Why is it unconstitutional to be religous but is is constitutional force atheism on religous people?

I don't see how you can say religion was "shoved" down anyone's throat. No one is forced to read, repeat, memorize or believe in this prayer. If you don't believe in God ignore the prayer. Why take away a symbolic wish and gift from a former class? How does it cause harm?

The prayer promotes christian mythology and infringes on the beliefs of others whether they are Atheist,Hindu,etc......It is obviously unconstitutional.

I am an atheist after being raised in a Catholic family I found that I do not believe. However I realize that this country was founded by god fearing men who wanted religious freedom for all. They carefuly wrote our constitution saying seperation of church and state. What that means is the government cannot force us to adhere to a specific church, cannot force us to have a church political party we are a totally secular governing country. It does not bother me to see signs of religious beliefs. They do not bother me because they have no meaning to me. I have come to find that just as there are fanatics in politics there are fanatics in religion and atheistism. This makes me sad. The prayer should stay on the wall as it was put there more as a building tool for building character in students. I am appalled sometimes by the actions of people, always demanding to get their way. Life is not like Burger King, no you cannot have it your way.

Reading the court decsion would help clarify:

It's harmful because it suggests that the public school promotes a particular Christian belief system and the expectation that students agree with this. Our Constitution is clear on this -- separation of church and state -- to protect the rights of all to feel comfortable and accepted with their religion or atheism.

Those of you voting "no" in the above poll are likely Christians who assume that nobody else is bothered by your plastering your beliefs on public and government property. If I went to that school and everyone's beliefs were equally respected, I would want equal space (and time) to display and share my atheist belief - those not based on fairy tales and brainwashing.

For the record, you can't "convert" or force Atheism on anyone. Belief is a NOT a choice. You either believe or you don't. Sure, you can go through the motions and pretend you believe, but that's not really belief is it?

Atheism is not believing in a theist deity. Period. Religious folk need to stop thinking that Atheism is, in itself, some religious institution. Just because you group up with others and scheme to convert people to your beliefs does not mean that everyone else does.

@dari43

Something smells fishy about your post, you sound like a fundie impersonating an atheist. Atheists wouldn't usually say "I found that I do not believe" and follow it up with "However I realize that this country was founded by god fearing men."

Hey I'm one of you but I completely agree with the religious fundamentalists... yeah makes perfect sense, you're not tricking anyone you silly fundie.

While it's safe to assume that this is a Christian derived prayer there is no indication that it is. There's no indication of any endorsement of religion or any assumption that anyone was obliged to agree with it, recite it, pray or believe.

In God We Trust is far more unconstitutional than this poster.

dari43, the prayer itself promotes christian mythology and no other religion. This can offend not just Atheist but people of different religious beliefs. If we are going to be fair to everyone we must stay secular in the public sector. Just because it does not offend you does not make it okay. Keeping schools from promoting any religious writings is the only fair way.

let's not guess, here is the 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

it is faulty logic to conclude that if a prayer is on a wall that is equivalent to the state establishing a religion. this is as wrong as the citizen's united ruling that basically says a corporation is the same as a person.

NOT having or saying a prayer I feel is an infringment on my rights! Live and let live. She didn't even notice it until someone pointed it out to her and someone else brought it up to the board. Except for the beginning and the end... that could be written, dear Mom... Love, Johnny.

It's still a wonderful uplifting message that I feel should not be removed not matter what the preamble or ending is. Lighten up America!

Do you know what the Constitution says? It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. It was a phrase penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a minister to explain his views.

Here is what our Constitution says with regard to religion - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So, that being the case, the display of a prayer on the wall of a public school is crearly within constitutional boundaries. As is most often the case, non Christians misquote the Constitution to serve their own agenda.

journal, one thing cannot be more unconstitutional than another when both are considered unconstitutional. Either they are or they are not. Also, all one has to do is look at the religion of those who wrote it to know this is christianity. That is all it takes.

Schools are for learning, not for brainwashing kids into believing in some invisible man in the sky.

Keep all religion out of our schools and let kids learn to think for themselves. If you want to pray or read the bible, do it on your own time at home and at your church. Not in our schools.

TAX all church and religions and end their free ride in America.

Then don't read the sign!!!

Arieus, I agree...tax the churches. They sure don't mind getting involved in elections and politics. Time for them to ante up.

I think some church's still do a lot of good; feeding homeless, helping the poor... just not many of them anymore. Most are just houses of congregation for like-minded / narrow-minded haters. Many of them know their place and that's great. However, when you get mega-churches (especially the evangelical crowd) getting into politics and trying to branch into education (Hey Texas!) then, we need to treat them as corporations and tax them fully.

Another idea: Tax exempt the church's to the average AGI of the community in which they serve. Anything above that AGI is taxed at regular rates.

I really think this is a great example of how nit picky our nation is when it comes to anything that is not 100 % in line with one's individual beliefs. The prayer had been there for almost 50 years so why did this one student have such a problem with it? Teenage against? Now, if the school was making everyone recite it I can see where there would be a problem, but just having it hanging there to reflect some universal human values shouldn't be a problem. And by the way, there are a lot of athiests that are confident in their beliefs and don't have any issues with a prayer here or a Christmas tree there... just like in the world religions there are zealots that cause problems for everyone in atheism too.

Atheists and non-Christians have just as much right to not have prayer thrown in their faces as Christians have to not put up with comments like "brainwashing kids into believing in some invisible man in the sky." We live in a "free" society, and both sides need to learn that this freedom to worship, or not worship any way you choose does NOT give you civil liberties to tear down those who don't share your bigoted opinions. There is a difference in expressing your opinion in a civilized, adult manner that will foster discussion and statements like the one above, or from people who feel it's their divine duty to "save" you if you happen to worship a different god (e.g. - science, FSM, alien intervention, Satan...)

It's time to evolve, People.

Jessica, this isn't really about Atheism. It is about keeping our country secular. No religion gets promoted. Atheism doesn't get promoted. I just wonder how long the prayer would have lasted if it was a Muslim prayer. Most likely it would not have been allowed.

The Establishment Clause very clearly precludes public schools from promoting or affirming any religious primacy. Individual students can choose to pray if they wish, as long as it doesn't disrupt the educational process, but the school itself is prohibited from allowing organized religious activity or a tangible token of religious primacy.

Well played Ebeneezer. Too bad that humankind is too preoccupied with proving their beliefs are right, and trying to impose them on people instead of learning from, and adapting to differing opinions. Instead we live in a world with intollerance, bigotry, hatered and violence which many times is all in the name of whatever higher power they\we cling to.

Isn't the poll interesting -- such a large percent of this sample voted to allow a clear violation of the founding principles of this country: separation of church and state?

Perhaps this has something to do with the poor education and the dumbing-down of America. Just a lot of ignorant, poorly educated mindless zealots are being popped out with minds clogged with the popular voo-doo of the day.

Good thing America is a republic instead of a democracy. For those uneducated in US Constitutional Law: A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).

Religious beliefs have no place in public schools or government no matter how long the violation has been in place. Remember, those who wanted to continue with slavery, bigotry and segregation used many of the same arguments to maintain those violations.

This educated and thoughtful young woman is a hero and should be applauded for her bravery. Wish there were more like her!

And isn't it amazing that some of these self-proclaimed Christians are threatening to kill her -- amazing what evilness is at the base of religion!

A public school is a government outlet, and as such can not be involved in promoting or establishing favoritism for one particular brand of religion, or any religion over any others, or over no religion at all. It must remain totally and completely neutral on the subject to pass constitutionl muster. The school prayer banner was rightfully found to be an unconstitutional violation of individual rights.

This is not 'forcing atheism' on anyone, you as an individual are still free to believe, pray, and practice however you want. If you want the schools your children attend to have prayer banners on the wall, you are free to send them to a private religiously chartered school which is not a government representative, and you have the liberty and freedom to make that decision because the government rightfully can not prohibit your free individual exercise of religion. But you do not have the right to have the government establish any one religion as superior to another.

Those of you only focused on the 'free exercise' clause and conveniently forgetting the 'establishment' clause need to go back and actually read your Constitution.

Thomas, your just being unreasonably childish. Obama is no deity. Gods have never been proven to exists. He is as human as you seem to be.

I didn't see where they forcing this little twit to read or memorize this prayer. So how exactly was this offensive to her. What cause she had to look at it? If that's the case put a bag over your face kiddo cause I find it offensive. PC is going to kill our society.

krowdykutz, FACT, the supreme court is one branch of government who rules on constitutional issues in which you must abide by their decisions. I don't like every ruling that comes from them just like I don't like all laws created by Congress yet I have to follow them.

Before our country was founded, the Pilgrims came here from England and Holland as they were not allowed to worship at they chose. It didn't take long before they forgot what it was like to be persecuted for religious beliefs; Massachusetts has a history of exiling (or worse) people who didn't follow the sanctioned religion. Other states became associated with one religion or another; Quakers in Pennsylvania, Baptists in Rhode Island, and Catholics had the upper hand in Maryland. It created a lot of problems since law and religion don't mix very well -- God trumped civil law almost every time. Unfortunately "God's will" was often perverted to the benefit of some religious leader or citizen prominent in the congregation -- not a good basis for a citizenry in which all were equal and benefited from their own efforts as opposed to their standing in the church.

This was one of the prime reasons that our Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Our founding fathers had learned the lessons from the past. They were also influenced by the philosophies of John Locke, who argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience; rational people cannot cede their conscience to the government for it or others to control.

No matter what your faith, the government should have no role in it, nor be seen promoting one religion above another. That's why this prayer does not belong on a school wall.

It's interesting though that the political party that most promotes gov't non-interference in business and people benefiting from their own efforts is also the party that wants the gov't to interfere in our sex lives and seems to think it's okay for the gov't to promote the Christian faith. In the old days, many of these people would be the ones prominent in the congregation, profiting when "God's will" trumped civil law. Very interesting. . .

Tell me again why this is an issue? It's done by a 16 year old that hasn't experienced life and the meaning of life.........cripes, she can't even vote yet. It is just another shining example of ignorance in our society. Yes, I believe in the 1st Amendment, however.......... I would proudly wear the t-shirt. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

I'm wondering. What would happen if I complained about the muslim sponsored calenders hanging in my doctors office and my sons kindergarten class room? Would the doctor have to take it down. Would the muslim teacher in the ((Public School)) have to take hers down?

They should just take out the words "Our heavenly Father" and "Amen".

Then there would be no complaint.

JPM77-

The establishment clause is simply that - government cannot establish a national religion as the official state-backed religion, which they never have and never will. A Prayer banner is an example of freely exercising a religious belief, not establishing a national religion. If you say that people can't freely exercise their religion in a public institution, you are trampling the constitution.

QED

If you know the constitution than you know that it says the government will not establish a religion.

You can pray any way you want and where you want. The prayer in school does not establish a religion

it is a prayer of a student and you can pray or not in school this is still a christian country.

Here we go again: all the Christians flock to insist anything that doesn't FORCE Christianity down everyone's throat in a PUBLIC place, is an attack against them. Change that to the public posting of a passage from the Koran or the Talmud and watch these same great defenders of religion run to the hills. Hypocrites. Thankfully, we have the courts to guard against your attempts to destroy the constitution and your failure to understand what this country is about. You want to pray?? No one is prohibiting you. Force others to read your garbage? Not in these United States.

Wolvie, If the doctor's office is private, then no he does not have to the calendars down. However, the teacher does have to take hers down. It is in the same boat as this prayer.

Trilly-

You said it. Congress is the only branch of government that makes laws. They have never made a law prohibiting school prayer or anything of that nature. Judicial activists have made interpretations regarding school prayer, but that is not law. Any branch of government can make an interpretation, including the exexutive branch and congress.

QED

First of all, there is nothing that explicitly states a separation of church and state in the Constitution. It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....". So, technically, there is no CONSTITUTIONAL provision stating that the school cannot hang the prayer in the auditorium. IF the school required students to recite the prayer, that would be another story.

Secondly, by taking down the prayer, this girl is not forcing Atheism on the school. Period. She is not telling every person in the school that you cannot believe in a god.

This does bring me to my third point. I quote from the greatest philosopher of our time, George Carlin. "Keep thy religion to thyself." I don't care if you pray to purple gnomes that live in shoes, or if you believe in an invisible man that lives in the clouds, just keep it to yourself and live and let live.

krowdykutz, Can you read? I never said Congress is the only branch that makes laws. It takes the executive branch to sign bills into laws. Judicial activists? That term comes from those who are disgruntled when they don't get their way when a judicial decision doesn't go their way. It's rubbish. And Congress doesn't have to pass laws about school prayer. It is already written into the constitution by our founding fathers. Separation of Church and State was meant to protect religious freedom.

Krowdy - the one problem you and trilly have is this: The judiciary can strike down laws - even if they don't create them.

mike277 - are you suggesting correlation and causality between her actions and future problems?

That, by far, is the most ignorant and pathetic thing I may read all day.

For those of you defending the hanging of a judeo-christian prayer in the auditorium of a public school - would you be so quick to rise to the defense if it were a big poster of Shiva (Hindu blue god) or of Buddha..?

Just because a community is predominately a certain religion does not exempt them on grounds of tradition, from freedom of religion for all in public areas like a school. When a permanent monument is placed, it must not uphold one religion over another, unlesss that monument is on the grounds of a cemetery, or on the grounds of a place of worship. Keep it in the churches and temples, people.

I would expect this kind of stupidity in Cranston. It is not surprising to me. Cranston is one of those bastions of conservative stupiditiy in an otherwise largely liberal state.

For those of you who watch "The View" - Elisabeth Hasselbeck went to school in Cranston, RI... its a bastion of these conservative morons, brainwashed at a good and early age, just like so many of them are. Not capable of thinking for themselves, take ancient dusty scrolls written by ancient dead men at face value, and conveniently toss out the parts they dont like (such as ministering unto the poor, and admonishments about storing treasure here on earth).

Trilly,

You NOR government has any right to define what is GOD. If I say my God is Obama then Obama is my GOD. What you are doing is restricting my right to have whatever GOD i wish to have.

What is more EGREGIOUS violation of the constitution than you not allowing me to have Obama as my God?

Ebeneezer, I don't have a problem with the judiciary striking down laws that are found to be unconstitutional. However, it is the duty of lower courts to look at precedence in past cases to make determination of said cases. Furthermore, it is the job of the courts to do so. Again I see no problem.

Thomas, I am not saying you cannot make Obama your God. I'm saying he is not a deity. A divine being. He is human as you. You can make him your god. I don't really care. I just gave an opinion and did not nor have the power to prohibit you from exercising your belief. I just think your being ridiculous.

Why is it unconstitutional to be religous but is is constitutional force atheism on religous people?

Well... because Gov't is religiously neutral. That's why.

It shouldn't be there in the first place. You're allowed to preach whatever you want, but keep it private...

That's what I do. I love being an Anglican, but I keep it to myself. I get so annoyed when people wear their religion on their sleeves, it's so creepy :\

It's just really, really creepy...

I think she is too young to decide whether God exists or not. Her opinion is on her own, she should keep it for herself until she grows up and understands about what life is about. She used to be a believer, now she is not. She might change her mind later. One day, her mood wasn't good and bothered by this prayer bulletin. She makes a big deal out of it. Why other people have to be bothered by her emotional. I think she already regrets. people change mind

@ henry, whether or not she decides to believe in God is not the issue. The fact is that it is unconstitutional for public schools and other state funded entities to endorse a particular religion over another -- regardless of her or anyone else's personal belief. Period.

To all the people in favor of allowing the sign: would you you be in favor if your kids' public school posted a Buddhist or Islamic prayer?

henry - if she is too young to decide whether God exists or not, then she is also too young to have it decided for her by $h!thead adults! So - she should keep her opinion to herself - unless it happens to be the same opinion as the majority around her hold. Way to keep a society in the dark ages.

Man - Whenever I come onto the boards - I think I lose a little more faith in mankind in general. I die a little inside everytime I read a moronic comment like henry's.

Good thing for the little things in life like sparrows, and rain, and leaves, and flowers - I can always turn to those things when just looking at another person makes me wretch a little.

Trilly,

Obama might not be a diety for you but for me he is. Who are you to say Obama is not devine or not? For some people Jesus is a human being and for some he is a diety. Why do you ask people to remove Jesus from public square? Why do you want to give special privilege to Christians by classifying Jesus as devine and to be removed from public square but not demanding Obama to be removed from public square.

You are just as bigoted in your beliefs, you don't give me the same respect that you give other religions.

Who do you think should define who is devine and who is not? Who gets to define if Jesus is devine or not and who gets to define if Obama is devine or not?

Your view are no different from the bigoted KKK, Nazis or Moslems.

Peace,

Brown Skinned Immigrant

ttmadison- I voted no, I am not a Christian, nor do I expect everyone to have the same beliefs as me. If there is no requirement to recite the prayer, I do not see how or why this should offend anyone.

Why is it unconstitutional to be religous but is is constitutional force atheism on religous people?

What a silly question. NO ONE is forcing anyone to be an atheist by simply NOT having an inappropriate sign hung in a PUBLIC SCHOOL.

Would you be ok with having Islamic prayers hung there as well? How about Pagans prayers and symbols?

Prayer will ALWAYS exist in school, no one tells ANY child not to pray, so long as they don't attempt to force it on others. This hanging as an OFFICIAL SIGN in school is blatant proselytization, and as such has no business in a PUBLIC SCHOOL.

You want a theocracy? I hear Iran is accepting applications!

I do not see how or why this should offend anyone.

It is flagrantly xtian in verbiage, in a public school with kids from ALL religions (and none) a sign such as this distinctly tell one group they are 'more accepted' than others. In school any sort of difference can be exploited and used to make minorities ostracized, and at that age, additional means of dividing the kids is an incredibly BAD idea. Does that make it clearer? Hang this in a xtian church, and it is totally appropriate, NOT SO at a public school.

it is faulty logic to conclude that if a prayer is on a wall that is equivalent to the state establishing a religion.

Look up Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971); and Stone v. Graham, 449 US 39 (1980).

Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. It was a phrase penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a minister to explain his views.

And it has been quoted by the Supreme Court in at least 14 different rulings to support the First Amendment.

So, that being the case, the display of a prayer on the wall of a public school is crearly within constitutional boundaries. As is most often the case, non Christians misquote the Constitution to serve their own agenda.

Read the cases I quoted above -- it is clearly a violation of the First Amendment, according to the Supreme Court.

I guess sessions of Congress shouldn't open with an opening prayer then...

From snopes.com:

Congress has indeed retained paid (Christian) chaplains since 1789 (not 1777) to open sessions with prayer and to provide spiritual guidance to members and their staffs upon request. That practice was strongly opposed by James Madison:

"The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion," Madison wrote. "The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?"

Continued Madison, "[If] it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

And our motto shouldn't be In God we Trust....

This is what the US Court of Appeals had to say about that:

Critics contend that the motto's placement on money constitutes a "law respecting an establishment of religion" by the government, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Separation of church and state. The motto was first challenged in Aronow v. United States in 1970, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

And we shouldn't be endowed with certain Unalienable Rights by our Creator...

That phrase is taken from the Declaration of Independence, which is not the basis for our laws and government; the Constitution is the basis for all of our laws and government.

We also need to take the bas-relief of Moses, Gregory the IX, Suleiman, or Saint Louis from the Walls of the house of representatives too...

They are not there for biblical reference, but due to their positions as lawmakers or legislators.

I don't force you do go to Church and accept my religion, so don't force me to accept your belief in no God. I have to respect your belief - but not accept it.

No one is forcing you to accept or believe that there is no god, but a public school cannot promote belief in any god.

Just wondering...if the prayer hanging on the wall began with "Blessed Allah" instead of "Our Heavenly Father", would the Christians still be defending it? Yeah...I didn't think so.

Go to a church school, a parochial school, for religiion in school.

I am so tired of Xtians trying to use the PUBLIC school system for their PRIVATE beliefs! They have our money printed with "in god we trust," but that is because they worship money as their god. (Hey - if it walks like a duck...!) Everywhere you go there are Xtians ASSUMING that you also believe as they do or trying to find out if you do. If you do not speak their buzz words, then they try to "convert" you - ENOUGH ALREADY! Good for you. Enjoy your religion, but keep it to yourself and don't try to push it on others! Religion is everywhere as it is! (but the fad is definitely waning b/c the proof is in the pudding)

All the atheists I know never talk about it, but when they do, down to the last person, they are very knowledgeable about most religions and usually more so than the ones who claim belief in them. They are not a religion. They do not belong to a group or any groups. They mind their own business and do not try to talk other people into believing as they do. They do not ASSUME the beliefs of others and respect their privacy. Personal spiritual beliefs are respected as private matters.

Besides, how many people who wear their religion on their sleeves wear it in their lives?

Too many Xtians talk and talk and talk, but they can barely live their beliefs b/c they are too busy showing off, acting out, or getting up in other people's private business trying to control and pass judgement. They are trying to turn America into the Xtian version of Iran with church controlling state and every aspect of We the People's lives. Please, just bug off. It is juvenile to think everyone has to bellieve the same thing - or even the same thing in the same way. This is America; grow up!

This is ridicules! No one is pushing "God" on to the students of the school. The saying is simply a way to encourage others and no one is being forced to believe in god nor should they be forced to submit to one 16 year olds beliefs. Most people in our country believe in god and the minority gets to tell us what to do. If you don't like it don't look at it! This is not a constitutional question - it was put there by other 7th graders not by the state and not by the church. Stop being selfish!!!

There are two sides to the separation of church and state. The government can not stop you from practicing your religion. The government can not endorse a religious practice of any kind. Remember these two rules and we will all get along just fine.

"Here is what our Constitution says with regard to religion - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So, that being the case, the display of a prayer on the wall of a public school is crearly within constitutional boundaries."

Due to the laws that congress passed making school attendance mandatory, and that public schools are the default institution that children are required by law to attend, this makes anything within a public school the same as a direct law passed by congress. This is why religious signs and symbols have been outlawed in schools in an official context. That is not the same as kids praying either alone or in a group, or teachers having a religious text in their possession. So long as the teacher is not teaching the kids from that text or the school isn't organizing the pray groups the kids are having, it's OK.

In my view, a good Christian would not want his religion in the schools at all as he would consider it a private matter in his household, ie Matt 6:6 "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Why have none of you thought of the obvious? No one is questioning whether the tenets expressed in the prayer are admirable goals by which to live. Why not remove the religious connotations and revise it to a list of rules by which students should try to live their lives? For example, get rid of the "our heavenly father" phrase and start a list of the positive goals in the prayer with (1) we will strive each day to do our best to grow mentally, morally and physically, (2) we will try to be kind and helpful to our classmates, etc. That would retain the overall meaning intended by the seventh grader who wrote the prayer and give guidance to everyone regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof, somewhat like a Boy Scout or Girl Scout motto.

You posters who claim to be Christians are showing your hypocrisy and intolerance by not adhereing to the rule "live and let live". You collapse posts that do not conform to your beliefs. You want everything to be done your way and show no respect for those who don't share your beliefs. The place for prayer is in the church or private home, not in public institutions supported by taxpayer dollars.

Why is it unconstitutional to be religous but is is constitutional force atheism on religous people?

How does removing the prayer from a public building force atheism? Does not advertising Big Macs, force you to buy Whoppers?

I don't see how you can say religion was "shoved" down anyone's throat. No one is forced to read, repeat, memorize or believe in this prayer. If you don't believe in God ignore the prayer. Why take away a symbolic wish and gift from a former class? How does it cause harm?

No more harm than an eight foot sign saying "There is no god, and all moral behavior is a result of man's determination that it is ultimately more self-serving to be kind than to be cruel" Or one with a prayer to allah. Or one to zeus or a wiccan or Budhist or jewish prayer. If you are fine with those sentiments being displayed in equal measure, then it's not harmful. Otherwise it is a state endorsement of one religion over all other beliefs....which disadvantages (harms) all others.

Why have none of you thought of the obvious? No one is questioning whether the tenets expressed in the prayer are admirable goals by which to live. Why not remove the religious connotations and revise it to a list of rules by which students should try to live their lives?

Spot on! But for the 'Our Blessed Father' and the 'Amen,' most of the rest of the poster is absolutely GREAT!

Still don't see how people CAN'T see that posting religiously tainted materials will get people riled.

For those of you who are condemning this girl and saying that she didn't have to READ the prayer...where did you stand on a Mosque (a religious building that nobody is forcing you to attend) being built near ground zero (a public space)?

Thomas, can you not read. I said it was my opinion and you have a right to believe what you want. For you to make a stretch comparing me to KKK, Nazis or Moslems, well again you are being ridiculous. Until you can provide evidence that a divine being exists your argument is baseless and without legs to stand on. A little evidence would give some credibility, which is important.

Believers often ask, "What harm is there in prayer?" There is a great deal of harm in religious belief in general. All the Revealed Religions are alike in the single worst possible respect. They demand human beings wallow in self denigration. They declare humanity is stained, flawed, corrupt, weak and incapable of determining their own destiny. (Therefore humanity must be lead... preferably by OUR leader!)

The entire Judeo/Christian ethos is predicated on primitive superstitions, bloody human sacrifices, belief in magic, invisible beings and cryptic notions like atonement, hypostasy and transubstantiation. These nonsense terms have no basis in reality and when clerics are asked to define them or explain how they work, they are at a total loss. They can only resort to useless gibberish about, "sacred mysteries."

"It's a mystery," is not an explanation. "We don't know," is not an answer. If the cause of something has not been determined, we can't then simply declare 'This' (an invisible magic being) to be the cause.

To selectively suspend the requirement of proof renders all other conventions or accepted proofs or explanations, (those based on observation, experimentation or prediction) subject to arbitration or interpretation. That is how evolution gets permanently relegated to being a 'theory.'

If one assertion requires no proof, why should any assertion require proof? And worse, why should I or anyone accept that anything has been proven to be a factual reality? That is how believers so easily ignore contradictions and deny facts.

That is the danger of religious belief. It demands we accept magic (supernatural/divine forces) as the cause of all kinds of fantastical, incredible assertions of events outside of our usual experience, like horses that fly, donkeys that talk and people that float away into the sky or rise from the dead.

It allows believers to assert the inability to disprove the existence of the magic invisible being is somehow proof of its existence. That is completely ridiculous nonsense. Allowing for invisible magic, virtually no assertion could be ruled out.

Religious belief is also what allows people like Newt Gingrich to behave so blatantly hypocritically. His immoral serial adultery has been forgiven by the invisible being so he's now in a position to determine what is moral behavior for the rest of us... HUH??

Newt often cites the Declaration Of Independence as the seminal founding document of America. On this we agree. But the DOI mentions no god by name. It cites the, "Creator," "Laws Of Nature and of Nature's God." It specifically states, "when in the course of HUMAN EVENTS... Governments are instituted AMONG MEN... deriving their authority FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED," not from any god.

Nowhere does the DOI, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights mention Yahweh, Jesus, Christianity or the Bible. Our national motto is E Pluribus Unum. In God We Trust was invented in 1864, over 70 years after the nation's founding. It wasn't placed on our money until 1954 during the height of the McCarthey era witch hunts.

The DOI is a SECULAR document written in direct opposition to divine authority by rejecting the ancient (superstitious) concept of the Divine Right of Kings. It establishes America as a nation of Laws. Not commandments... laws.

A society based on laws requires proof in establishing the truth of any claim. If you remove the requirement of proof as religious belief does, you are in direct opposition to the concept this nation was founded on.

The results of this poll accurately reflect the attitude of American society. The so-called 'Moral Majority' has not been a majority for some time now. The percentage of Evangelical, Tea Party, True Believer types in this country hovers around 20% and its getting smaller every year... certainly not enough to get another phony elected president.

The Declaration of Independence signaled the beginning of the end of belief in divine authority and the old order of the world. Its a shame primitive superstitions persist in modern America and so does racism... Neither one should be plastered on the walls of our public schools.

THIS IS WHY IT'S NOT OK:

Rabbi Amy Levin, vice president of the Rhode Island Board of Rabbis,
said she has spoken with former Cranston West students who felt
uncomfortable with the banner when it was put up in their school nearly
50 years ago. She said the families and individuals she talked with were
afraid to make their stance known during an era of such religious
fortitude.

“Jessica, 50 years later, managed to give voice to their discomfort,” said Levin.

So, all you xtians are perfectly fine with a banner in schools that reads "Students, please praise Allah", right? Students could just ignore it, right? Or are you lying about your position?

So, all you xtians are perfectly fine with a banner in schools that reads "Students, please praise Allah", right? Students could just ignore it, right? Or are you lying about your position?

I doubt you'll get an honest answer in support of a sign praising Allah. That's really the problem with right-wing self-righteousness: It seeks to defend and justify the imposition of specific religious perspectives on this specifically non-religious nation, yet when parity is asserted (as was recently the case in Buncombe County, NC) suddenly separation of church and state becomes important to them again. Hypocrisy at its finest.

The establishment clause does not just relate to 'government establishing a national religion'... it has been upheld in precendent by the Supreme Court that it also covers the government playing favorites or acting in a biased manner towards one religion over another or over no religion at all. You can try to restrict the meaning of that if its more convenient to you, but the fact of the matter is that legally and constitutionally, the government can not promote one religion over another or over no religion at all without violating the 1st Amendment rights of some individuals.

Again, you are free to pray as an individual. You are free to believe as an individual. You are free to exercise your religion as long as you do not violate anothers rights in the process of doing so. But you can't have the government act as a representative to do it for you, because that violates others individual rights.

On the Channel 12 news Rabbi Amy Levin called Jessica a "Questioning Spirit" and said people were "pushing her away from the world of Faith instead of welcoming her in"...What the heck is she talking about? Jessica is no "Questioning Spirit" and has no desire to be welcomed into any Faith.So anything The Rabbi is saying is falling on deaf ears.

Jackson, Nobody at the School ever said "Students, please praise God", I can't speak for Christians but I can say I don't think the banner is bothering anyone but the ACLU.

Our republic exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

The majority did rule....the prayer is out! That is what the Constitution is all about.

If "Majority Rules" won out, guess where black folk and women would be right now? If you guess the fields and the kitchen then you're right.

How about we do what's "right" and "fair" instead? I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are a white, male, republican. Just a wild guess.

We are very deliberately a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Tyranny of the majority has no place in the United States.

"Majority Rules" doesn't trump the constitution!! Where the heck did you go to public school? Kansas??

nobody-

Your post is so naive and narrow-minded.

Get out of your church pew and learn something about the real world.

But the real world is the enemy, isn't it?

I wouldn't say the young lady forced the removal - it was the court.

Your assumption that the 'higher power' referred to in these state documents is the God of the religion you believe in is the exact reason for the separation of Church and state.

How would all of you Christians feel if an Islamic prayer was displayed next to the prayer to your God? I guarantee we would see your hypocrisy front and center if religions other than yours demanded to place their own prayers or other dogmatic propaganda in your schools. You all would lose your minds! I am absolutely certain that if Muslim or Hindu posters or plaques were placed next to yours to promote the 'religious freedom' you all espouse, then you all would be at the front of the line to protest.

Out constitution (and the bill of rights) was written to protect us from majority rule.

You don't get to vote on civil rights...thats why they call them "rights."

You're right...whatever became of "majority rules"? According to this poll, 80.7% of people agree with the court's decision. Majority Rules.

Did they ever let the students and faculty vote on whether it stays or goes? What did the actually people who go to the school want?

@ nobody-2686059: Hey bud, see how 80% of people who voted agreed with the court decision? Majority rule indeed.

Not to mention that your assumption that the country is supposed to be ruled by the majority is incorrect.

"One nation under God forever" you say? I recommend you educate yourself and read this:

Under God was added in 1954, 62 years after it was written. What others have added, we can take away.

Yeah, if the majority want to see a Christian eviscerated by a lion in the name of entertainment, what's wrong with that? Majority rule right? If the majority of Germans are okay with mass genocide of Jews, what's wrong with that? Majority rule right? Do you see a problem here with the simple (il)logic of majority rule? I do.

As a person who strives to be a Christian, I believe faith and prayer are personal matters between the individual and their higher power. I intentionally use the word strive, because like most, I repeatedly fail to reach the mark (especially on forgiveness, tolerance and respect for all of God's children). I intentionally went with higher power because I belive this power has many names (e.g. Allah).

Public forums (like our educational system) need to learn to respect that fact that people have different names for their higher power, different theologies and different practices. Many of our citizens are atheist and agnostic.

Unfortunately, some of my "less than Christian" fellow Christians have repeatedly ignored the teachings of our Savior which focus on tolerance and understanding. The message from our Savior was clear that we are not to be the judge of others.

To the young lady, I say "you go girl", and I hope that one day you can find a spiritual home that feeds your soul.

To the rabid Christians out there. What would you do if the school had a prayer referencing Allah or Mohammed? Islam, like Christianity is an Abrahamic religion. Even within the various Christian sects, there are some that believe gays should be burned at the stake while there are others that welcome gay people openly and show them respect.

jrschw- Allah IS the Christian God. You make it sound like he is a different deity, like comparing the Christian God, to the Norse God Thor. Allah, Yahweh and God are all the same concept... the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Deity.

@Mark-3358932

It doesn't matter what the majority of the students or community members want. The fact was the school was breaking the law and was told to stop.

What did the majority of plantation owners want in the 1850-1860s?

For all the complaints that are leveled at the public school system by the right; they do seem to think that public school teachers are highly qualified to indoctrinate teach religion to other people's kids.

Keep it at home and at church.

Stop asking other people who believe differently to subsidize your religion in our schools.

jrschw - You just made too much sense and were far too reasonable and rational. ;)

Thank you for your acceptance of others and for standing up for what is right for ALL of us. If there were more Christians like you, I daresay there would be less atheists. The hate and hypocrisy in religion is usually the first thing that triggers an examination of one's beliefs.

**Warning** This poll has been highjacked from atheists at reddit.com

Here is the address.

reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/oz4nd/remember_the_16_year_old_atheist_girl_that_got/

You will need to fix the space after the www.

Simply go there and downvote their submission.

Yes, please do go visit the /r/atheism sub-reddit. You might learn a thing or two.

**Warning** This poll has been highjacked from atheists at reddit.com

Here is the address.

So? Just because the poll has gotten attention, does that invalidate it?

Or are you stating that Atheists shouldn't be allowed to vote in the poll?

@gbaughma

"So? Just because the poll has gotten attention, does that invalidate it?"

A group of 400,000 people were invited actually, DIRECTED to manipulate a poll with the heading "There's an online poll that needs our attention. You know what to do Reddit." , does it invalidate the poll? Yes.

A true sample ceases to become that when it's so heavily manipulated in this manner. So yes, the poll is invalid.

@gbaughma

"So? Just because the poll has gotten attention, does that invalidate it?"

A group of 400,000 people were invited actually, DIRECTED to manipulate a poll with the heading "There's an online poll that needs our attention. You know what to do Reddit." , does it invalidate the poll? Yes.

A true sample ceases to become that when it's so heavily manipulated in this manner. So yes, the poll is invalid.

It's a web poll, you nitwit. It means nothing and is necessarily unscientific. Grow up.

A group of 400,000 people were invited actually, DIRECTED to manipulate a poll with the heading "There's an online poll that needs our attention. You know what to do Reddit." , does it invalidate the poll? Yes.

So... let me see if I am understanding this correctly. A vote without people involved knowing about it is more valid than a vote where people have been notified that someone is trying to "sneak a vote" past them?

The "You know what to do Reddit" did NOT inform them which way to vote, just to vote.

I agree, people in the 50's generally had more sense.

If memory serves right, the author of the pledge of allegiance was a minister who deliberately left God out because he felt the reference was inappropriate.

Joesokol: Great, you agree with a fact! I was in school when the pledge
changed. It did not result from anyone having more sense. It was a simple
minded attempt to separate America
from the "godless" Communists. Again it was just political pressure
by the religious to inset their ideas into the public domain. It was wrong then
and is wrong today. Religion does not belong in public discourse - it belongs
in churches, and other such places. Religion is irrational, unscientific, not provable
and should be discarded along with the thousands of gods and goddesses humanity
has rejected over the past thousands of years. Everyone's life is a sum of
event probabilities most of which are beyond our control. Those events are all
natural having no mysterious origins. I am sure you cannot accept such an
explanation. You will go on believing that some unknowable uncaused entity will
change event probabilities for you. That is hubris and arrogance of the first
magnitude. I truly feel sorry for you.

I agree, people in the 50's generally had more sense.

People in the 1950s were practically psychotic with fear of communists. They had a lot less sense.

I agree, people in the 50's generally had more sense.

"Under God" was added as a "screw you" to "godless" nations during the red scare. Sensibility had nothing to do with it.

It really doesn't matter, as no one is required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

I'm surprised that the so-called sensible citizens of the 1950's didn't panic when they realized that the US flag had red stripes and have them removed.

The citizens of the 50's were generally scared and gullible.

Remember a fellow named Jim Crow and Commies behind every bush?

Geez...

The author of the pledge of allegiance was a minister but he did not deliberately leave God out because he felt the reference was inappropriate, that is a popular myth deliberately spread to mislead people. The pledge was a tiny part of a program written and/or overseen by Francis Bellamy and replete with prayers, hymns, references to God, including the phrase "under God." That is one reason why the original pledge program is never performed in government schools. Or think of it this way, one reason why the tiny pledge part is performed is because out of the larger program it is a rare part that DOES NOT mention religion. Bellamy was a Christian socialist and a religious wacko and his pledge was the origin of the Nazi salute and Nazi behavior (still is). See the work of the historian Dr. Rex Curry.

Erin, No one Is required to recite the Banner at the school either.

Cat, the previous posts were discussing the Pledge of Allegiance and the addition of "under God" to it. Try to keep up.

Also, forced reciting, while far more offensive than the lack-thereof, is not the only manner in which a sign may transgress the Establishment Clause.

It was a gift to the school from Seventh grade students, that is all. Jessica was clear in saying "She never noticed the banner in her whole first year of school there and when a friend pointed it out, she was not offended and had no problem with it" and that "It had a good message" (page 18 of the court decision & her website)....until the ACLU contacted her. Maybe we should revisit the Everson Decision where it say's "the benefit to the children was more important"

The children benefit just as much by having the sign there with the word "Heavenly Father" removed, because they gain all the benefits of the "good message" and are informed with regard to respect for other belief systems.

Unless, of course, their parents choose to poison their minds with vitriolic, self-serving enmity for that which they cannot control and fear. But the blame for that would be on those parents, of course.

Cat, for the Everson decision to apply, they would first have to prove that there is a "benefit to the children" by displaying the banner -- and that somehow that would invalidate the Lemon test.

nobody - if the majority ruled, without an adherence to the justice system and due process of law, etc., then the US would truly be a scary place to live. Think Taliban, lynch mobs, etc.

I agree, there needs to be a balance between the majority and minority.. Sadly the minority is holding the majority hostage and the balance has been broken.

As long as the Constitution wins, nothing is broken. The tyranny of the far right will not win in this country. We are not a theocracy, no matter how they try to force the citizens of this country to kneel before them.

Rabbit - thank you for putting into words what I wanted to say and saying it better than I could have. Not sure how anyone could argue with your logic.

Thank you alanfoulks, I appreciate the compliment.

Rabbit I have a question, when exactly did our constitutional rights become stiffed due to the place that their exercised? I view it as quite the opposite, especially in a public school, due to it being public and tax supported. Are you telling me due to us believing in God that we can not exercise that in any place public or private? That is not what our Constitution states. Why not ban everything that people find offensive to their beliefs? It only weakens our rights, applying more restraints in exercising the Constitution. Not the other way around. Just food for thought. Public schools are on American soil, and should never have a constitutional barrier. The only message you sending our children in public school is that they can't exercise their constitutional rights while attending school. Now that's unconstitutional.

No one said you cannot exercise your right. What we're trying to tell you Jewels is that the school cannot promote or affirm any religious primacy. They cannot organize or allow to be organized any religious activity, nor can they place or allow to be placed any tokens of religion. None of this abridges what an individual is allowed to do themselves, within their own person, whether it be wearing a religious token or praying, as long as it is not disruptive to the educational process.

Jewels: public supported is exactly the issue. This is not a Christian school that can invoke rules for those who choose to attend. ALL faiths and those of no faith are required by law to attend public school. That means you may not force any religious doctrine in the public sphere, and that's exactly what is intended here by any school promoting one religion over others, no matter how many students in the school are Christian. The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves to think that might be still too difficult for an American to understand. You want to pray? Do so without forcing your ideas on anyone else. What about that is so terribly difficult to understand?

@JewelsNewLeaf - that's the beauty of our country and our freedom of speech - No one is trying to stifle [I think that's the word you were trying to use] your freedom of speech. Say whatever you want, as loudly as you want! (Mind you there may be negative and/or unintended consequences based on what you say.)

The point though...... Is that government can not endorse religion. Period. Now in this case it's implied that the religion being endorsed is the Judeo-Christian god (well mostly the Christian half anyway). But it really doesn't matter if it's Judaic, Christian, Muslim, Islamic, Wiccan, and yes even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Individuals are fine to say what they want but a publicly funded school can not endorse religion.

AP the point is you need to read the Constitution before you argue the point. This isn't about Christian or atheist, this is about exercising your constitutional rights. Clearly states public and private places. Public School = public . Force isn't' stating ones beliefs, in any form. Are you trying to force me to believe otherwise? What is forceful is not allowing others to exercise their belief, in certain locations due to others feeling offended. What we need to be doing as parents is teaching our children to respect each others beliefs without restraining the ability to exercise them. No matter where the suggestion is found. Basically you saying that this prayer some how shoves God down these kids throats, what I am saying is these kids are exposed to things they find offensive everyday. It isn't the governments job to restrain our rights, but to protect them. You have the choice to believe what you want, that is what is great about the U.S. and that was what the founding fathers represented. Practicing those beliefs openly with no restraint from the government or others and to avoid those restraints that are so apparent in many countries around the world. I have more respect for others exercising their rights, even if I don't agree, because it reminds me of what makes our country so great. We have those FREEDOMS!!

@JewelsNewLeaf: You clearly don't understand the nature of the First Amendment. The Government does not have the right to PROMOTE ANY RELIGION. Period. That includes Christianity. And the 14th Amendment makes it clear that ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING ALL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS are included in that prohibition.

No one is violating your freedom to exercise your religion. The only thing is that the government can't take your side. And posting a very Christian School Prayer is taking sides.

You can pray all you want, anytime, anywhere. No one's going to stop you (well, except Jesus, who's not too keen on public prayer Matt 6:5-6). So stop complaining that your rights are violated when other people's rights are respected. It's not a zero sum game. Everyone can have their cake and eat it too; they just can't ask the Government to supply the ingredients.

Repeat this 10 times, then 10 times again:

"Noone is forcing you to believe otherwise. No one is stopping you from exercising your beliefs."

Your belief otherwise skews any further argument you have past that mistake.

We are all taxpayers so why should those who believe in God not have the same rights as those who dont to have their children be able to have the name of God mentioned in the schools. This has gone way to far!

Marilynne-1429994 -

We are all taxpayers so why should those who believe in God not have the same rights as those who dont to have their children be able to have the name of God mentioned in the schools. This has gone way to far!

I'm sorry I've lost my little orphan Annie decoder ring...what kind of sentence is that? Is that even a coherent thought?

To sum this up:

The fact that the sign (with prayer) was hung in a Public school, implies that the school was endorsing Christianity. Which they have no right to do.

It would be just as wrong to hang a Jewish or Muslim prayer in a Public school.

All of the above may pray anytime, anywhere, but a Public school shouldn't be endorsing ANY of these religions.

Correct. The school cannot promote or affirm any religious primacy. They cannot organize or allow to be organized any religious activity, nor can they place or allow to be placed any tokens of religion. None of this abridges what an individual is allowed to do themselves, within their own person, whether it be wearing a religious token or praying, as long as it is not disruptive to the educational process.

1. good one

2. there is absolutely no mention anywhere in the bill of rights of seperation of church & state. it does, however, specifically address the establishment of religion, which this prayer in no way does, and also the prohibition of being able to freely exercise religious freedom. it doesn't mention anything about location. in theory the government could obtain vast tracts of this country and then claim the same thing as this ruling, thereby prohibiting the free exercing of this right. sounds a lot like now doesn't it?

3.and neither shall the minority run roughshod over the majority. this is exactly why we are a republic and not a democracy.

4.you had better hope so!

@sroysr

3. Ya, just like how black people, women, Jews, and Asians shouldn't have rights either!

The American principle is majority rules AND minority rights

WRONG -- we are a constitutional republic, which means we are NOT a country of majority rule.

Unfortunately, when it comes to matters of religion, that is not true. It's a case of Christians expecting the rest of us to do what they do, and they don't have to understand our belief systems.

NEWS FLASH EVERYBODY!!! life.is.hard thinks he knows more about the US Constitution than the millions who've actually studied law!

Is that the way you deal with the other problems life throws your way? Just pretend it's a "total misconception that it exists"? LOL

"Congress shall make no laws for or against religion" The implication of that statement in the constitution says there is a separation between church and state.

Congress shall make no laws for or AGAINST religion is correct..... which means the government has no authority to REMOVE the banner, just as they would have no authority to mandate that it must be hung..... they have NO AUTHORITY @ all in this matter...... do you people really have a problem w/ promoting the good ethics that this babber promotes, and that the young people of today desperately need?? .....P.S. I am not a religious person, but if there is a banner that promotes all the positive qualities that I hope my son grows to have, I wouldn't care if it said "God" "Allah" "Buddha" "George" "Jim" Sally" Kathy" etc, etc, etc.......

life.is.hard: yes it is for someone woefully this ignorant of the constitution. It's called the establishment clause. It says the government may not promote or establish any state religion and that's exactly what's at stake here. Students are supposed to walk by that Christian prayer and not believe it is backed by the school authorities?

Kevin: No court is ever going to agree with your nonsensical arguement that Christianity rules over the Constitution and the laws of this land do not apply whenever the church says they don't. How would you feel about an Islamic prayer posted at that school. Yeah, I thought so. You want your son or daughter to have a religious schooling? Take them out ofpublic school and pay for it. Leave other people's kids alone. There are no positive qualities being promoted here and you are a walking example of that since you can't even understand your country's constitution.

AP..... Where in my comment am I arguing that Christianity rules over the Constitution???? Did I not say I didn't care who that was addressed to??? So where am I singling out Christianity?? Are you really saying that there are no positive qualities being promoted in the banner?? ....."Grant us each day the desire to do our best. To grow mentally and morally, as well as physically. To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers. To be honest with ourselves as well as others. Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win. Teach us the value of true friendship. Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West" .....you are really so out-of-whack to say that none of that is positive??? And I would NOT have a problem w/ an Islamic prayer, or a Jewish prayer, or a Buddhist prayer, or any other!! They could all be side by side for all I care. They are ALL a part of many different cultures and backgrounds that make up this great country. Please be more accurate if you attack what someone else says..... thanks and have a great day :)

First of all, please keep it civil.

Secondly, as I stated, there is no part of the constitution that says there is to be separation of church and state. The are interpretations of the phrase "Congress shall make no laws for or against religion", which can be interpretated in many ways.

The bottom line is, this simple wall hanging was there for decades. Obvious that the good people of that area wanted it to be there. One girl said she was offended, and they take it down?

I am not religious in any way, and don't really care if they hang it up or not. Just seems as if everything/everyone has become so radical on the topic that common sense has been tossed out the window.

If this young woman was offended by the prayer, she didn't have to read it. If the majority wanted it up there, it should stay there.

She is a puppet of the ACLU, (jessicaahlquist.com)She says herself that before the ACLU e-mailed her about joining the lawsuit that she was not popular and was alone without many friends and "now she gets a lot of attention"...what a terrible bunch of adults at the ACLU for taking advantage of a 15 yr. old child. (I know she claims to be aware of the ramifications here but she is like ANY other teenager on the planet...easily manipulated and pushed into situations just by the need to be accepted)
"Bullying" is using the ACLU to threaten to bankrupt the entire school department if you don't do what they say. After 49 years of being displayed without ONE person being "injured" by it, it should stay where it is. The ACLU used her because they needed a "injured kitten" to show everyone so they would feel bad for her & support what they were doing.

Snappa, You should learn to read. You said and i quote: "Congress shall make no laws for or against religion"
First the First Amendment says...and I quote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.....It does NOT say "Congress shall make no laws for or against religion", you left out a very important few words, "respecting an establishment of religion". Nobody made any law establishing anything at that school.
second you said...quoting you again...and you said "The implication of that statement in the constitution says there is a separation between church and state."...NO, NOTHING is Implied in the Constitution. If you read the First Amendment properly, you would not make that ASSUMPTION. I suggest you read about the "Establishment Clause" of the Constitution. And before you go trying to use the "Establishment Clause" as a defense, note that the "Everson decision" decided that "the benefit to the children was more important".

Cat, the First Amendment does not only apply to the "establishment of religion". If you apply the Lemon test, the display does not pass and is thus unconstitutional. The Establishment Clause is not only about Congress establishing a religion, it also applies to the government getting involved in anything religious, as mandated in Lemon v. Kurtzman's three criteria:

1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion;
3. The statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

It does not mean that a "law" must be "established;" it means that no government entity (and that includes public schools, Cat) can be involved in anything religious.

There are many things that are implied in the Constitution, as you would know if you ever bothered to do a little research before you post. For example, the right to privacy that the Supreme Court has often mentioned is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, but is implied; as is the right to marry.

Furthermore, as usual, you are totally missing the point of Everson ruling. Its real significance is that it defined the meaning of the First Amendment's separation of church and state, as it applied the First Amendment to state governments as well as to the federal government:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Erin, You are off the deep end. You said "it means that no government entity (and that includes public schools, Cat) can be involved in anything religious." That is not what it means at all.

"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another." (copied because I know you will point it out)

It does not mean "can't be involved in anything religious."

As far as you feeling the Right to Privacy goes that is still being debated in the courts, protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and the right against self-incrimination as well as “unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual” are often seen as a "Right To Privacy". I don't feel I have a "Right" to marry granted by anyone let alone the Constitution. Next you will tell us about the "Right" to get a Dog is Implied also.

Comparative religion is permitted in schools, as is self-motivated, non-organized religious activity (i.e., praying for help on a test :)). Primacy for a religious perspective is not permitted in schools. I'm sure that that's what Erin meant.

Interesting point Randy. I think that many people who pray and pray and pray yet never hear "God's voice" yet only supposedly "hear" him through vague messages ("Lightning flashed! It was a sign from God answering my prayers!") deep inside know that somethings not matching up. People who claim to speak to God I think are only propping the illusion up.

I tend to agree, but they have to have some comfort.

Relgion was created by man out of fear.

Religion was created by man out of fear.

Religion was created by man to control other men.

well women actually. ;)

That too...

You don't know much about any religions beyond your own. A prayer that begins, "Our Heavenly Father" already excludes most of the religious people on earth in that it's inappropriate for Hindus and Buddhists.

The school's prayer is only useful to religions featuring male-supremicist monotheism. That just happens to fit the Judeo-Christian beliefs, so you think it's universal.

Keith, see my comment above about "Judeo-Christian."

This nation was not founded on "Christian principles". That is a common fallacy. The democratic ideal is that everybody shall be able to participate in government without fear of retribution or reprisal. Democracy, by definition, is the establishment and enforcement of the majority WITHOUT infringing on the will of the minority. Ours is NOT a Christian state: People like you simply view it that way with a very narrow focus in favor or your own beliefs. This offends others that do not observe your beliefs. You would understand that if you were in the position of the minority: For instance, if our money instead read "In Alla we trust". If you really feel you are right, then it shouldn't bother you to have our money changed. If it does bother you, then you are a hypocrite (as I'm sure you are).

Christians, and Muslims (and perhaps Jews?) all seem to believe their religion is right and that everybody should "convert" to their religion or die. Why can't you people simply allow others to have their beliefs and stop trying to force your views on others? Why do you feel compelled to have prayers posted in public to a gaseous, vaporous, imaginary god? You would be so offended if there were a huge mosque in the center of your city, or a gigantic upside-down cross displayed in public for the past 40 years. Get over it! You are hypocrites and need to view the world in a wider view.

I'm atheist; no doubt about it. However, I don't rub it in people's faces. I don't talk about it UNLESS somebody asks me: Oddly enough, when I share my opinion the first reaction of Christians is to try and convert me; I was specifically told that my non-beliefs were an infestation of Lucifer. WTF?! If my opinion frightens you, then you should cease asking frightening questions.

Ken, exactly right. The majority of the founding fathers were either atheists, agnostics or deists who wanted nothing to do with the tyranny of the church.

Ken-

You were told by someone that your non-beliefs were an infestation of Lucifer?

And Christians wonder why people make fun of them...

I agree with the re-reading is necessary. They also should look up when dopes started claiming "separation of Church and State" started being quoted. “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
― Thomas Jefferson

The only dopes are those who do not recognize the violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, and its separation of church and state.

You may not like to hear that phrase, Cat, but this case is a textbook example of its meaning.

And really what's typically going on with such nit-pickiness is the cynical and inane practice by Establishment Clause Deniers to try to deflect and distract attention away from the core issue - the offensive actions by the law-breakers. By derailing the discussion onto pedantic silliness about what the words mean, knowing full well that the Supreme Court has already very clearly explained that, they're essentially showing the same kind of disrespect to the casual readers of the thread that they want to be allowed to show to people who are not of the dominant religion in the country.

Erin, You are no Constitutional Scholar and trying to make it appear that YOUR position is the ONLY one is ridiculous. My position (as well as that of many others) is that THIS specific Banner is not a violation. If it was "a textbook example of its meaning", It would never have gone to court.

Walt, What are you talking about with "derailing the discussion"? The topic at the top clearly say's

"What's your view on school prayer in Rhode Island school?
Do you think a federal judge was right in ruling that the school prayer hanging on the wall of the Cranston High School West gym was unconstitutional?" And I am saying what I think. The fact that you want nobody to have a voice does not make it right. Disrespect is YOU claiming the "Supreme Court has already very clearly explained that"...If that was the case nobody would be asking for the case to be appealed. The next thing you will say is that because the court decided the way you wanted them to decide, nobody's further "Rights" should be honored. And Walt, as far as you bloviating about the rest of us "derailing the discussion onto pedantic" anything, for your information the Court System of the United States of America SPECIFICALLY deals with being "too concerned with formal rules and details".....God forbid anyone tries to get to the bottom of all those pesky formal rules and details of the Constitution! (yes, I said "God") What is showing disrespect is YOU claiming anyone is saying something because of a relationship to one religion over another. I am of NO Religion and I want the banner to stay, it was bothering no one until the ACLU said it was. As far as you claiming the "Court decided" anything... The "Court" also decided "Corporations are People" and now your vote can be made void by big companies spending unlimited money for the opposite side at election time.. I'm hoping that will be overturned along with the Banner decision. The Banner was a gift to the school by Seventh graders, nothing else. Why do you think Justices are put in a room to "Interpret" the Constitution?

Walt, What are you talking about with "derailing the discussion"?

I'm talking about pointless claims that the words "separation between church and state" aren't in the Constitution, when the reality is that the law requires just that. The five words there in quotation marks mean something specific. The totality of it would take hundreds if not thousands of words to fully elaborate, but those five words crystallize the law so completely and so accurately that droning on about those five specific words not appears in the Constitution itself is nothing but a derail.

Disrespect is YOU claiming the "Supreme Court has already very clearly explained that"...If that was the case nobody would be asking for the case to be appealed.

That's ridiculous: People want the case to be appealed because they want their personal preferences to prevail over the civil liberties that our Constitution promises to protect.

The next thing you will say is that because the court decided the way you wanted them to decide, nobody's further "Rights" should be honored.

Unremarkably, I didn't say that "next thing".

What is showing disrespect is YOU claiming anyone is saying something because of a relationship to one religion over another.

There is no other reasonable explanation, given the quotes I provided from the Supreme Court elsewhere in this seed. The sign is religious. The term "Heavenly Father" makes it such. It is inappropriate. You're welcome to play the friendly apologist if you wish, but you cannot escape these facts.

Cat, I have not claimed to be a "constitutional scholar," but it is clear that you have no grasp of the Constitution whatsoever. I did not say that my position is the only one, but it IS the only "correct" one according to the courts, as there has already been a ruling in this matter.

You can keep whining, but it won't change the facts: the banner is inappropriate, and should never have been displayed in a public school. The fact that it was allowed to remain for so many years does not negate its unconstitutionality.

It is not clear WHAT this law you are talking about says. The "Five Words" have not been shown to have any CLEAR meaning and you have not shown what SPECIFICALLY they mean. It is open to anyone's Interpretation (hence the Superior Court!). People want it appealed because they do not believe the person doing the deciding got it right, there are thousands of words that allow us to have not only that feeling but the right to have it looked at again....It is in the Constitution. I know you don't agree with THAT Constitution because you may be on the losing end when all is said and done. As far as "the civil liberties that our Constitution promises to protect.", that is what we are asking because it does not say you can not display a gift to the school. I have given many quotes from the Supreme Court also and my quotes are just as valid as any you may have posted, THAT is another reason for the decision to be revisited by the Supreme court. you wanting to deny anyone that right is wrong.

Erin, you can claim that I don't have a grasp on the Constitution and try and lean on that 'ole "there has already been a ruling" excuse but the fact is there is a chance the court got it wrong and you are worried about being made to look like a fool for being so positive about it after it is overturned. If that was not the case, you would have no problem with the decision being appealed. here are just a few of the MANY decisions the Court got wrong:
U.S. Supreme Court made a dreadful decision to allow the dumping of toxic gold mine waste into a pristine Alaskan lake."

"U.S. Supreme Court Rules Generic Drug Manufacturers Have No Duty to Warn"

"Supreme Court upholds radical court ruling releasing thousands of California prisoners"

four years ago the Supreme Court ruled against the display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse. Then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said such a public display of a religious message violated the 1st Amendment because it amounted to the government endorsing a religion.

At that point, the Supreme Court's conservatives said in a dissenting opinion that religious displays on public land do not violate the 1st Amendment, since no one is forced to participate in a religious event or forced to listen to a religious message.
My point is that we do not know if this Banner, a gift to the school violates any laws or the Constitution and anyone who does not want the issue to be decided properly and at the highest level of the Courts must have an ulterior motive. I say it is a gift with historic value and I am not a Religious person (at all) so you can't say my position is that of the religious side. It is also my opinion that only bad humans would want to take this gift from anyone who is made to feel better by it. If they made anyone pray, I'd be on the other side. If you don't believe in Religion, then look past the banner as you are showing what a intolerant person you are..

Cat, the Superior Court did not get it wrong, as there are many, many US Supreme Court rulings to back up the Superior Court.

YOU are the one who is being intolerant (although you're trying to make yourself seem noble, by saying "I'm an atheist and I believe it should stay"), as you are whining and doggedly arguing your point, even though it is wrong.

AS you pointed out above, when the Supreme Court ruled that a display of the 10 commandments should not be on public property, some Justices dissented -- but they were the minority. And while YOU may feel that some of their decisions are wrong, they are the final interpreters of the Constitution in this country, and we have to live with their rulings, whether we like them or not. And that applies to you, too.

Actually Erin, what I said went right over your head. How am I being intolerant? Should those Slaves and people who were against Slavery or Womens' voting rights just sat back and excepted the lower Courts? My point with the Justices is that one person feeling a certain way can make or break the decision. As far as me taking your childish name calling because you have nothing else to offer, grow up. You act like you just got out of kindergarten. I am done talking to you, I just went and read some of your comments in other places, you are a fool and a terrible person. Here are some of the comments YOU have made (and you call me names because I want a court to decide an issue?)

"Homosexual behavior like all behaviors is a choice"

"So, the will of the PEOPLE is possibly going to be overturned by a judge? To me, THAT is pathetic!"
yet you believe the Banner issue should NOT have the voice of the people?

"You are deliberatlely avoiding the most pressing point of homosexuality - it is a sin and an abomination."

"Hopefully they will remember that this is a democracy and the voice of the people should have some authority." Yet you DON'T want the will of the people to have ANY authority in the Banner case?

"If you want to look for "truth", marriage is NOT derived from the government, but is truly derived from a faith basis - marriage is a covenant between one man, one woman." Yet you said before that Marrige was implied by the Govt...?

"Homosexuality is a perversion, period. NOTHING but CHOOSING to be a pervert is why a homosexual is a homosexual."

"sick people these gays...dealing with these sexual identity and personality disorders."

In closing Erin, It looks like you have no idea what is right in this country and you don't like Gay people... What a nice human you are. ALL of those quotes are YOUR VERY OWN WORDS>

Apparently, Cat, you did not bother to read ALL of the comments in their entirety; just the first lines that were posted in my comments summary. If you had read them, you would know that those are not my "VERY OWN WORDS". You only looked for what you thought supports your erroneous and intolerant position.

Go back and look again -- at the FULL comments this time. You have clearly shown by your inability to do this simple amount of research that you are incapable of the rational, logical thought processes required to have an informed opinion.

And you can be sure that the Christians there would scream "bloody murder" if that was the solution. They consider such fairness to be a slight against them.

that solution was proposed, the school chose to completely take it down rather than alter it.

Thanks, Joe. I must've read right past that in the article. That suggests that the school's reaction has nothing to do with the actual content, and everything to do with promoting a religious belief, then.

Jack, it was a gift to the school from the first seventh grade graduating class. Don't try and tell us the a seventh grader was thinking about pushing anything on anyone or you will look like a bigger fool than you already do.

Driving home yesterday I passed a marker on the side of the highway that marks the location of a fatal car accident. Someone, presumably a family member, keeps the marker filled with flowers, even in winter. The marker used to have a distracting sign on it ... saying something like "Slow Down!" if I recall correctly. It was replaced with a smaller, non-descript placard that simply has the deceased name on it. The intention of the "Slow Down!" sign was probably to get people who speed to rethink their transgression. That's very reasonable, very much worthy of respect. However, its intent doesn't matter. What matters is its potential impact, in this case, to distract attention away from the road due to the nature of the original sign.

The intent of the sign is not relevant according to the law. What the law says is that the potential impact of the sign is all that matters.

Jessica was clear in saying " She never noticed the banner in her whole first year of school there and when a friend pointed it out, she was not offended and had no problem with it" and that "It had a good message" (page 18 of the court decision & her website).... If the sign on the side of the road had been there for over 49 years and nobody claimed that it caused a distraction and no accidents ever happened because if it, it can be reasonably fathomed that the sign was violating nothing...

And as soon as it was determined to be a distraction then the sign was removed. As it should have been.

Slavery existed in this country for centuries; that didn't excuse it. Segregation existed in this country for decades; that didn't excuse it.

49+ years it distracted no one and all of a sudden it did? The ACLU gets to decide what is a distraction and what is not? What is your position on this?: www.patriotupdate.com/articles/aclu-okay-with-prayer-in-public-schools-muslim-prayer-that-is

I'm sure the prayer had its negative impact on many folks over the years. The Catholics wouldn't complain about its negative impact on them, because making them feel that their religion has secular primacy (the negative impact) makes them feel good. Those of other faiths wouldn't complain about its negative impact on them, because making them feel that their religious beliefs makes them second-class citizens (the negative impact) makes them feel powerless.

The ACLU gets to decide how to spend their time. The Courts get to decide what violates civil rights.

Prayer is a religious practice where an adherent seeks to activate a rapport to a deity through deliberate communication. Such acts of deliberate communication with one's professed deity in schools is only permitted, and absolutely permitted, if genuinely voluntary expressions by the students of their own religious faith. The schools cannot organize prayer or allow prayer to be organized by adults, nor can schools place tokens of religion or allow tokens of religion to be permanently placed on school ground, but they must allow students to pray while at public schools, particularly during recess and lunch time, as long as they do not disrupt the proper functioning of the school and do not pressure other students to join in – regardless of whether the prayers are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or of any other faith. Of course, schools cannot favor or discriminate either for or against a particular religion or between religious and non-religious meetings.

Walt, It was a gift. you are making it something that it is not.

I'm not making it into anything that it is not. It is a sign. It is affixed to public school property. It projects a specific religious primacy. These are facts - facts explicitly acknowledged by the people who argued for keeping it intact. There is no dispute about these facts.

It was unconstitutional to affix the sign to public school property. The majority religion in the area abused its power. That has been remedied by this ruling.

You're trying to excuse the sign because you want it to remain. You want that religious token to remain in place on public school property. It's wrong to do so. It's okay to want something wrong, as you do. However, your wanting something wrong doesn't make it right. Your effort to try to minimize the gravity of this is another aspect of your attempt to defend the sign. Your trying to minimize it doesn't actually minimize it. It has just as much significance as it did before you tried to minimize it. I'm being very meticulous here because it is important. This isn't something where your personal preferences, or mine, or anyone's should have any sway. We have a Constitution that outlines how society is obligated to protect all its citizens. The personal preferences of any of them shouldn't matter. The protections should be enforced regardless of the preferences.

No offense Pete but that was a really weak and retarded defense; Prayer is not a picture of a dragon or a fictional story. Both of those things are never implied to be REAL. Prayer is purported to be real. If someone put up a poster in school with a prayer to a dragon, I guarantee you and other Christians would be offended.

That is a major difference. Why is it that religious people often give such low-brow and thoughtless answers to everything that challenges their religion. I highly suggest you think things through in the future and at least try harder to give your side a solid defense.

Feeling persecuted because your ability to impose your beliefs are restricted. If you have a religion that worships dragons than it would be an issue, but as long as a dragon is simply a mythical animal as opposed to being yet another mythical god no harm no foul.

First of all - who's imposing views on whom? The prayer was written by a child, donated by students, and done almost 50 years ago. Apparently imposing the view that it shouldn't be there is more important.

Nobody was asked to recite the prayer. Nobody was asked to read it daily or weekly or even occasionally.

Now, it might be better not to have it up in the first place, but once it's part of the school's heritage, it becomes part of their identity - much in the same way that saying the oath of office ends with So Help Me God (although you're allowed to omit that if you want).

The same way that the Great Lawgivers on the walls of Congress include religious figures as well as secular. The same way that there is a National Cathedral, and National Cemetaries (burial is inherently a religious rite) - and why there are speeches by presidents like Lincoln referring to God.

We don't just get rid of them because they offend our sensibilities as non-believers OR believers of different faiths.

They are part of who we are.

The moment that we ask that people pray to our God because it's required is the moment I will stand up for someone refusing to pray.

I would expect that person to stand up for my right to pray when someone wants to take it away as well.

People who don't like what happened need to support the person who made it happen - just as much as she should support other people's right to believe what they want to believe - even if she thinks it's bogus.

It's the way it works: "Let men worship what gods they will"

Ebeneezer: No one is arguing against your right to pray...this is about forcing others to be subjected to your idea of "heritage" in the public square....An idea so ludicrous, it defies logic and thankfully, the constitution. The fact you cannot understand the difference between your freedom of religion, and others freedom from your religion, in the United States of America should make any real American's skin crawl.

What about the constitutional rights of all those wanting the prayer to remain?. The young lady did not have to read the prayer! The constitution was based on the rights of all people!

Dear Christians,

I can argue you all day about how Atheism isn't a belief, and you lack a basic understanding of what Atheism actually is...but ultimately you will just think "Gosh, I don't want people to force me to be atheist!" So let's move on.

However, not allowing one religion to dominate a public school is both the constitutionally right thing, and ethical thing to do. Why? Hear me out.

So you are a Christian, you go to a public school. One that promotes Jesus and has religious things everywhere. This is great, it lets you learn, while praising Jesus. Now what about the Hindu kid? Or the Jewish kid? The lack of promoting one particular religion in school has NOTHING to do with stopping someone from believe. We have freedom of religion in this country. You are free to believe any religion. But you must do so in the confines of your religious institution!

Once you allow religion to bleed into the public institutions, it can affect how people feel in society. Going back to that Hindu kid, they were brought up in an environment that promoted Hinduism. Same with the Jewish kid, he grew up in a Jewish household. So he goes to school everyday, seeing Christianity.

This might not seem like a big deal to you, because you after all believe Christianity is true. But let's be honest with ourselves for a moment, that is because you grew up on a Christian nation. Consider being born in North Korea. Can you HONESTLY tell yourself, if you were a child in North Korea, raised by North Korean parents, you would not only be exposed to Christianity, but that you would feel compelled to learn it?

By keeping religion out of something we are being respectful to everyone from all walks of life. Everyone, at the end of the day is capable of religious freedom within their religious institutions. If you want your school and religion to be interconnected you need to attend a private religious school.

You can't make a school, which is funded by various religious groups, a public building, to conform to your one belief. This is not only selfish but immoral and wrong.

@Coastal Exchange: There are people who believe in dragons and witchcraft (read: Wicca)....are you diminishing their views now as well? Of course you aren't. If you are an atheist, then nothing that is fictitious in your view should be viewed as fact or truth and therefore should not be embraced (or, dare I say it, tolerated) by our advanced society.

But there are a few problems with what you said. If I believe (which I had not confessed or denied...that was a supposition on your part....) then what should that matter to you if you do not? What perplexes me is that you say. "Prayer is purported to be real." is a half-lame attempt to admit it might or might not be real but because that person or Christian says it's real, then the proper stance is to say it must be eliminated.

Ebeneezer, I think (if you're the poster I'm thinking of) I normally agree with your stance on most issues, but on this one we differ. To the point where it baffles me. ( At one point you said that murder must somehow be legal if every public school doesn't automatically get the right to display any religious symbol or prayer they want? Why? I would agree that prayers before congress and our currency falls into the unconstitutional category, though.)

What if a school openly displayed a prayer donated by a Muslim student about Allah. My guess is your opinion might change. Schools, public schools, are supposed to represent ALL, not just a specific religious group.

As an Atheist myself, this is not a fight I would pick. However, I find it profoundly disturbing and sad that her elected official is calling her "Evil" and she is getting death threats....presumably from the self pro-claimed 'good' people of this state (and the nation, probably at this point). All she did was bring the attention to the court - she went through the legal and respectable channels. A very right leaning court happened to side with her. Why aren't they being called "Evil"? One thing I take form this is it sure brings out the True face of Christianity. These posts and the fact that a child is receiving death threats is precisely why people do NOT want religion in public schools.

I don't see how taking this prayer down, stops you from believing whatever you want.

The simple fix would be to take out all references to god, and keep the rest.

So hope, are you telling me that God burned those children and grandparents in that North East fire recently because maybe they didn't BELIEVE hard enough? Or are you saying that bad things don't happen to people who pray to God?

If you try and claim God is in control of all things, then you have to take ownership that God causes horrific deaths and suffering. You can't have it both ways.

Interesting concept your religion, you give thanks to your god for anything good, but are totally unwilling to give due credit for the bad. If your god is responsible for saving that drowning child and knowing all than would it also be that the god put the child in the water to begin with.

Yeah..."god" sits up there and says: "The people who live in North America took a prayer off a wall and are threatening to take the words Under God off their money. That calls for a major earthquake or flood or tornado or something. Those ungrateful bastards."

Right- I got it...

Tina, I think Bachman tried that in the Fall, when an earthquake hit Virginia and something else happened at the same time (can't remember the other thing) and she tried to say it was God mad at Obama! LOL...

Bachman quote:

"I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending."

Everyone has the right to their own belief's, but not the right to impose them onto others!

Wow, you need to go hang out on some atheist online forums if you don't think Christians are allowed to offend atheists! We put up with an unending stream of abuse from those Christians, all because it offends them that we exist.

Atheists have no plan to convert everyone like Christians do. In fact, Christians are nearly alone in this type of "down-your-throat" offensive attack. Hindu's don't do this. Buddhists don't do it either. Just because you want to convert everyone doesn't mean they care about converting you. As an Atheist, I don't care what you believe when you die because I know that you'll be nothing but a memory to your loved ones; just like the rest of us.

Tell me you didn't just say that. You called atheism a religion? If you believe this, you are so unintelligent you shouldn't be allowed to vote (or reproduce).

How is atheism a religion?? Do we meet together on a certain day of the week and make statements concerning others private lives? Wilbur you need to grow up.

Those who believe in Christianity are not allowed to offend atheists

Oh? They are constantly telling every non-believer that they are going to burn in the fires of hell and they deserve just what they get.

That sounds kind of offensive to me.

Atheism is a religion in exactly the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Please inform yourself a little more thoroughly before speaking of something you don't understand.

Those who believe in Christianity are not allowed to offend atheists

Really? I don't know about the other atheists here but I find it quite offensive that the Christians constantly harp about a person without a god having no morals. I'll match my morals to any of you so called Christians any day.

Have a look at Kiva.org. The atheist group is the highest lending group in the organization. No one else even comes close and they lend because they believe in helping their fellow man without strings. Too bad we can't say that about most religions.

I bet that 16 year old can spell a lot better than you.

You should spend more time studying English and less time thumping your bible.

As a 16 yr old, I hope she is fallow.

If that same 16 year old protested abortions and went on a church mission trip, she would be a hero in your eyes. But because she stands for a cause opposing your views, you downplay her opinions and rights as being meaningless due to her age. That is hypocritical.

Display them all you want... however, what you cannot do, is get a government agency to display them on your behalf. Why is that so difficult for people to understand???

And why can't you "display" them somewhere besides a public school? Ridiculous argument.

Display them all you want on your own private property. You have no right to display your beliefs on property that I, in part, own and pay for. I don't want to hear about your Sky Fairy on government property.

Display your beliefs in your church.

It's ok to walk into a school these days with ? U C K Y O U on a T-shirt, but nothing like God is love

wah wah...how awful that we can't force everyone to believe what we believe...that little old constitution and freedom thing keeps getting in the way. Poor dear. There are plenty of other countries you can feel plenty more comfortable in.

"This country was formed on religious beliefs..."

Well, lots of Americans are Muslims. So I'm assuming you'd be perfectly happy if someone put up a plaque on the wall of your children's school that says "Allah Akbar"? ("God is great"). Right? How about the Church of Satan? Satanism is part of Judeo-Christian religious lore, too. Can they put up some plaques?

Freedom of speech is alive and well, but get educated, when the school recieves funding from the Government, it's a separation of church and state issue, your body is not receiving federal funds, therefore you can put whatever the hell you want on your t-shirt.

GET. EDUCATED.

@Hardcoffeeat6am, it is NOT ok to wear a shirt saying what you said on a T-shirt to school. The schools in my town would require the student to either turn that shirt inside out or go home and change.

.

Hardcoffeeat6am, no one is saying students cannot wear a religions shirt to school. That is a personal choice. That is different from a school imposing a religion. In other words, you could wear a religious shirt to school, but the school cannot FORCE you to wear a religious shirt (or to remove it if you did).

The notion that public schools cannot allow students to express themselves religiously is a huge misconception. They are allowed to and required to grant students that right. But what the school cannot do is endorse one religion over another -- which posting a prayer sign does.

A prayer on the wall for 49 years and one person states she does not like it so it haves to be removed under the pretense of the constitutional ruling on seperation of church and state. The real problem here is that what the constitution actually prohibits has been so destroyed by those who believe that any religous item is a violation of seperation of church and state. The constitution does not bar religous activities, a christmas display on public property or a prayer on a school wall. What the constitution states is that the government shall not have a single religion that it supports above all others and even requires it citizens to belong to that religion. To be offened by a small innocent little prayer placed on the wall is just looking for a reason to create your own 15 minutes of frame. I am sorry this girl has most likely been edged on by her parents or other non-believers who do not live on this town or who do not have kids at this school. It is just another example of how those who want to attack others can get away with it. How liberals have destroyed the constitution with their belief that the constitution is a living breathing document that needs to be continually changed to meet their opinion of what America is about or what they think America should be about. Another case of a minority forcing the majority to live by there ways and beliefs. The tail has got to stop waging the dog and this Country needs to get back on track with the actual meaning of the constitution and not these blown up out of proportion beliefs of what the constitution is or what it means.

It's great to see a large constituency of non-believers on this post. As usual the atheists know more about EVERYTHING than the bible-thumpers. (That's why they're atheists.) That includes the "holeybabble" and the U.S. Constitution.

You know nothing X-tians need to study something besides your irrelevant, error laden, fairy tales, so that you might engage in an intellectual discussion on topics of importance to all Americans. The Supreme Court has adjudicated these types of cases for decades and the violator in each instance has lost in his challenge. The court understands that the public schools are a front line of battle to keep religion and government separate. What you choose as your belief is irrelevant insofar as the school is concerned. This precident is clearly shown in the following case:

It is irrelevant in any school context that a prayer is nondenominational. Even a so-called "nondenominational prayer" prefers and advances religion over non-religion (because composing truly nondenominational prayers is very hard to do, such prayers typically prefer one religion over others).

"[ T] he Establishment Clause forbids state-sponsored prayers in public school settings no matter how nondenominational the prayers may be." Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577 (1992).

The school allowing the prayer to be posted, constitutes "state-sponsored prayers in the public setting".

In addition, "Majority Rule" as many wish to claim, has no bearing on such cases. It is not the option of the community to violate the constitution.

The constitution does not bar religous activities, a christmas display on public property or a prayer on a school wall.

The Supreme Court disagrees; look up Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971); and Stone v. Graham, 449 US 39 (1980).

Another case of a minority forcing the majority to live by there ways and beliefs.

Unfortunately for you, we are not a country of majority rule.

*sigh* if any of you would delve into this article...

and I quote:

"A friend brought the prayer to Jessica’s attention in 2010, when she was a high school freshman. She said nothing at first, but before long someone else — a parent who remained anonymous — filed a complaint with the American Civil Liberties Union."

A parent who remained anonymous

A parent who remained

A parent

parent

READING COMPREHENSION FTW! This young lady had more 8alls then the anonymous adult that started this. If you can't understand the article please do not comment on it. I'm also loving the god fearing religious people on here and in her town who "love thy neighbor" regardless of what's going on. HYPOCRISY is a synonym for religion.

one question, and answer honestly

what do you think would happen of muslims wanted to start putting their messages on public property.

no symbols or all symbols take your pick

Wilber LongshankVIA FACEBOOK

That's because people on the left do not understand the clause in the constitution about religion.

people think that it means you can not post or have any type of a religious item on public property, and that's not what the founders wrote, but thru the years progressives have twisted the argument around to mean so.

The separation clause was so the Fed gov't did not form a national religion, and that everybody could worship as they please.

Therefore by the school hanging a religious item off the wall for what 30 40 years was not infringing on this girls rights. they the school didn't make her do anything.

I'm sorry Wilber but you are just plain wrong.

What makes this so difficult for you to understand. I see the same silly comment over and over by the God Crowd.

you can say, do, wear anything you want personally. Pursue your religion in any fashion you choose but you cannot take a public office funded by tax payers and suborn them into doing your will. I pay taxes too. They are my tax dollars and I don't want them spent to advance your religion.

Many of our forefathers left England because of the strife between the Church of England and the Catholic Church which tore the country apart for centuries.

Separation of Church and States is one of the cornerstones of our Constitution and one of the driving factors for the founding of this nation.

There is a shocking lack of knowledge of the suppression that lead to the founding of this nation and broad revisionist history happening on so many levels. It's very frightening.

Speed-916943 wrote:

A prayer on the wall for 49 years and one person states she does not like it so it haves to be removed under the pretense of the constitutional ruling on seperation of church and state.

I guarantee that for 49 years there have been students who objected, but kept there mouths shut for fear of being ostracised. I attended public school 30 years ago and some teacher or coach was always leading a prayer. And there I was, head up, thinking how ridiculous this is, but knowing to keep my opinion to myself.

I applaud this 16 year old girl for having the guts to speak up for all the kids, past and present who could not. Bravo!

Patriot?

How is she a patriot?

What battle? Are you being opressed by religious mobs or something? Whatever happened to if it bothers you walk away? I think this young woman may have a hard time later on when she meets real people that have different beleifs and opinions that dont jive with hers.

On a side note - I really dont understand athiests. If you dont beleive then why does a cross or mention of God bother you? You of all people should be the ones to give a @!$%# less what others do about God. So how is it offensive to you? You dont beleive. Can someone explain it? I can understand hatred between religious groups, although I think it is stupid, but I dont understand why atheists are upset/offended.

She stood up for the Constitution. That makes her a patriot.

In general, atheists are nonchalant about religious matters except when religion tries to insert itself into public, tax-paid affairs, services and mess with their private lives. Then the red flag goes up and they go on the warpath against anyone trying to shove religion down their throats or force society to live by the views of a few religious sects.

She's a patriot because she is standing up for the constitution. Which, if you doubt, was ratified by a judge.

@Gary Ruth Saxon - Your statement is fallacious on many levels.

First of all, it is not "wrong" to "be religious", nor does this ruling or the young lady who sought it speak to that in any way, shape or form. That is quite an illogical leap, to say that a ruling saying that forcing students to lood at and read something coming from a specific sectarian viewpoint daily is saying that it's not ok to be religious.

Nor is it saying in any way that it's ok to be atheist, or "shoving athiesm" down anyone's throat. How is not shoving a specific religious view down everyone else's throat shoving atheism down everyone's throat? It simply isn't. Putting up a signs that say things such as, "Gods are not real, they are myths.", that would be PROMOTING atheism. Taking down ALL signs that promote ANY believe pertaining to religion OR the lack thereof, that is not promoting ANY view.

@Jonathan F - Religious iconography and the like don't bother us atheists at all. @_@ Seeing public funding paying for them, or seeing them raised up in publicly funded spaces, that is where it concerns us. I don't want government paying for programs to promote a lack of belief in religion any more than I want to see it paying for programs to promote one or more specific religious beliefs.

As for how it affects us...yes, sorry that you don't see it, but it does affect us. To see, on a daily basis, so many insisting on shoving religion down our throats (and they do, daily, sorry if you don't experience it first hand) can be oppressive. When you tell people you are an atheist, and suddenly a great many people around you act like you're crazy, or shun you, stop hanging out with you, etc, and make it a point to even MORE SO ensure that you are exposed to religious thoughts daily, yes, it is quite an imposition on our lives. Whether you like the comparison or not, it's very much like misogyny and racism, where you are daily exposed to people treating you like you are inferior because you are a woman, or black.

Mind you, this does not just pertain to atheists, but Jews, Muslims, Sihks, and any other minority religion. Whiiiiich is why government shouldn't promote ANY religious view at all, majority view or no.

That the very religious in particular are so insistent upon making sure that their views are as publicly on display and in everyone else's face all the time, which, I'm sorry, is vastly more prevalent that the mild pushback of atheists and believers in other faiths such that it is a joke to compare them in a realistic manner, is really quite indicative of just how much need for validation said believers require on a daily basis, so threatening to their beliefs are the beliefs of others.

sunshine girl-685508, You keep telling yourself that. Jessica got USED. she said herself she never even saw the banner in all the times she had been in the Auditorium until her friend pointed it out and even then she was not insulted, offended or even bothered by it. It was only after the ACLU emailed her to be a part of the lawsuit did she claim to have a problem with it. She became a sucker for the ACLU and now more than half the country wishes her bad wishes. Nobody made her pray, nobody made her listen to prayers, nobody kept any of her rights from her. SHE decided to take the rights from everyone who wanted the historic gift from the first class left on the wall where it had been for 49+ years. It bothered no one until the ACLU claimed it did. I have no religion in my life and I want the Banner to stay. It was a gift, simple as that. Claiming you want tolerance for what your beliefs are yet you force them on others all the while claiming it is you who is having beliefs forced on you. It is totally hypocritical. Nobody was ever forced to look at it, let alone accept it, like it or recite it. She didn't even know it was there...THAT's how much it was infringing on any "right" she may think she has. Most of the Country, and World for that matter feel religion is part of who they are and nobody has the right to take that from them. Now it has become a Circus that Jessica is the Ring Master of. She has been a puppet who was led by the hand like a child. I don't force ANYTHING on ANY belief of another and that is exactly what Jessica is letting the ACUL do with her as the 'Wounded Kitten". She should be ashamed of her actions as a human, not Atheist, not Christian, not Martian from space, as a HUMAN. She said it never bothered her…didn’t even notice it…. until the so-called Adults got to her.

Nobody made her pray, nobody made her listen to prayers, nobody kept any of her rights from her.

That does not matter, Cat; the prayer should never have been displayed in the first place in a public school.

It bothered no one until the ACLU claimed it did.

How do you know this? Because no one challenged it before? Again: that does not matter. Apparently no one thought to challenge it previously.

I have no religion in my life and I want the Banner to stay.

Yet again: that does not matter. It has no place in a public school. What YOU want is irrelevant; the Constitution is the determining factor here.

Claiming you want tolerance for what your beliefs are yet you force them on others all the while claiming it is you who is having beliefs forced on you.

How is removing the banner forcing any beliefs on anyone? No one is forcing other students to support atheism, or to become atheists.

THAT's how much it was infringing on any "right" she may think she has.

It doesn't have to "infringe" on her rights in any way; it is unconstitutional just by hanging in a public school.

Most of the Country, and World for that matter feel religion is part of who they are and nobody has the right to take that from them.

That, too, is irrelevant, as we are a secular nation, and we are not a country of majority rule. No one is taking religion or someone's right to worship from him/her by removing the banner. But religion and worship do not belong in public schools.

She should be ashamed of her actions as a human,

Actually, she should be proud of standing up for the Constitution and her rights as a US citizen.

Jessica got USED.

In the same way that a student receiving a scholarship is "used" by the group granting the scholarship. If giving me support to do what I want to do and what I believe is right is being "used", then you should want to be "used".

now more than half the country wishes her bad wishes

If that were true, it would only be a commentary on how offensively self-centered and innately disrespectful that half of the country is.

Many people wake up each morning with extremists of all colors and intensities wishing them bad, just for being who and what they are, respectable and admirable human beings who believe something different. Our nation's standards of conduct condemn the thinking badly of others on the basis of belief. So how does such transgressive antipathy typically get started? You guessed it: The indoctrination children receive from their families (which is sacrosanct) often supported by secular institutions that are brow-beaten into tacitly permitting some measure of Dominionism to go unchecked (which is unconstitutional). While people of conscience will defend the right of bigots to teach their children bigotry, they cannot condone the continued commandeering of secular institutions to further solidify the underpinnings of such bigotry.

SHE decided to take the rights from everyone

Wrong! The "right" you allude to never were rights. They were transgressions. She "decided to take the" transgressions from others.

Most of the Country, and World for that matter feel religion is part of who they are and nobody has the right to take that from them.

A vacuous bit of chest-beating, since no one took anything anyone actually had away from anyone. The right to practice your religion within your self, your family, your home and your church remains unaffected by this ruling. All your rightful privileges are secured.

She should be ashamed of her actions as a human,

On the contrary, she should be proud of her actions as a human. You've corrupted her act in your own mind, but her act, itself, remains uncorrupted; her act remains moral, justified, and righteous.