Faith

Cranston Students & Others Seek Court Order to Prevent the Removal of RI Prayer Banner

Just when it looks like the drama over the Cranston, Rhode Island, prayer mural is simmering, new details pop up and the story continues to take intriguing twists and turns. Now, just two days after The Blaze reported that the controversial prayer mural has been removed from a wall inside the Cranston High School West auditorium, a new effort to save the banner is brewing.

The Boston Globe explains:

Seven people are asking a federal court in Rhode Island to stay a decision ordering the removal of a prayer banner at a public high school and let them present their case to a judge.

The requests filed on Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Providence were made by three students at Cranston High School West, three graduates of the school and a North Providence resident. The banner contains the words “heavenly father” and “amen.” They say those words do not violate the constitution.

These actions come after 16-year-old atheist Jessica Ahlquist successfully won a lawsuit in January to have the mural removed. As The Blaze has extensively reported, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux sided with Ahlquist, who claimed that its presence was offensive to non-Christians and that it violated her civil rights.

Jessica Ahlquists Battle May Continue as Supporters Try to Save Banner

Jessica Ahlquist (left) (AP)

While no actions have been taken yet on the group’s request, a federal judge signed an agreement to end the dispute between Ahlquist and Cranston officials on Wednesday, the Associated Press reports:

The judgment…says the banner that was displayed at Cranston High School West is unconstitutional and orders its removal.

It also awards $150,000 in legal fees to Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union lawyers who sued on behalf of student Jessica Ahlquist.

Ahlquist is awarded $25 in damages.

There’s no telling where this story will go next, although it seems unlikely — unless an individual or institution is willing to fund another legal battle — that the situation will end favorably for those supporting the prayer banner’s presence. Even then, there‘s no guarantee that other courts will take the side of the banner’s supporters.

(H/T: Boston Globe)

Comments (187)

1 2
  • JustPeachy
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:37pm

    Hey if she got money for this, isn’t she offended by it?!? LOL She should reject it. After all, it just MIGHT “offend” the poor poor dear. . .

    Report Post » JustPeachy  
    • db321
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:50pm

      If you really want to see a fight – bring your Atheist Marxist Socialist crap to Texas – we are not going to coward to these progressive – they don’t represent the majority of America – American Believers are the Victors and it they want to play the victims – who cares!

      The same Group tried to get a Manger Scene removed from a Texas Court House – 15,000 showed up and said over our dead bodies – We know the penalties for turning on God – and we are not going do know matter what Obama, Soros or the ACLU say.

      You bunch of East Coast Cowards.

      Report Post » db321  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 5:10pm

      Easy there DB321, I’m east coast, But that is how you do it .. get a whole lotta people to show up.

      Report Post »  
    • right-wing-waco
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 6:23pm

      Just in case you had any doubts that the ACLU is a communist organization, here is a quote from Roger Baldwin, the founder.

      “We are for socialism, disarmament, ultimately for abolishing the
      state itself. We seek the social ownership of property, abolition of
      the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth –
      COMMUNISM IS THE GOAL.”
      Roger Nash Baldwin (founder of the ACLU)

      Report Post »  
    • jhaydeng
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 8:40pm

      thats more like it

      Report Post »  
    • NancyBee
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 8:55pm

      Jessica and her parents must be so proud of themselves….just remember….. what goes around comes around

      Report Post » NancyBee  
    • GodisaFarce
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 10:44pm

      If I lived in Texas, that manger would be removed.

      Report Post » GodisaFarce  
    • notetaking
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 10:58pm

      @FARCE…
      If you lived in Texas, and you removed a manger…YOU would be removed.

      Report Post »  
    • GoliathOnline
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 3:00am

      oi im offended by these strip bars flaunting their ads on billboards all over the city.. can i win a lawsuit over that for being offended? probably not. free speech goes only one way in this country..

      Report Post » GoliathOnline  
    • jkendal
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:04am

      “If I lived in Texas, that manger would be removed.”

      I doubt you would survive…..

      Report Post »  
    • GodisaFarce
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 3:06pm

      If I lived in Texas, I would remove that manger in a heartbeat.

      Report Post » GodisaFarce  
    • GodisaFarce
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 3:10pm

      Notetaking…NOT true. The manger would be gone, but I would still be there.

      Report Post » GodisaFarce  
    • GodisaFarce
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 3:14pm

      Jkendal…thanks for proving my point. Christianity is just as bad as Islam when it comes to putting out death threats over religious matters. Very primitive.

      Report Post » GodisaFarce  
    • notetaking
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 6:41pm

      @Farce…
      Lighten-up, man. It’s the “Don’t Mess With Texas” attitude…(show you the exit door if you don’t like it, kind). Why are you atheists so angry and uptight?
      Oh, but if “you lived in Texas”, the manger “would be gone”? …it doesn’t take living here to make a threat like that (should I assume you’d vandalize it, steal it, or remove it unlawfully…maybe remove it by force…lol?). Your atheist buddies in Wisconsin threatened to try it. I don’t think they showed up but, 5,000 Texans did …to protest it. Hmmm…

      Report Post »  
    • GodisaFarce
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 8:10pm

      Notetaking.. Your response was OK. But Jkendals sounded like a threat. So you are saying he was just joking too. I guess that kind of joke I dont get. But if you say you two were just joking, I will take your word for it.

      Report Post » GodisaFarce  
  • runningamok
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:29pm

    If I was a student at that school, I would figure out a way to print the prayer on notebooks, bookcovers, t-shirts, bookmarks, etc. I would have the prayer plastered on everything that was the schools, just so little Miss Jessica could see it even more. Might do her some good.

    Report Post »  
    • Todd P
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 6:41pm

      Now THAT’s a great idea!!!

      Report Post »  
    • BOONDOCK SAINT
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 9:11pm

      I agree, it is a good idea. If the students, parents, people of that town were to make t-shirts, book covers, etc… and sell them to back their legal funds, I would be first in line to buy a t-shirt!

      Report Post » BOONDOCK SAINT  
    • Bikkiboo
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 9:25pm

      Does the banner actually have to come down, or could they just leave it up and “white out” the “objectionable” words? Then what would they complain about. Really, I am sick of these lawsuits. If something has been in place 10 or more years and no one has objected, it should be grandfathered in. Why should one person overrule the rest?
      Also, since these objects supposedly violate the Constitution, these objectors should be required to provide information on what church is being established, via what methods, and in what location and form it will take. If they can’t do that, then it doesn’t violate the Constitution and should be left alone.

      Report Post » Bikkiboo  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 9:32pm

      @BIKKIBOO:
      I think the comments from the folks who support the girl and her cause should tell you that there is a huge chasm between the two sides. Respectfully agreeing to disagree flew out the window about three and a half years ago.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • GodisaFarce
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 6:04pm

      There was an offer to remove the words that made it a prayer. The school committee flat out rejected it. Also, they have made T-shirts with the prayer on it. That is OK. The prayer itself was not the problem. The fact that it was on a school building wall was the problem.

      Report Post » GodisaFarce  
  • Kitkarr
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:27pm

    Unless I’m mistaken here, this translates into (atleast) 7 to 1 in favor of keeping the banner. Isn’t the solution simple? No? Well, it should be.

    Report Post » Kitkarr  
    • encinom
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 5:36pm

      we are not a democracy but a republic. the Majority does not dictate the rights the minority gets to enjoy. The Establishment Claue is clear in that a prayer can not be displayed on public property.

      Report Post »  
    • right-wing-waco
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 6:27pm

      @encinom
      The establishment clause says the GOVERNMENT cannot create a religion. This does not violate the intentions of the Founders in the 1st Amendment.

      Report Post »  
    • Todd P
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 6:43pm

      @ ENCINOM :

      Liberals are always trying to redefine the Establishment Clause. It says the government cannot create an official state religion; it does NOT say that religion and government must always be kept apart. The Founding Fathers had no such intention, being men of Faith themselves. You need an education – and not one from Encino CA.

      Report Post »  
    • Thewayiseeit
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 7:30pm

      Hey Encinom?
      What LAW put that up on the wall?
      How does display mural equal Establishment of a religion?
      Perhaps your “OPINION” can pass the Lemon 3 item test?
      http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrimProc_Public/FreedomOfExpression/FreedomOfReligion&EstCl.asp

      So far, Every time I see you speak up, you NEVER provide anything to
      backup your “OPINION” on Federal Law!

      Come on, Join the debate with some FACTS for a change!

      Report Post » Thewayiseeit  
    • Gorp
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 8:46pm

      Doesn’t the First Amendment go something like this?

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      If I am reading this right, the government cannot stop anybody or anyplace from exercising religion.

      Report Post » Gorp  
    • right-wing-waco
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 9:01pm

      @Gorp
      Yep! That about says what it says. Only liberals and lawyers can read something else into it.

      Report Post »  
    • LookTowardsTheLight
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 10:28am

      “The Majority does not dictate the rights the minority gets to enjoy.” – @encinom

      If that’s your logic then I demand that President Obama be removed from office. What right do the MAJORITY of voters who voted him into office have over the minority who didn’t vote for him? Based on your comment, sounds fair right?

      Oh and good job misinterpreting the Constitution yet again. I really hope you are not a lawyer.

      Report Post » LookTowardsTheLight  
    • Kitkarr
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 10:50am

      Encinom – I am sorry you are so angry at life in general. I would help, if I could. But you have to realize that you are an agitator because you’re agitated. Most everyone who posts something that is anti-what ever you say, are dead on the money. Your view is skewed by something, we could list items that may explain that blurred vision all day long, but I believe its more simple than your background or your environment or education. I believe its because you try to see everything so hard, that you don’t even realize that your eyes are completely closed.

      Its not just Encinom, its somewhere between 65 and 90 percent of the population. They preach thier tolerance gospel while shutting out all opinions (and facts) that don’t appeal to thier “self is God” mentality. Its not thier fault, really. No one can open thier eyes alone, and its not us that can do it for them.

      I am sorry if this is offensive in any way, but I thought someone should say it, instead of trying to argue points that the other side will never see apart from the Grace of God.

      Not to diminish a good healthy open debate, in which actual facts are presented…I don’t know. Maybe I’m the one having a bad day.

      Report Post » Kitkarr  
    • SoNick
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 3:20pm

      @THEWAYISEEIT
      Let’s start with this one: Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), which, by a vote of 6 to 1, declared that a school prayer was unconstitutional. Here’s an excerpt from the judgement: “The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents’ prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State‘s use of the Regents’ prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.”

      Report Post »  
    • SoNick
      Posted on March 10, 2012 at 3:42pm

      @THEWAYISEEIT
      It‘s a shame you’re not here to respond. You asked for some facts concerning the legal meaning of Separation of church and state, which I supplied to you. I’d like to know if it changed your mind in any way…

      Report Post »  
    • SoNick
      Posted on March 11, 2012 at 11:13am

      @THEWAYISEEIT
      and by the way, this banner/mural/whatever does indeed fail the lemon test, chiefly point no.2: “The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion”. I’d say the primary effect was indeed the “advancement of religion”. Case closed

      Report Post »  
  • moreteaplease
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:24pm

    Ahlquist is awarded $25 in damages.
    ******************************************
    What damages?

    Report Post » moreteaplease  
    • Obama Snake Oil Co
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:33pm

      People, if we don’t step up, we will be stepped on. There is no way those legal fees should have been paid and the twit? If courts would not pass on legal fees onto cases of religious freedom, this would all come to a stop. As long as ACLU can get money to fund the next project, this will continue till churches can no longer display crosses on their roofs.

      Report Post » Obama Snake Oil Co  
    • Balpit
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 9:26pm

      Really? $25 for damages? How did one gather that she deserves $25 for so-called “damages”?

      My guess is she went to a therapist. Disgusted by her, he threw her out, then fined her $25 for wasting his time.

      Or, perhaps, the sight of the banner made her so mad she tore her necklace apart…which cost $25.

      And just think, leaving the banner alone would cost $0.

      Report Post »  
  • dylan
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:05pm

    Twit wants a name for herself-15 minutes you know’

    Report Post »  
  • Lordchamp
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:04pm

    Ok, so what is the court going to do if they just put it back up and thumb their nose at the stupid, ignorant ruling of this court. A bad ruling SHOULD be ignored. So they are in contempt. So what. They going to put the whole school district or the whole town in jail? What can they do if we in numbers stand up and say NO MORE! You are NOT taking our traditions, especially our moral and ethical ones. Be offended, we really don’t care.

    Report Post »  
    • JWINK56
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:08pm

      WELL SAID! I’m itred of the minority pukes bitchin and everyone bows to them! like you said, you gonna hold the entire town in contempt or put them jail! Were going to fine the town! OK…NOT PAYING! We’re gonna sue the town! OK…NOT PAYING! We’re gonna put you all in jail! OK…TRY! NOT GOING! They couldnt do it! Majority rules…dont like it, get the F out, leave, start your own damn school

      Report Post » JWINK56  
    • GodisaFarce
      Posted on March 10, 2012 at 10:06am

      It is not your job nor your religion infiltrating into the school to push your religion onto others. So just stay out of public schools.

      Report Post » GodisaFarce  
  • let us prey
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:00pm

    Little miss malcontent and her atheist uncle find the banner offensive. It says do our best, grow morally and physically,Help classmates and teachers, Friendship etc. These two clueless miscreants cannot see the positive message? I wonder what code they live by in Cranston? Set fire to your neighbor, throw morality out the window, deficate on your teachers? These folks get whatever comes their way.

    Report Post » let us prey  
  • football lady
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:57pm

    Good for them.

    Report Post »  
  • Cymry
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:04pm

    Things to remember.
    1. We Conservatives are the majority.
    2. America was founded as a Christian nation.
    3. Liberals/Progressives/Communists are actively trying to overthrow America.
    4.We want God’s will to be done.

    Now, let these simple truths give strengthen your mind and actions and claim the victory that has already been given to you. Also remember this. The enemy of your soul, and his allies, only power is deception and they are cowards.

    Report Post » Cymry  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:17pm

      Maybe it‘s your God’s will for the Communists to over throw America?

      Therefore, everything is happening to your God’s will.

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:26pm

      @MODERATION:
      Enjoy the mockery. You are in the minority, so enjoy the fact that you can freely say what you want and poke fun at your leisure. If socialism is what you want, you are going to have to achieve it beyond the ballot box. Deception only works for a short time. Unlike the rest of the world, I thinks many folks here start to question things when they don’t add up. They aren’t adding up.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:39pm

      @ACADEMICA2020

      It’s not mockery, it’s logical conclusions which your beliefs ultimately lead to.

      Who said I am for socialism? I am a hardcore fiscal conservative and think this religious revival is turning more and more people away from the Republican party(which tends to be more fiscally conservative than Democrats).

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:40pm

      It is very interesting that the election of President Obama has coalesced multiple movements against the foundations of our society. Foundations that, to the most rebelliously vocal, are nothing to be proud of. Unfortunately, unlike Europe, there have not been centuries upon centuries of erosion taking place, that foments efforts to tear down society and build it into something similar to what Marx and Engels envisioned. Many think now is the time to strike. The war on faith and the OWS crowd are the tip of the iceberg. They have been savvy in their use of the nuances in the historical interpretations of the Constitution to slowly chip away at the foundation. The one thing that they all fail to realize is that the majority of folks in our nation do not want to be Russia, China, Venezula, Cuba, or, lately, Europe. The Brits are getting it, but they may stand alone. Even Canada is getting it. The next four years will be interesting indeed.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:09pm

      Hey MOD,

      Still can’t help but to wonder just how much evil one must accept to reach the level of moderation that is best?

      But I guess some questions just don’t have answers, huh?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Cymry
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:32pm

      @moderation
      I’ve seen it from both the “establishment” republican and “progressive” democrat perspective. The only differentiation in ideology between the two is a nuanced one. They both end up in a global government which of course would be a tragedy wrapped in an error inside a nightmare.

      Report Post » Cymry  
    • bikerr
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 6:29pm

      @ModerationIsBest—You Told
      ACADEMICA2020
      It’s not mockery,—It is mockery, and you know nothing about Logic,other than what Spock told you in your dreams.

      Report Post »  
  • Fellowman
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:04pm

    Guess the school was fleeced of legal fees by CLU. The atheist got $25.
    Wonder how many others are encouraged to file suit. I thought the CLU worked for
    free. Something wrong when the one person offended tramples on the rights of
    others.

    Report Post »  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:33pm

      According to the First Amendment there is something wrong when overt establishments of religion are condoned by the state.

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:42pm

      @ECHOHAWK:
      It must be that time of day for you to troll through and spew your venom.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:48pm

      ECHOHAWK…do you take Good Friday and Christmas day off from work?

      Report Post »  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:52pm

      Certainly not Good Friday and I‘ve worked my fair share of Christmas’s. Your point?

      Report Post »  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:54pm

      What pray tell, was venomous about that post academica2020? If you’re going to accuse someone of something have some evidence.

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:07pm

      “Overt establishments of religion”
      The banner was an “overt” establishment of religion?
      It had hung there since 1963.
      And a student whose family are atheist activists suddenly find it offensive and folks like you are incensed by it. How quaint. How timely. How apropos for you to comment multiple times here in your self-professed war on Conservative “HYPOCRISY” wherever it exists. You must spend each day in pain as you look out your windows and view that hypocrisy. I feel your pain my friend. Not in agreement, just as someone who actually hopes you find solace at some point in your war on those whom you feel are so misguided that you need to come to The Blaze, on a daily basis, and set us all straight, through sarcasm and insults.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:18pm

      EchoHawk
      Posted on March 6, 2012 at 6:09pm

      “But perhaps more revealing than what Fluke has publicly said is what she has declined to say. Her testimony before Congress, for instance, included precisely zero references to recreational sex” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/revealed-abortion-agenda-of-campus-group-headed-by-sandra-fluke/

      You’re a fraud.

      academica2020
      Posted on March 6, 2012 at 7:40pm

      BTW, Fluke testified before a subcommittee of a subcommittee, not Congress.
      When Issa refused to accept the last minute change, Fluke testified at Pelosi’s request. ECHOHAWK, if you are going to claim you are the only fact based person here, make sure you state all of the facts.
      Fluke‘s testimony was a grandstand effort on Pelkosi’s and Fluke’s part to make headlines and a point.
      Clearly they succeeded, but don’t preach to the rest of us that they were on the short end of the stick. This was a political ploy at its most obvious and the MSM were happy conspirators in the process. If you watched the news conference on C-SPAN, the reaction from the press pool was so blatant, it was laughable. Whe Ed Henry asked the question that the President responded sarcastically to, the press pool was giddy. If you think I am full of crap, watch it.

      EchoHawk
      Posted on March 7, 2012 at 2:10pm

      academica2020, in case you hadn’t noticed dillhole my post from March 6, 2012 at 6:09pm was in quotations. It was a direct quote from the link I posted for the same stor

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 7:55pm

      @ECHOHAWK:
      You have yet to counter the “overt establishment” comment on your part.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:53pm

      Judas Priest get a dictionary, Overt: open to view or knowledge; not concealed or secret. Establishment: a group or class of people having institutional authority within a society, esp those who control the civil service, the government, the armed forces, and the Church: usually identified with a conservative outlook: any large organization, institution, or system: the staff and equipment of a commercial or other organization: belonging to or characteristic of the Establishment; orthodox or conservative: Dictionary.com
      To simplify, pretty much anything having to do with, religion in this case, is an establishment of religion. An establishment of religion is it’s tenants, it’s customs, it’s practices and beliefs. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, this is generally accepted at the “Establishment clause”. The Church is attempting an end around by placing, the free exercise of religion, before, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The First Amendment, as it is written, first strips the state/congress of any authority in making a law that upholds any of the Church’s institutions or practices i.e. establishments of religion. Secondly it upholds the right to free exercise of religion, promising a limitation to government interference…. right up to the point of free exercise of religion infringing upon an individual liberty.

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:29pm

      @ECHOHAWK:
      Your above quote: “Secondly it upholds the right to free exercise of religion, promising a limitation to government interference…. right up to the point of free exercise of religion infringing upon an individual liberty.”
      Yup, you are right, that banner, infringed on this girls individual liberty. She was forced to look at it everyday and it made her angry, so much so that her activist family and the RIACLU, sued to have it removed. You can relish the court decision, as do all activist Atheists, who seem to be on a crusade (another pun…) these days.
      This “individual liberty” argument will be challenged and, sooner or later, it will have to be proven that a Nativity Scene or a Star of David or, in this case a prayer banner that hung at the school for almost 40 years, forces religion on anyone and impinges of “individual liberty.” I guess you and I will have to remain opposed to one another here, because you are convinced this forces religion on non-believers and I think that it doesn’t and that it is one more weapon used by the secular progressive movement to “transform” our society into something that better resembles your view of the world.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:46pm

      @ECHOHAWK:
      You and I are diametrically opposed on just about anything we have commented on here. It’s clear we will never agree and it is probably best to respectfully agree to disagree rather than repeatedly verbally beat the snot out of each other all of the time unless, of course, that’s why you come here?

      Report Post » academica2020  
  • ChildofJesus
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:01pm

    I’m pleased that a stand is being made and good luck to the students. But here‘s my thought it’s okay to have words on a plinth or a banner but I can‘t forget what God says about the new covenant that his word would be etched on the hearts of those he’s called. To me that’s a good deal worth more then any stone or wall.

    Report Post »  
  • Arcangel Michael
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:00pm

    Jesus, I trust in You

    http://thedivinemercy.org/message/devotions/chaplethistory.php

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AySdEJx50Z0&feature=related

    Report Post » Arcangel Michael  
  • COFemale
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:53pm

    I want to know why Jessica’s rights out trumps those who want the Prayer to remain? The rights of both sides should be equal under the law. As long as the school did not post the prayer, it was donated by the class of 63 if I remember correctly. Therefore, the prayer existed even before Jessica was born. The Supreme Court has already indicated that private citizens can legally erect a sign, a Nativity scene or any other religious symbol on government property and it DOES NOT violate the non-existent Separation of Church and State. Therefore, the prayer should remain. No one is forcing Jessica to read the prayer. If she is offended, then close your eyes.

    I also find it laughable that Jessica gets $25 and the ACLU gets $150,000? If I were Jessica, I’d be suing the ACLU for half of their fee. Jessica, Jessica grow a brain – you were used to earn money and that is it. Guess that make you a ____________.

    Report Post » COFemale  
    • Locked
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:07pm

      ” The Supreme Court has already indicated that private citizens can legally erect a sign, a Nativity scene or any other religious symbol on government property and it DOES NOT violate the non-existent Separation of Church and State.”

      … as long as other faiths are allowed to display their views as well. Even with such allowances, this was the official “school prayer,” formally endorsing religious views.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:24pm

      @LOCKED

      I just checked, and nowhere on that banner does the word “official” appear.

      It simply says “School Prayer”

      Now I am going to go eat some “Parse-ly”

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Locked
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:32pm

      @Billy

      Great! Show me the other school prayer that Cranston has, Billy :-)

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 5:01pm

      @LOCKED

      I am sure that there have been many prayers expressed in one way or another in that school over the years.

      Now, just because it was the only one hanging on a wall, does not automatically deem it “official”.

      It certainly does not say it is official on the banner itself.

      So, did someone actually ever formally declare it to be the “official” school prayer?

      Or are you just assuming such?

      official adj

      Definition of OFFICIAL
      3
      a : authoritative, authorized
      b : prescribed or recognized as authorized

      If they did, let me know, but I must have missed it.

      You know me Locked, I will man up and admit when I am wrong.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • colt1860
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 5:07pm

      I’m getting tired of people throwing the word “religious” around. The mere mention of a God, Creator or Higher Being does not make anything associated therein ‘religious’. The Declaration of Independence mentions our Creator in a positive and embracing manner, and yet, never did our founding fathers consider the Writing to be religious. Such words and statements are, in certain situations, solely based on truth, reason and morality, and aren’t necessarily associated with religion. Religion, as understood during our founding, was the actual mode and form of worship, including any standardized method of paying respect or adhering to a higher being, as through some established Cathechism, Doctrine, or other such Creeds. In many instances, our first Commander in Chief, George Washington, would use words and statements towards his soldiers encouraging piety, morality and respect for authority, and never intended to enforce, endorse or force any Establishment of Religion upon his troops. Some of what some folks consider “religious” today was ordinary, common and normal in those days. Even abstinency and just plain old respect for the Supreme Being was something expected and taught as general knowledge, in public and private. The prayer on that wall is not religious. Of course, ‘religious’ today, as with many other words used today, have broad and liberal meanings. IMO, they have been currupted, that is, they now mean more than what they originally meant.

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 7:53pm

      LOCKED and the other Atheists here are enjoying their 15 minutes while President Obama remains in office. It’s their time to shine.
      Their disdain for religion is very obvious and they hold anyone who has faith in very low esteem. Activist judges changed modern interpretation and strict constructionists will change it back.
      It may not happen soon, but it will happen.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • Locked
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 6:42am

      @Academica

      I’m actually a Christian, thank you very much. But when it comes to the country’s laws, the Constitution reigns supreme; and the courts are the vector for ruling on the Constitutionality of actions. No one’s right to worship is being infringed, but one religious view was being upheld over all others in Cranston’s high school (a public school). The school chose to fight, lost, and has to pay the fees. It’s how the world works; you don’t always get two winners in a court battle.

      The worst tragedy here is the lack of compromise. I imagine the banner could have stripped out the religious references for less than $150,000.

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:27am

      @LOCKED:
      You make salient points.
      I think a compromise would have been the best solution.
      Unfortunately, activist Atheists, are incapable of compromise.
      If a student at a public school had a bible in his or her backpack, and it fell out while he or she was retrieving another book, and an Atheist student saw it and protested the fact that it was in the school, is it a violation of the Atheist student’s rights? Have we come to that point in our society where the mere presence of an individual’s ownership of an article of faith is an affront to someone else?
      I continue to hope that the judicial ruling (activist interpretation of the Constitution by a judge) is eventually overturned. The fact that some Atheists are so insulted by religion that they go to court is a disturbing trend that has accelerated in the past few years.

      Report Post » academica2020  
  • BassChick
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:52pm

    @CAPITALISTUNO
    great idea…..

    Report Post » BassChick  
  • Miss Anne
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:49pm

    I think the atheist girl will win. For one thing, she is cute and busty, and people love a well-rounded figure on a young female.

    Report Post »  
  • THE EMPIRESTRIKESBECK
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:46pm

    Well isn’t that special!! The ACLU scams an easy $150,000 off of the taxpayers.

    Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:07pm

      Nice play on words for your avatar – cute.

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • Calm Voice of Reason
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:22pm

      Nice way to spin the fact that the school chose to spend $150,000 of taxpayer money on a prayer flag.

      Report Post » Calm Voice of Reason  
  • Locked
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:43pm

    Being offended by something is not grounds for its removal.

    However, having a school endorse a school prayer most definitely breaches the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

    Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:53pm

      How so? The banner does not advocate one religion over another and just prays for guidance.
      Like I said, we have become so activist that, pretty soon, if you have a religious sticker on your car and you park at Town Hall, that violates the Separation Clause. This is freaking nuts.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • COFemale
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:57pm

      NO it does not. Learn the Constitution. This was a donation from the Class of 63. Nothing here violates the Constitution.

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • tzion
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:15pm

      @Locked
      The Establishment Clause applies only to Congress. Does this school even accept Federal dollars? Did those dollars (which it likely didn’t receive) go to fund this mural? Unless both those answers are “yes” you have no case.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:25pm

      @Tzion

      “The Establishment Clause applies only to Congress”

      Incorrect. Please read up on the 14th amendment’s incorporation doctrine, most of the Bill of Rights applies to states as well.

      Report Post »  
    • tzion
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:26pm

      @Locked
      Even so you’d still have to demonstrate that the state had actively decided to purchase the prayer mural for a specific religion. If the state didn’t pay for it or fund it then your argument falls flat. Even if they did fund it, the Establishment Clause only forbids passing LAWS establishing religion. The school is not a government body and doesn’t pass laws. It only receives government money.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:35pm

      @Tzion

      “If the state didn’t pay for it or fund it then your argument falls flat.”
      Also not true. The school itself receives government funds and is controlled by the (state) government. Thus it is held to the standards of the government itself. If a state court receives a giant Crucifix and puts it in the middle of the court room, it doesn’t matter who bought it: they’re the ones endorsing it.

      “Even if they did fund it, the Establishment Clause only forbids passing LAWS establishing religion.”
      Again, not true as per the decisions of the court. You may, of course, disagree with it; but our legal system is pretty clear on when things are not permissible.

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 5:20pm

      Praying or prayer is not “religious”. Asking our Creator for guidance is not religious. Acknowledging that our natural Rights are given to us by our Creator is not religious. Relying on Divine Providence for the well being of our nation and home is not religious. The word “praying” or “prayer” has taken, in today’s very liberal world, a meaning that almost strictly associates it with worship or religion. All that prayer means is to beg, ask, apply, request, implore, petition or entreat. Heck, many a times, even self proclaimed “atheists” have in dire situations, or life threatning incidents, voiced a ‘prayer’ asking for some favor or blessing, from some Divine (Higher) Providence, though they be not religious, nor intend to be. Granted, prayer is used mostly in worship or religious settings, BUT it is not solely, nor necessarily, an act of worship or exclusive act esixtent only in Religion.

      Report Post »  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:00pm

      academica2020, the banner, by it’s very existence, is an establishment of religion, it need not be of a particular sect, faith or denomination, it’s religious in nature.

      Report Post »  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:23pm

      COFemale, It strikes me as presumptuous to assume the entire class of “63” made this generous donation. So one of two things happened. Most likely someone from the class of “63” received this banner directly from a religious institution and felt it should have an honored place at there beloved alma mater so they took it to whatever authority existed at the time and got some manner of approval to hang said banner, or they took it upon themselves to hang it which I find to be a little far fetched. Either way the banner’s hanging in a public institution implies that the institution endorses religion.

      Report Post »  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:34pm

      colt1860, the sky appears to be blue, but that’s just me.

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 4:05pm

      @EchoHawk You’re absolutely WRONG. The banner is no such thing. The banner is not an Establishment of Religion, not even remotely. The Constitution here means AN ESTABLISHMENT, e.g. Ecclesiastical Institution, Organized Church, etc. The banner creates no church, congregation, creed, doctrine, ritual, deacon, pastor, minister, clergy, ecclesiastical membership, etc. The fact that something might be or is religious in nature doesn’t matter. GEORGE WASHINGTON TOOK HIS CONSTITUTIONAL OATH WITH HIS HAND ON THE HOLY BIBLE, AND FURTHER STATED, SO HELP ME GOD. As I’ve said before, in this very liberal and modern world, words don’t mean shiite anymore, and history is damned. Liberals like to make up stuff, and activist judges love to falsely confrim them as truth. What a bunch of baloney.

      Report Post »  
  • PapaJohannesPatriot
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:42pm

    Ahlquist is offensive to Christians in that school, and she has violated their civil rights. Remove her from the school and bring back the banner.

    Report Post »  
  • alrunner58
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:42pm

    I‘m tired mindless kids who would never consider doing this if it wasn’t for an outside source. I hope this school fights tooth and nail. Is this student new? how long has she been at the school and it never bothered her until now? these schools attorney’s need to do more investigating who on the outside are putting this crap in their heads.

    Report Post » alrunner58  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:45pm

      Alquist has been coached no normal sixteen year old goes to the lengths she has to get an inocuous banner removed from her sight.

      Report Post »  
    • mikelivi
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:26pm

      @Alrunner, Jessicas uncle is the head of the freedom FROM religion foundation here in Rhode Island. So Ill give you two guesses why the suit came about. Also Stephen brown the director of the RIACLU is a slug. If Im the city of cranston I dont pay dinme 1 to this joke of a suit. THEY (ACLU) brought the suit. Taxpayers should not have to pay for them suing!

      Report Post »  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:42pm

      If I may a suggestion. If conservative wish to win arguments in the courts they should send intelligent, critically thinking, conservatives to law schools. HAHAHAHAHA

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:56pm

      @ECHOHAWK:
      Actually, the first thing Republicans should do is make sure that activist judges are not appointed to the courts.
      Secondly, and I know your superior intellect reels from having to entertain the thoughts of lesser beings but, perhaps, strict interpretation of the Constitution should matter? That means that, if you are going to quote the Founders, do so in correct context. Don’t cherry pick comments that fit into your tidy little transform society model.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:00pm

      @ECHOHAWK

      No, they’re fine going to “law schools” like Pat Robertson’s.

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:12pm

      @MODERATION:
      You have an issue with all things religious. Just say so. It’s okay to be a Republican and an Atheist.
      If that is truly what you are. If not, stop selling false indignation.
      If you aren’t an Atheist, than you are a faithful person who believes that faith has no place in society outside of the confines of your home or a church. That’s okay, but have the guts to state that rather than act so insulted by public displays of faith.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:15pm

      Again academica2020, you make a flippant accusation without anything to back it up other than your pitiful experience. Gluttony, being one of the seven deadly sins, you should have grown weary of being bested as you were yesterday and the day before that. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/when-i-was-called-slut-barbara-walters-just-laughed-laura-ingraham-slams-the-view-on-double-standard/

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 8:03pm

      @ECHOHAWK:
      If you think you bested me, that is your opinion.
      You and others like you are individuals with opinions.
      The fact that you think you are on the forefront of the war against Conservative dogma is something you can tout, but beyond your opinions (and mine for that matter), nothing you say means anything. And, when you use insults and sarcasm to drive your point home, you come off as nothing more than a nith grader in study hall who has an axe to grind.

      Report Post » academica2020  
  • SpankDaMonkey
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:39pm

    .
    Ya’ll should get a Court Order to remove that little Racist Atheist too, while your at it….

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • skiz
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:50pm

      This is all about money for sleazy lawyers if you ask me. She get’s 25 bucks and they get 150k?!
      I hope the GOOD people fight this till the end!

      Report Post » skiz  
  • PapaJohannesPatriot
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:25pm

    Jessica Ahlquist is offensive to Christians, and she has violated the civil rights of Christians in that school. She should be removed from that school.

    Report Post »  
    • Marci
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:34pm

      The solution to these ridiculous claims by atheists is simple—they make the mistake of making their “freedom FROM religion” fight public to begin with, so once they do, we keep up with all religious activities they are exposed to in the public arena. Meaning….when they allow the prayers 5 times a day in school, shine a light on the little cockroaches and tell them it’s time to scurry to court again. They don’t want freedom from religion, they want ONE religion abolished, Christianity. It’s sad this teen is brainwashed into believing in her fight. An atheist is one who just simply doesn’t believe in a higher being, an atheist activist is one who sets out to destroy any belief in it whatsoever under the false claim that their rights are being violated.

      Report Post » Marci  
    • YUP YUP
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:35pm

      If you pay for HBO then you sponsor BILL MAHR. Mahr gave $1 million to Obama’s Super PAC. Cancel your HBO. Trust me, you can survive without it.

      Report Post »  
  • IMCHRISTIAN
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:24pm

    A prayer never hurts anybody but can heal the body and soul.

    Report Post »  
  • academica2020
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:21pm

    This is a powder keg. It may become a test case to see just how the Constitution should be interpreted.
    At this time, a 1940s case, ruled in favor of no religious representation in the public arena, is the basis for current analysis. This could become a challenge to that, especially since no one challenged the presence of the banner before this young lady did. We live in an activist society, so this is no surprise.

    Report Post » academica2020  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:44pm

      Clearly Alquist has created a toxic environment for herself and the school. She should find another school with no “offensive” material for her to be offended by to the point of litigation and let the students of Cranston get on with their scholastic life. This has become a farce. In the atheist‘s zeal to use the constitution as a blunt weapon she’s created a morasse of illwill and furor. An inocuous prayer banner that prays for personal and scholasitic achievment that’s been in the school for years, all of a sudden a militant atheist is “offended” by. But as I’ve said in the past. Alquist is not offended about being “forced” to take Easter and Christmas holidays off.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:57pm

      You mean holidays that have stolen their rituals from pagan holidays and adapted it to their Christian beliefs?

      Many Christians admit that they don‘t care if Christmas doesn’t really celebrate the physical birth of Jesus, it’s the meaning behind it.

      Therefore, the date and time of year was stolen and adapted to their beliefs, much like ALL religion is and does.

      It’s a sick joke that people put supernatural meanings behind an obvious pagan holiday.

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:07pm

      @MODERATION:
      Thank you for chiming in…

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:08pm

      BTW, no pun intended by my “chiming” remark. Don’t want to be offensive.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:32pm

      Oh here we go the “pagan” idiocies you atheist dolts like to pretend to know about.
      December 25th is not “Jesus’ birthday”. The date was chosen by the church based on Northern European holiday dates. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. The texts in fact point to his actual birth as falling around spring time in Israel. This of course has no bearing on the fact that you atheist dolts have no qualms about being “forced” to take a nationally recognized Christian holiday off at that time of year. By all means…litigate to remove it from the national calendar. You won‘t because you’re gutless and you’ll have a public relations nightmare on your hands.
      Ahh..Easter. You must be alluding to the original Germanic (pagan) “Oester”. Let me educate you sport. Easter is the anglofied name for the holiday. The older (and closer to the original) christian cultures (Italian, Greek, French etc) still call the holiday variations of the term “Pascha” (eg: paschal lamb). This is a transliteration of the Jewish “Pasach” which is still used today. Pasach is Passover and the older christian cultures use this variation because of it‘s tie to the earliest christians and the proximity of Passover to Christ’s passion, death and resurrection. The first Christians were after all, Jews and this is how they marked the most important event in Christianity. Spare us your twisted hermeneutics Orwellianly named MODERATION. You have no idea about what you’re tryin

      Report Post »  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:50pm

      AvenJerk, you should cite when you cut and paste.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:56pm

      I‘m glad you admit that you don’t know when this Jesus character was born. You might have some hope after all.

      Since the birth of Jesus isn’t knowable, Christmas it therefore a SECULAR holiday. People can put whatever meaning behind it they want. I’m sure on Christmas eve and Christmas day you focus on Jesus, and his birth and of a manger and blah blah blah blah, sadly for you, it’s not factually correct as you admitted. But you’re not really concerned about facts are you?

      Once again, Easter is a horribly secular holiday. Bunny anyone? lol

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:05pm

      ECHOHAWK…I appreciate the unconcious compliment (you‘re implying an accomplished writer wrote something you believe I’ve “cut and pasted here). However, it’s entirely my own writing and thoughts based on the knowledge base I have on biblical history. Being the dullard you are I’m not surprised you thought a more educated mind wrote it. I know about what I’m discussing here. Furthermore I speak fluent Greek I can assure you “pascha” is used by modern Greeks reflecting the older Greek use of the term for what English speaking people call Easter today. Furthermore, to add insult to the injury for you and Orwellianly named MODERATION…the Eastern Orthodox church mostly goes by the older Julian calendar which messes up MODERATION’s little assertion even further. Western churches (what you know as Christians “here”) use the newer Gregorian calendar. Christianity has used three calendars, the original Jewish lunar calendar, the Julian Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar. I actually laughed at your attempt to entrap me here ECHOHAWK it was one of the most pitiful things I’ve ever seen.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:14pm

      @Moderation

      “Since the birth of Jesus isn’t knowable, Christmas it therefore a SECULAR holiday. People can put whatever meaning behind it they want.”

      I think you’re using the wrong terms here. You could say “December 25th is a secular day,” but Christmas is inherently a religious Christian holiday. It’s not Solstice. It’s not the Midwinter Festival. It’s not Festivus. It’s Christmas. Now, if you celebrate one of those others on December 25th, more power to you; but claiming a Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Christ (even if it’s not the actual birthday) is a secular holiday is false. So, the day is secular, but Christmas is Christian. Yes?

      Doesn‘t make much of a difference when it comes to Avengerk’s ridiculous argument, of course. If a business closes for the 25th, then that‘s the business’s issue, not the employee’s. If you come to work, eager to show how non-Christian you are, and the door’s locked… well, duh? You’re not the boss; it’s not your call on when you get to work.

      Now, if you’re self-employed or have your own business, perhaps the argument holds a bit more water. But for the 90+% of the rest of us, it’s an idiotic argument to use.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:21pm

      Orwellianly named MODERATION…your 2 plus 2 equals 9 “logic” coupled with your shrill posts reflects the pitiably inadequate knowlegde you have of church history, holidays and culture. If you actually had any crediblity in what you‘re attempting you’d acknowledge that because jews used a lunar calendar at the time no fixed date can be put on Christ’s birth or passion and resurrection. Just like Roman historians don’t put “70BC” for the fall of the great temple for instance. Cultures of the time recall events through the means they use at the time. Even a novice can see that the events described in the birth of Jesus in the New Testament indicate it was roughly spring in Israel. I‘ll help you out even more since clearly you’re desperate for credible information. Technically, the four gospels in the New Testatment are anonymous. But if you can provide for me a credible competitor I’ll be happy to review it.
      Your idiocy that Christmas is a secular holiday betrays your pathetic understanding of the church and it’s history. Good luck with that one. Ah… Let me guess…by extension of your idiocy about a “secular” holiday you’re going to assert that your being “forced” to take Christmas off from work and it being recognized on the national calendar is perfectly fine with you..yes? Is this the level of preposterousness you’re willing to embrace to defend your buffoonery? It appears so.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:29pm

      really LOCKED? It’s an idiotic argument to use? You bleat constantly about the government constitutionally prohibited from recognizing any religion yet here you have government of all levels recognizing and acknowldeging a Christian holiday on their calendar. You said it yourself, it’s not denoted as “solstice” it’s denoted as “Christmas day”. You’re the idiot it appears. Furthermore, militant atheists won‘t touch it unless they feel they’ve eroded religious sentiment in this country to the degree where they can “sanitize” the date with some meaningless secular banality (as MODERATION just attempted) or they’ll have a PR nightmare to deal with. People like Christmas and like taking that time off.(and athesists shut their traps it appears)..but atheists don’t have the guts to take it away from them. By all means…give it a shot, put your money where your mouth is.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:37pm

      @Avengerk

      Yes, it’s an idiotic argument. If your place of business is closed and you show up anyway, you’re likely to be arrested for trespassing. The average employee doesn’t get to decide their hours: their boss does. If your boss says “No work on Monday!” then you can’t show up on Monday and demand to get paid. If they say “No work on Christmas!” it’s the same deal.

      Please, choose a better argument. You bring this one up as often as the “You can get birth control for free, so insurance shouldn’t cover it!” and both are ridiculous.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:52pm

      Your point is what’s ridiculous LOCKED. I’m saying of those “your bosses” you’re bleating about one of them may be the government. At which point…the government is recognizing a Christian holiday on their calendar (gasp…what will the atheists do now?). I don’t care what a private employer does. That’s their prerogative. I dont’ care if they never allow any holidays for their staff at all. That’s again their prerogative. I know in my case if I say I’m coming in during a holiday to do some work, my employer is fine with it. It really depends on the nature of the work and the relationship between employer and employee whether “the doors is locked” or not. Is this just too much for a mealy mouthed, self-approving git like you to absorb and understand? Apparently it is. You’re a crushing bore LOCKED. This is all the response a blowhard POS like you will get from me. Bleat all you want to at this point you’ll be talking to yourself. I’ll address Orwellianly named MODERATION and the dimwitted ECHOHAWK directly if they slink back. Bleat away champ.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 5:00pm

      @Avengerk

      ” I don’t care what a private employer does. That’s their prerogative. I dont’ care if they never allow any holidays for their staff at all. That’s again their prerogative.”

      Hahaha, says the guy who asks “do you take Good Friday and Christmas day off from work?” Right Avengerk… you all of a sudden “don’t care” when your argument falls through. Nice try, champ ;-)

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 7:47pm

      @ECHOHAWK:
      Cool, you just commented on something that has nothing to do with this story!
      I may piss you off, and gladly so. If I continue to distract you from your petty little tirades, I am a happy man doing so.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 8:17pm

      @MODERATION:
      “The Jesus character?”
      Are we talking about a play?
      A character…
      Clear to see where you stand.
      Try that line on the Muslims with regard to Mohammed…

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 11:25pm

      @ACADEMICA2020

      I agree, which is why I’ll stand with you against Muslims imposing their beliefs on us.

      I just hope you’ll stand with me when Christians try to impose their beliefs on me(already happening).

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:36am

      @MODERATION:
      I will stand with you if you can explain why you feel religion is being imposed on you.
      The presence of a religious item should not be construed as “imposed” if you are not being “forced” to see it or read it or bow to it.
      Imposition to me means forced.
      Perhaps it is semantics, but I continue to fail to see why it is so offensive to you or anyone else.
      I am not an overly religious person and, as such, I don’t get offended by the presence of any religious items, icons, banners, etc. As long as they are not “THE” item and that all religions have equal opportunity to be presented or observed. If they are, what is the harm? It seems that there is another agenda here and it goes well beyond the imposition of religion.

      Report Post » academica2020  
  • IMCHRISTIAN
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:21pm

    Those that stand up for God will be truly blessed.

    Report Post »  
    • Mary M. Tebbe
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:04pm

      imchristian: Psalm 1 reads: Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers. NOT SO THE WICKED! They are like chaff that the wind blows away. Therefore THE WICKED will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of THE RIGHTEOUS. FOR THE LORD WATCHES OVER THE WAY OF THE RIGHTEOUS, BUT THE WAY OF THE WICKED WILL PERISH.

      Satan is a defeated foe; one we no longer need to fear. We need to start taking a stand and not bend, regardless of what the wicked throw at us. The wicked in this case are the minority…whatever happened to the majority rule!? I’ve said many times that if we understood that we are the descendants of ancient Israelites we would know that there is no separation of Church and state. The God of Israel is the God of all Israelites, scattered and dispersed all over the world. The Church and Christianity were founded upon Jesus Christ. The problem is “religion” (religion means, man’s attempt to reach towards a god) and not “True Christianity”, the Christianity of The Bible (God Almighty reaching down to man). Man-made religions are what divide us, as do false religions, or a lack thereof.

      Report Post » Mary M. Tebbe  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:20pm

      @MARY M. TEBBE

      “Whatever happened to majority rule?!”

      Uh yeah, that has never been what the US was founded on.

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:20pm

      @MARY
      You make salient points. The one thing we all need to realize is that our Founders created a Republic, not a democracy, so that the minority has a place at the table (and that minority can be one person). I am on your side here. Unfortunately, being that we are a Republic, this will have to be settled in court. There are rumors (and they are just rumors, not fact) that this is going to be argued all they way to the Supreme Court.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • Locked
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 4:03pm

      @Academica

      “Unfortunately, being that we are a Republic, this will have to be settled in court.”

      Technically speaking, it was settled in court already. The court ruled, and the defendant refused to take it further due to cost.

      “There are rumors (and they are just rumors, not fact) that this is going to be argued all they way to the Supreme Court.”

      Extremely unlikely, as the ruling has not been appealed and the school has stated they don’t wish for it to be. The students seeking a court order to halt the removal are likewise too late; the prayer banner has already been taken down.

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 8:55pm

      @LOCKED:
      Time will tell. Just because it was removed does not mean that “citizens,” who disagree with its removal, cannot go to court and argue for its return.
      You have clearly stated your disdain for all things religious, at least if they are in the public domain. That’s your right. Just don’t assume that, because you think that there are no legal alternatives, that there aren’t.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 9:03pm

      In addition, you believe that your rights come from the government and the laws they create. Did you learn that when you were a little kid, public school, or in college? Or through osmosis? Just wondering?
      I figure you will have a very pithy sarcastic response.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 9:06pm

      If the government decides that our laws should recognize eugenics, will it be okay to abort babies who are determined to have defects?
      After all, if the government says so, it must be right…
      Just saying.

      Report Post » academica2020  
    • Locked
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 6:48am

      @Academica

      “In addition, you believe that your rights come from the government and the laws they create.”

      False. I believe there are inalienable human rights. However, if you think those rights will exist without someone protecting them, you’re delusional. Tell me how human rights are in countries with anarchy (like Somalia) or totalitarianism (North Korea).

      “If the government decides that our laws should recognize eugenics, will it be okay to abort babies who are determined to have defects?
      After all, if the government says so, it must be right…”

      Of course not. You’re setting up a strawman. Saying “government should protect human rights” does NOT mean “the government always makes the morally correct choice.” Where, in anything that I’ve written, have I said “the government is the final authority on morality”? (Hint: I never did). The government makes laws, the courts rule their Constitutionality; and both can get it wrong.

      Hence why I think Cranston is a tragedy. They’re undoubtedly correct (Constitutionally), but compromise should have been reached for a good “moral” decision. The end result isn’t “right”; the school is losing out on money, and the environment’s turned toxic.

      You’d argue much better if you stopped thinking you knew what other people thought and instead debated them on what they said. At this point, you’re on your way to becoming the next Avengerk.

      Report Post »  
    • academica2020
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 2:01pm

      @LOCKED:
      You and I agree more than we disagree.
      I guess it comes down to whether we are a nation of laws or a nation of men and women, because the two are in conflict now more than ever before.
      That will be the ongoing debate long after we are all gone.

      Report Post » academica2020  
  • jens63
    Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:13pm

    How does this hurt you, Cranston students?

    Report Post »  
    • Balthazor
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:35pm

      How did the banner hurt poor Jessica?

      Report Post » Balthazor  
    • CapitalistUno
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 2:41pm

      It doesn’t :)…The students don’t have to worry about it not being displayed by the school itself, as they can display on their own behest. Put the prayer on their backpacks, their shirts, their lockers, and any other place visible to the general public, as that will be unable to be construed as a governmental endorsement of religion. It will be the individual student expressing his own religion as he sees fit, and that right cannot be taken away from him, as per the First Amendment of the Constitution.

      Report Post »  
    • lhvd6639
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:03pm

      it hurt them 150,000.00 dollars

      Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:05pm

      Ah, it was a school prayer on the walls since 1963 – it’s like the school motto, the school song, it’s called tradition. No one made Jessica read it and if she is threatened by words on the wall, she has more mental problems than first learned. The words are inanimate objects – how can an inanimate object hurt you? Maybe you forgot – “Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Maybe you didn’t learn that as a kid, I did. If you didn’t, this shows me your parents parenting skills. Lacking.

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:10pm

      @CAPITALISTUNO

      That’d be a great idea for them to do. They should do it, but much like other things they probably won’t. They want the school or Government to sponsor their belief, which is why a lot of people don’t put up a nativity scene on their own front yard but will fight tooth and nail for the right to put one up on public property.

      There is something about the Government endorsing and condoning your actions that leads to people putting up 10 commandments, nativity scenes, etc on public property.

      People are more concerned about their outward expression of their faith then they are their personal expression of their faith.

      They will fight and fight and fight and fight to keep their displays up, and when they lose only then will they fall back on the LOGICAL answer to begin with. “Well even if they take away all of our displays, they won’t take Christ out of my heart.”

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on March 8, 2012 at 3:12pm

      @COFEMALE

      So we should allow unconstitutional things because it’s “tradition”?

      The only thing that stories like this prove is that there are lots of unconstitutional things going on, just nobody had a problem with it until now.

      Report Post »  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love