintains SEPARATION between church and state. I just re-read the entire constitution. This quote-mining for religious quotes outside of the constitution falls especially flat when the founding documents do nothing but prohibit religion's entanglement with government. The founders knew very well what they were doing in omitting religion from the constitution.

But, really, this is well known. The religious just don't care. They want their way, which can only come at the cost of us all. Welcome to the Christiban USA movement.

I left a fork for everyone ....

Please take that fork and stick it into this very topic

It's pretty much done !!

MR. ACLU ....TAKE DOWN THAT BANNER !

I tell you all what - I will agree that you are right and that no government official, building, or currency can be religious in any way - if you all agree in a literal interpretation of Article 1 Section 8 of the Federal Constitution limiting the powers of Congress.

Happy Easter everyone.

Brendan .... you make a compelling argument. However, if you are trying to "win" an argument HERE .... forget it.
With the likes of Davis, Joe the whatever, and especially Murphy .... you will NEVER get two words in. Trust me ... the only imput I respect here is that of " Liberty".
He/she seems to get the message.

The banner is inappropriate. Period. Does NOT belong in a school that I help pay for with my hard earned tax dollars.

They ALL know that but sems that the ones I mentioned have dug themselves so far in a hole.... they would never, ever give you the satisfaction in admittin gthey were wrong, DEAD wrong, from the very beginning of their VERBOSE writings.

Read the entire thread .... but before you do .... go to Southwest airlines .com ..... and have some vomit bags fedex'd to your house.....

Keep a sense of humor .... that banner is coming down ... REAL soon .... right fellas !?

You may spew you anti-christian rhetoric on this blog but, you best be careful making predictions on the outcome of a trial .....

Nah, I'm not trying to "win" any argument here, because the question isn't out for debate. It is unconstitutional, PERIOD.

However, if I can make someone think about it, maybe in twenty years they will change their mind, or maybe I can educate someone reading this article. That is why I bother arguing with these type of folks. If I've educated one person, then I have succeeded.

What you have here, Brendan, is a full fledged debate. One does not debate unless the ultimate goal is to WIN.
Unfortunately, this is much more than a debate. It has turned into a soap box for those who have waited to spew their religious " it's a historical banner , leave it alone" rhetoric.

Did you write that you are trying to " educate someone" ?? Surely you jest .... Have you READ the postings from some of the OVER THE TOP ZEALOTS here ???

Give me a break!

Being a martyr is no longer in fashion my friend.

I like to read their postings.... in fact, i do so with popcorn and diet coke .... it is quite the comical show ..... YES.,... FUNNY !!!!

These people have beter stories than Walt Disney. And just as much of a fantasy....

I have three words for the atheists - it's...three...words.

Why are aetheists so angry and hateful?

I think it comes with a lack of faith.

A bit of common sense can sometimes lead one out of the Bronze Age.

Your generalization about atheists is, of course, silly. For instance, not all religious believers are angry and hateful, though many are. So why are so many believers angry and hateful, and why are so many so hypocritical relative to the beliefs they profess? Why are these believers so intolerant and cruel? Well, because, their book is right, and the other faiths' books are wrong. What evidence is there for their book being right? Well, the book itself says that it's right. Funny...the other faiths say the same thing!

If anger, hatred, intolerance, cruelty are general human qualities, possessed more or less by all, and not belief specific, then faith has been just about the best fertilizer for them - an enabler and an encourager, always to be exploited by powerful interests willing to manipulate the credulous believer, who, if they can believe in a fairy in the sky, can violate the rights of their neighbors and kill in the name of that fairy.

Faith is belief without evidence. It is literally belief without reason. Only when the religious think without faith do they reach some accurate conclusions. In the meantime they try to force their bizarre opinions on the rest of us and poison the world with their peculiar intolerance.

Here's a Christian story from last week about the hypocrisy of Christian behavior. An uncharacteristically honest self-assessment:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-ricky-gervais-a-better-christian-than-christians-49856/

@Frank

The Declaration of Independence was made BEFORE the United States was an official nation, so it doesn't count. The only document which is pertinent to this case is the constitution, which is entirely SECULAR.

You should really examine the writings of the founding fathers, they emphasized the need for separation of church and state and religious freedom. See, when the government endorses a particular religion, or even gets remotely involved with one, the other religions tend to get persecuted. The fathers were aware of this, and saw separation of church and state as something which would enhance one of the most core values of this country, FREEDOM.

In any case, The Declaration of Independence is not a lawmaking document. The God part was probably put there to help spread the spirit of anti-British feelings.

Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration, but he was also one of the most outspoken figures for the separation of church and state. He even had it written on his grave.

So of this child goes into a courtroom where you have to swear on a bible to tell the truth what will she do? Money has God on it for whatever reason it still has God on it..no one has sued to have it removed nor have they sued to have God or the bible removed from our State and federal courts so now what?

Score thus far:

Brendan: 9
Liberty : 8
Joe the Plumma: 2
Murphy: 3
Joe Richer:1
Anne: -1

____________
Quote of the week thus far:
"A bit of common sense can sometimes lead one out of the bronze age"

Eventually, those on this page that KNOW that the banner should not be present, will admit it. Until then, like I wrote, they are so deep into their hole, it is tough to climb out without getting muddy.
You are right, Brendan. This is NOT a win/lose argument. But it has become that way, sort of, because the writing is "on the wall". How can someone NOT agree that the banner has a religious presence.

I do find it funny ( yes, laugh out loud funny) that one cannot see that the banner is saturated in religion. Saturated you say? Yes. If ONE mention of religion is present, it is saturated.
Joe the Plumma, nobody here said they were athiests. And if they were, what business is that of yours to condemn their beliefs?

What was the quote from Brendan again? Oh, that's right .... read above !

I have only argued that the banner falls under freedom of religious expression under the Federal Constitution and I agree with Joe Richer that it fails the test under the State Constitution.

Others on here want to throw all historical precedent, to the point that even now the Declaration of Independence has no meaning. I'll stop by the Archives today and tell them to throw away that document because it mentions god and is displayed in a public building.

In Brendan's world if a someone says they want to kill Bob but goes out and kills Bill instead the fact that they indicated they wanted to kill someone does not hold merit under the law because he killed Bill instead of Bob.

After reading the insane postings of the fenatical extremists, a NEW order of irrational contributors has emerged:

Joe the Plumma : 1
Murphy: 1.5

PLEASE for the sake of all that suffer reading yours posts .... think ORIGINAL COHERENT THOUGHTS, then lessen it by 2 paragraphs. Then we can all, gasp, digest your words.

I'm losin' egg whites with laughter but enough is enough.

Hmmm "fenatic"

Is that a Boston ballpark terrorist?

Oh come on Joe .... relax .....

Someone as intelligent as you are .... should know that right ????

Yes, it is a terrorist in Boston .... right next door to the Harvard School of toilet plunging.

In any event, I'll be there when the banner is removed. Gladly.

I enjoyed reading the left and the right points of view.

I even enjoyed envisioning the bulging forehead veins of more than a few posters here who could not type quickly enough only to share with the rest of us, gasp, their worldly experiences.

Have a good one .... Enjoy this Holy Holy Week ....

See, I can spread good religious cheer without an issue ... but not in a HIGH SCHOOL !

get it ?

By the way, if you want to post direct attacks, be prepared for direct attacks RIGHT BACK AT YOU.

Nobody likes to be nasty, but when a grenade is tossed.... I'm the first to get out of its way..... load one of my own and fast ball it right back at ya ....

Other than that .... have a great weekend !

Shalom

A considered interview with an ex-believer who was previously an activist Christian:

http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/01/12/to-christendom-and-back/

Joe, no one is stopping you from expressing your beliefs publicly. However, the line is drawn when you try to have an explicitly religious banner featured prominently in a GOVERNMENT building.

Brendan:
You may want to avoid taking a trip to Washington D.C. because God is featured prominently on just about every building, monument and historical document in the city. I would hate for you to be disappointed that God played such a prominent role in the lives of the people that founded our Country.

Hmmm .....lets see Frank.... You agree with Joe? Wow .... BIG surprise! Comparing the banner at CHSW with the Declaration of Independence? Wow .... GET A GRIP !!!

Ok .... here you go Fellas....

Brendan .... because of his spot - on - argumant has earned a 10
Liberty... remains at a respectable 8
Murphy .... sorry.... your posts bore me. 1
Joe the Plumma ... ummm 0

Rock on Boys !

Like I wrote before, if you dish it out.... learn to accept what comes to you in return.
Running with your tail between your legs is ..... well.... ya know.

Telling someone " if you do not like my posts, pass by them" .... ha ..... stake your claim man ! Defend your position !

Inside source emailed me indicating that the ACLU has (potentially) narrowly won its argument but the City is slow to announce until after Holy season ....

Oh man..... Just what we need a plumma with a sense of humor .....

Oh wait ..... every time we get the bill from ANY plumma it's quite comical !

Worm food ? Really??

Have a great weekend planting your tulips Jie !

I mean ... Joe

Ya try to have a reasonable discussion.......

Classic believer's response!

"I may not have any rational rebuttals to you, but I'm going to heaven, and you're not! Neener! Neener! Neener!"

"Wait'll my invisible dragon gets a hold of you when you die! I spoke to him about you just last night!"

Typically screwing up this world while manipulating your life in search of the next imaginary one, and trying to force that opinion on others through state institutions.

This is precisely why a belief impervious to reason is kept out of the schools by the constitution.

Yeah .... what he said !

Joe, I've told you about 5 times now, we aren't preventing you from voicing your opinion in public. You just can't proselytize wherever the hell you want. Public schools are not the place for religion of any kind.

Especially because Christianity limits the intellectual capacity of a young child, forcing him to narrow his mind to the Church's world view, on pain of eternal torment. These children are afraid they will go to a torture chamber(worse, an imaginary torture chamber) if they don't believe what you believe. Speaking out against such an evil is extremely necessary.

This is a free country, not just free for Christians.

This JUST in from Vegas .....

Liberty : 9.2
Brendan: 10.1
Joe: .5 ( charity point for pseudo tenacity )
Murphy .6 ( extra 1/10 of point for having an Irish name )

That is all

Agree on one thing .....

Relax the thetoric until the Bruins take Game 5 .... thanks

rhetoric

Jim joe and brendan..enough already..GO GET A LIFE AND A JOB

five minutes times how many!!!!!????? hahahaha my GOD get over it all of you..it is what it is and it will probably be taken down but for all of yu who believe in nothing...I feel sorry for you is all I can say..even if a belief in an energy...something astrological, but there is a force in this world..don't know what it is but there is..and Jesus Christ did live and he was a prophet and very spiritual..no one can dispute that.

OMG do you really believe christ never lived..Now I know you are full of it!! Of course Christ was a real person..He was Jewish and he was a prophet....there is proof of that. I am convinced you really are ignorant and clueless. To say there was maybe no Jesus at all??? You are useless to even talk to now hahaha Unreal.

Typically, Christians don't objectively study history, and facts don't get taught in bible school. As is common, non-believers often know more about the actual evidence (or non-evidence, in this case) and have taken care to examine it before providing an opinion.

Brendan is correct, there is no conclusive evidence that Jesus existed. This isn't rocket science either. There's so little mention of Jesus outside of the bible (and the earliest new testament writing was written many decades after Jesus' alleged death), none of it by anyone directly involved in the alleged events, or even by someone who knew someone who knew someone who was directly involved in the alleged events, and none of it dating from the alleged years of Jesus life, and some of it written deliberately by Christians to fill the hole where they knew there was no evidence, that it would fit on the back of an index card. If there was a Jesus we know nothing about him. It's true that few people maintain complete non-existence but it's a plausible idea and in line with the absence of evidence for Jesus' existence. Again, a tissue of nonsense has as much depth as, well....tissue, yet continues to be treated reverentially out of sheer weight of enculturation. And again, another reason to dismiss this fairy tale constructed on nothing but airy superstitions.

Brennan, Jim and Liberty.

You have finally exposed yourselves for what you really are.

During this holiest time of year for Christians your hateful rhetoric has shown you each to be troubled souls.

I have prayed for you and I will continue to pray for your souls' salvation.

In the mean time you may want to familiarize yourselves with another great work of classic literature.

Dante's Divine Comedy

With particular attention to "Inferno" and more specifically Circles 8 and 9.

Just think. If we were all wrong (and I have faith we are not), we will end up in the same place as you.

But if you three are wrong........Circles 8 and 9.

Not gonna be a nice eternity....

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens

Um? Speechless here. You just finished this debate for me. I really thought I saw the epitome of Rhode Island ignorance when you elected the missing linc to the Governor's office. But, I was wrong it is here on this board.
I can't see the air I breath but I know it gives me life, I can't see my heart but I know it pumps the blood through my veins, I don't see my thoughts but they guide me everyday.
I guess brendan reads the ACLU and Atheist mantra everyday for his guidance because clearly he is not a thinking man.

Really? I am an atheist BECAUSE I am a thinking man. The only thing you said that has a semblance of validity(not much of one) is your point about things you can't see.

There is EVIDENCE of a heart, lungs, and veins. Better, there is DEMONSTRABLE evidence. There is a difference between REAL unseeable things such as electricity, air, and Australia(assuming you have never been there) and IMAGINARY unseeable things. Do you believe in goblins, fairies, leprechauns, pixies, Zeus, the invisible celestial teapot, Santa Clause, Apollo, Thor, Allah, or dragons? What, you can't see any of them. Seriously, don't even waste your time posting such non-arguments.

I suppose you look at Bible thumping websites and creationists blogs everyday, and you aren't a thinking man. Never mind, if you went to those types of sites, you'd at least have an argument that would take longer than 5 minutes to refute, maybe even one I haven't heard a million times.

If I finished the debate for you, why did you post?

Are you sure? Have you held your heart in your hands? I can't see the fine gentlemen that wrote the constitution but I believe that the wrote it to give me freedom of religion and expression. You can only see their words in a book so you must not believe they existed either.

Did I post or is the text you see before you an apparition because you could not see my hands type it?

I have a quote that seems appropriate to you. I think it is from Abe Lincoln but I can't be sure because I was not there to hear him say the words.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. Clearly you have removed all doubt.

If I write down "Santa Clause will send you down an eternal chimney if you don't believe in him" on a piece of paper, that doesn't make it true. You'll have to come up with something better than the Bible as a basis for belief, or at least a reason to consider the Bible actual evidence.

Your argument has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Oh and Joe, while you are 'praying' for me, consider that Christians think God has a divine plan. If God is omnipotent and omniscient and already has a divine plan, why are you even praying? Do you want him to change his plan, just for you?

Get away from the computer and do some reading for awhile. Maybe then you will have a better understanding. I will pray for you as well.

Or you may just want to read 6 quotes back and reflect on that about yourself for awhile.

Again, there is the same amount of solid evidence for the formation of the United States as there is for the formation of any church of religion but you seem to choose your beliefs to fit your own needs.
Can you point to me professing to be a Christian, lying or being a Bigot? You seem to be the one showing extreme animosity to the beliefs of others. You also seem to believe that I am a Christian because of a few vague comments. But you will not believe the comments and writings of many that came before you because they don't fit within your shallow beliefs; I defend your rights to express your non-belief and religion what ever it may be, but I also reserve the right to defend and express mine as I see fit.

I can't recall saying that you should shut up, I only recall quoting a great American (at least I think he existed), but then again you are used to putting your own spin on the words of others so I should not be surprised.

How is it that you spend so much energy denying something that you cannot see but then you say that the Christians curtail free speech, in your eyes they do not exist so why be so threatened by them?

Don't presume you can tell me who or what to pray to, you do not believe!

Also, just because there are many religions which have formed and spread doesn't necessitate any one of their beliefs being true. Scientology was shamelessly invented by a science fiction writer, just as an experiment to see if he could invent a religion, and he did, thus the formation of scientology. Now, just because Scientology is an established religion, does that make Xenu and Body Thetans real?

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal......

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

He also recognized that the nation is Under God in the Gettysburg address, so what is your point?
Please define a few words in this somewhat famous speech...
Consecrate?
Devotion? You are such a big fan of Wikipedia definitions I added one for you.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devotion
Hallow? Wikipedia again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallow
God?
Please put your spin on this.

So, since you seem to respect Tom Cruise's right to express his religion, how about we feature a big banner that has Xenu on it?

How about a banner proclaiming "Allah Akbar!" Or "Hail Zeus!"

Or we could keep religion from intruding in PUBLIC(not faith) schools altogether, because it is a government sanctioned center of learning(which is different from superstition). The Establishment Clause forbids such a banner in a public school.

It is not imposing on your right to expression to prevent you from putting a religious banner in a public school, just as it isn't 'persecuting' Christians who are banned from bullying gay people(this is an actual complaint).

You can express your beliefs in church, or on the street, or just go knocking on pe0ple's doors.

This nation was founded upon the principle of FREEDOM, and that freedom includes freedom of and from religion. We do not need a religiously oppressive government like you see in the Middle East.

The constitution is a SECULAR document, and it will stay that way.

I will get back to you tomorrow, good night.

Sorry, I confused you with one of the other spinsters on another thread.
Just consider my links to Wikipedia another apparition as you can't be sure they were ever actually typed by someone as you did not see it happen.

More complete abandonment of logic: "I can't see the air I breath but I know it gives me life, I can't see my heart but I know it pumps the blood through my veins, I don't see my thoughts but they guide me everyday." It's as if your religion has disabled any capacity you once had to be logical. Brendan has already refuted this breathtaking inanity and you remain incapable of providing any evidence that your god is any more real than Odin, or Zeus, or leprechauns, or an invisible dragon in your garage (I can't see the dragon but I know he's there!). But just duck the problem, as usual, just like astrologers, tarot card readers, past-life regressionists, and on and on and on.

Funny how facts, forcefully expressed, are "hateful rhetoric" to the logic impaired when they're incapable of refuting them. At a point these peculiar beliefs of the faithful approach delusional and manifest pathologically. Maybe we're seeing this phenomenon happening right here.

This is why this bizarre warped thinking must be opposed and prevented from infecting the minds of children. When it manifests this way, with the almost complete abandonment of reason, and falls back on the "you're all going to hell" and "I'll pray for you anyway" arguments the yawning pit of barking-dog illness opens up.

Brendan I feel so sorry for you. You spew off these hateful comments and talk total nonsense. Read the books written by Depak Chopra. He is a spirtualist and he talks about Jesus. He is from India an he has done much research in this area. You see Brendan he is an EDUCATED man and he has studied in this area for years and as I have stated did extensive research. It is said that Jesus did not die on that cross according to his research. He was crucified as were other men...it was the way to punish those that the Christians..yes Christians did not believe in, Christ was Jewish afterall.. and even though the jews crucified him, it was a christian who gave the orders...anyway as I stated this research found that he did not die on the cross,instead his parents Joseph and Mary came to him and cut him down and brought him to India where he was nursed by his mom and lived out his life in India as a prophet..He was born in July and Lived to be well into his 90's.......he is buried in India........Go do your research my friend because this is NOT what the catholics or christians believe but there is proof in india..........read nad educate your small tiny mind brendan...you see I am not siding with either of the sides expressed here...at least not fully........He lived, he was a spiritual prophet who was hated by the christians...Go educate yourself...Depak Chopra is the historian

Brendan made incredibly poignant and compelling arguments. The majority of which I agree. We all recognize, at this point, that Brendan and Liberty and now Lew are thoughful people. I laugh out LOUD at housewife, soccer Mom Anne. She is quite spirited but, well, best if she watches rather than contribute. Anne, have you ever heard of the term" stay in shallow waters where is it safe. The deep end is not for the ill prepared" Joe the Plumma,please do not say a prayer for me. But you can for the sorrowful Red Sox. Much appreciated.
Lew and Liberty : Great point(s) as usual !
I never said I was an Athiest. In fact, nobody here has... I do not think. I am a man who challenges those that are not proven. I know the bible. The church. The whole Easter bunny thing on Easter. I forgot, that has zero to do with this Holy week. Kids celebrate Easter because of peeps and choco eggs don't they?
I fully support the banner being removed. It is on Gov't property. What part of that are you NOT getting?
From Vegas:
Anne - 8 the biggest drop in PatchRatings.com History
Murphy 1
Hackett 1
Joe the Plumma 1 and that's being generous
Davis: - 5
Mike: 2
Brendan +10
Liberty + 9
Lew + 4

Oh ..... and have a great Holiday !

First off Jim I am not a housewife, but if I was there is no shame in that. You make it sound like a bad thing which further convinces me you are a bigoted judgmental piece of crap. I will not bore you with my list of degrees or accomplishments, however I will say that you need to get to a library and read in order to open that bigoted, closed minds of yours. I agree the banner should come down because it is a public school, however to all of you atheist out there......Good luck...that is all I will say. And the silly scoring Jim...oh please go get a life..you are incredibly ridiculous.

Jim i didnt think i had to tell you who the christian was..it was Pontius pilate..you poor poor ignorant man you....go get an education

and hahahahahahahahahahaha to you brendan you are accusing me of everything you have done on this forum and more...hahahahaha You are unbelievable and incredibly silly!!! LOLOLOLOL Thanks for the laugh old man

and brendan if you can read...you need to reread what i have posted..I dont believe in hell or heaven... I dont; believe that God is some guy with a white beard sitting ona throne with angels around him.I don't believe that christ will rise again......I believe christ was a man, a prophet who did not die on the cross.....I believe that public school should not have a pray hanging in it however it took this long to realize that???? How many years? Before you judge me know what I am about and learn to read or at least to comprehend the words you are reading correctly

you are 17? hahaha that explains it then

I highly recommend reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, it really shows the weakness of ambiguous positions such as agnosticism, deism, pantheism, and vague beliefs in 'a higher power'.

Annie ...... steady !!

Two words Mom .....

ANGER MANAGEMENT !

Annie ..... why so hateful.... calling me uneducated, bigoted, ignorant.

Annie ..... Annie .... please.... thou chasticizes but thou shall be forgiving for I know not what I do.

Annie ..... - 9

These posts by brendan and Jim have proved the ignorance certainly is bliss.

Annie ..... see, there you go again ..... with your personal insults.

You must be the life of the party !!

A real peach to be around !

The rib-woman , talking snake and magical tree are all wonderful stories. But I think I have that one beat.

The whale swallowing Jonah ( that 's his name right ) is pure magic. I mean, Wally Disney could not have scripted it better.
And Noah? That crazy madcap..... what was he thinking?

Look, there are those who may be Catholic, Christian, Hebrew, Athiest or just pure non believers all together.
I never said what I practice. It was assumed because I challenge what my particular religion does preach and often times the hypocracy is far too much to bare. So, I challenge those very aspects.
Is that what we ALL should do or would you rather blindly believe and never question?

Is that really really going to get you to umm "heavens gate" any faster thna me? I fear not.

Challenge, never waver and stake always your claim ......

The banner? It is coming down ..... watch ..... it will !

Jim and Brendan,

You asked why I am praying.

I pray to praise my God.

I pray to thank my God for all that he has given us.

I pray to seek God's guidance and councel.

I pray to ask God's forgiveness of my sins.

I pray to ask God to give me the strength to face life's hardships.

I do not pray to ask God to intercede in the business of mankind. What happens here on earth is of our own free will. God plays no hand in it. He only provides the guidance for us to do what is right.

I pray for the faithless like you Brendan, so that you could some day be humble enough to have faith in something greater than yourself.

It is not a fantasy world Brendan. It is not a Divine Plan in the limited sense you think that you understand it to be.

God's existence doesn't need proof, nor are you important enough for God to expose himself just to you so that you may beleive. It is Faith.

Though you do not have Faith you find it gratifying to belittle those that do. Even to the extent of comparing Holy Week to National Pot Week.

Shame on you.

You have reduced what was a lofty debate on the Constitution to a baseless and cruel attack on Christians. You may have the Blog to yourself so that you can continue to spew you vicious slander on religion.

God bless you and forgive you.

Good points ... and I respect that. I reall do. And you should have equal respect for those who do not feel the same. I may or may not be one of them, as I wrote.

It was a lofty debate. But then it became nasty and personal. People telling others who wanted the banner to come down to " repent" and "go away" or " what's the big deal..... it's been there for years".
So, although I admire your honesty, Joe, the nagative posts are from pro and con banner contributors here.

Let the debate continue.... without insults, patronization or personal attacks.

I like the way Liberty, Brendan and others who favor the banner make their points. You must admit, it has been provocative.

I believe the banner will come down...I just said taht it is amazing no one complained for all of these years and suddenly someone is.....also let me ask brendan and jim something.......how do you get something from nothing.........you can't...........there had to be something that created all that is around us....it had to come from something....I am not saying it was a man God..I am just saying it had to come from something. Think about that......and yes I am a peach to be around....i am filled with love and not hate and venom like the two of you.....you two are shameful human beings and talk about anger management? My Lord you both are poster children for it.

It really is a shame that this discussion has degraded into mere bickering and ad hominem attacks (on both sides) just because we disagree with each other. Can we all act like intelligent, mature human beings?

Brendan although Joe can't prove what he believes in NOR CAN YOU BRENDAN and all you other nonbelievers. Can you prove what you believe? Can you prove there is no kind of God and that Christ never lived..NO you cannot prove that just as we cannot prove the opposite so I guess it is a stalemate. And do not insult people and when they come back become indignant..it makes you look small.

Brendan.... I have been advocating that for quite some time. Annie must have mispalced her broom because it appears that her "intellectual argument" is clouded with attacks, venom and non sensical rhetoric.
With ANNIE, it appears that her points are saturated in trying to contradict others' points of view. She offers no real interesting contribution(s) rather a barrage of simplistic pedestrian comments.

Keep an eye on her responses.

Other than being redundant and lacking thought, they are , well, wuite frankly, boring to read.

I've been following these comments for a few days and would like to add my two cents. A few years back when Cranston City Hall came under some criticism for the manger scene on the front lawn during Christmas, I don't believe they took it down. They allowed other religions to add to the lawn decorations (which looked completely ridiculous with the flamingos). Could this in any way be similar to this arguement?
Also, it makes me think of segregation in the south during the 1960s. I know it's not a religious comparison, however, when segregation ended, or became illegal, the majority of the south still wanted to keep blacks and whites separate. Blacks fought hard for the rights that the law gave them even though most of the south disagreed with the law. In this case, most people from what I'm reading disagree that the banner should be taken down. If the law says, and the courts agree, that the banner should be taken down because of the separation between church and state, then it doesn't matter if the majority wants it to stay.
Just my thoughts

Jim My name is anne..not annie...and my comment was valid..You cannot prove that no God exists as I cannot prove that one does...that is a valid statement and should not have drawn criticism. You are the one lacking thought and brendan is manically redundant and vicious. I am done with all of you..you all just want to spew venom and need a soap box or pulprit....none of you are interested in anything intelligent..just spewing your BS all over the place and when someone says something intelligent LIKE none of us have proof either way..you insult that too..which tells me you are ignorant and egotistical and lacking greatly.

By the way Rob T my neighbor put the flamingoes there to prove a point...it is what it is right, wrong or indifferent, he did it to prove a point of how ridiculous all of the complaints were

Prove a thing that doesn't exist doesn't exist. Sigh......this is such an old....old....old...and transparently incorrect argument.

Bertrand Russell's famous passage:
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Brendan and I have extended the concept to include leprechauns, astrology, tarot cards, past-life regression, fire-breathing dragons, tooth fairies, mushroom lords, etc., anything for which there is no objective evidence for it's existence yet is nonetheless maintained to be a real thing.

Bertand Russell: Ignorant! Too funny.

Offer proof instead of emotion. But you can't.

No matter.

I have stayed out of this for several weeks. I'll repeat what I said before - take 'Our Heavenly Father' & 'Amen' off the banner, then read the contents of the banner itself. There is absolutely nothing with religious remarks or overtones in it. It's about being a good citizen of the school.
Frankly, I am tolerant of other views. As a Catholic, I don't impose my views on others nor do I necessarily agree with some of the Church's points. I feel very strongly that the downfall of belief in any religion/force of a greater power than ourselves, has much to do with the downfall of this country. I have a brother-in-law & a friend who are athiests. We don't impose our views on each other. I don't go to Church to pray for their souls. They are good, decent people.
What I question is the lack of morality in today's society. If this banner will help one student to be a good, moral person, it has achieved its job. I believe that this banner should stay. If they take the 'offending words' off it, I don't see a problem.
The fact is Jessica is a 15 yr. old front man for the ACLU & her father. A parent doesn't 'use' their child to promote his own cause. If he was offended, HE should have stood up & taken the heat. The ACLU is a socialist organization which doesn't fit into our supposedly 'democratic' society. Their agenda is to destroy the American way of life. They are backed by a socialist millionaire which is why they can afford to take on these so-called cases. Shame on him!

Rather obviously, no one has taken issue with the non-religious portions of the banner's text, only the religious portions. Also obviously, you're correct, if the religious sections are removed then the banner does not violate the constitution and there would be no need to defend the constitution with a lawsuit. But no...that's too sensible for the believers.

Your opinion about Jessica or her motives (on which I disagree with you - she has been very clear in extended video and text available online, about understanding what she's doing and why, and appears to be a very self-possessed and self aware person fully capable of making informed decisions on her own behalf), and on the ACLU, while they may merit discussion on their own, are beside the point, which is, is the banner violating the constitution? It is. Some of us believe the constitution is worth defending, and that an organization that defends the constitution performs a valuable service. And bravo to whoever supports an organization that defends all our rights under the constitution from the religious stormtroopers who would trample the constitution under their jackboots to promote their bronze age superstitions in public institutions.

And Anne, my point was identical to Bertrand Russell's point. I'm not sure you're capable of grasping that, frankly, but if my point seemed ignorant to you then BR's ought to have also. Or perhaps you meant that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant?

Liberty - I have taken issue with this since day one. The content of the banner violates nothing.

I agree with you on the point that Jessica is probably an intelligent young woman. However, I don't feel that she is behind this but is a pawn for others. Where were her parents when this started? They hid in the background, made her their mouthpiece. It's only recently that her father has surfaced. Yes, we want our children to think, learn, be aware but children aren't children any more - they don't have the opportunity to enjoy their childhood, a time of dreams, imagination, creativity. Family, traditions, morals don't seem to exist anymore. Jessica should be enjoying her high school years but is put on display as the poster child for the ACLU. ACLU does not defend the constitution - it picks & chooses and if ever there was an example of jackboot nazism, they are it. They don't do anything unless they're going to get something out of it whether is be publicity, money, whatever. If they had their way, they would take away our right to vote and run the country their way (not that we're in very good shape!) They want power - that is the ultimate goal. Nothing like power for the sweet smell of success. They are no more than terrorists in suits - the bombs they hold are words that they twist to their cause and advantage.
What Jessica may not realize is this will be on her forever. It could affect her college/work applications - nobody wants a potential 'rabble rouser' around.

I don't get that impression about Jessica at all, nor about her father. The many, many people who have rallied to support her in her defense of the constitution, think she's a remarkable, and brave, example of what it really means to behave morally, in defense of a right principle, despite the opposition of an ignorant majority who have apparently never studied the constitution nor the legal history surrounding the establishment clause. And she knows she's doing the moral thing. I suggest you review the extensive video and comments Jessica's made. Her's and her father's values appear better than most who voice them out of one side of their mouth while they support violating them out of the other and spout hate towards Jessica the whole while. And a fifteen year old is well old enough to form opinions about serious issues, and she's fortunate not to have been indoctrinated and is capable of thinking for herself. By the way, Jessica has already met and received support from some of the finest thinkers and academics in the world, and has already been prompted by a prominent Harvard professor to apply there. So yes, this will be with her forever, to her good fortune, because she's having a fortuitous introduction to a broader world of thought outside the backwards, backwoods thinking drowning this country with it's religious superstitions and narrow morality. Good universities want students capable of rational thought and personal enterprise, and she's got 'em both.

By the way, where do people come by these bizarre notions about the ACLU? It's truly weird. They want power? Where is that coming from? It strains credulity that anyone can misunderstand and misrepresent something so completely. But of course, this is what it's come to in this nation, where misrepresentation in support of ideology, instead of support for real people, is causing new levels of intolerance. The ACLU is one of the most moral institutions in the nation, constantly working to support the principles that are the foundation of the country, and therefore benefiting everyone, even their opponents.

Jim you need a lobotomy...seriously man you are an unstable, sick individual..I already stated that the banner will probably come down because of the separation of church and state...what part of that didn't you get before you went on your unintelligible rant?

Amen Rhodegirl!! :)

"They were going to get sued if they left it up and that suit would have cost them. They are not spending anything on this one. Don't you have homework you should be doing?"

-

^ I'm sure the school officials were contacted before the ACLU sued them. Therefore, they refused to bring it down.

Besides, the banner being there in the first place is illegal, something should have been done about it a long time ago.

You are right Joe

Brendan:
Going back a few posts you said the onus was on the believer to prove it. Where in the constitution does it say a person does not have the right to hang a banner with religious content in a public place? And don't say it is implied, because with everything you have said to deny religion has argued that you can't imply that is there.

Brendan do you work at being redundant or does it come naturally...You are incredibly boring..go get a real job.

I have said plenty of intelligent things and have been put down with your dumb stupid rants and orations..Others have said very intelligent things too but if you don't agree you start on a rant..it is redundant and boring...end of story

Annie .... Annie ..... Annie ..... even when it is this nice out .... the birds chirping, the lawnmowers cutting fresh clean grass and the tulips sprouting everywhere ..... You still canot be nice !

You are priceless. Such a dole. Such a tyrant. Such an anger management candidate.

Seriously, don't you have something to do other than guzzle 3 - for -a - dollar vino and rant here !

Come on woman .... be nice !

I agree. However, if an innocent bystander who is making a comment chances upon our discussion, they'll probably go to the bottom and see the most recent comments, and see how immature Anne is acting. Its worth being civil, so I can say that I at least TRIED to bring the conversation into the realm of rationality.

I prefer informed debates to whiny bickering troll battles on the internet, at least on a subject such as this.

I do think that the topic has run its course ...... heck, even Joe the Plumma has vacated.
And that tells you that the topic is whipped and without blue collar flava !

Just sayin'