Teen Atheist’s ACLU-Led Fight Against Prayer Mural to Cost RI City At Least $173,000
- Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:35am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Teen atheist Jessica Ahlquist
Many Cranston, Rhode Island, citizens likely found themselves frustrated over 16-year-old Jessica Ahlquist’s successful crusade against a prayer banner in her high school. Others, of course, supported her efforts.
But following the educational and theological debate surrounding the mural’s presence, there’s a new point of contention to debate over — the weighty cost of the legal battle she launched.
As we’ve reported, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux ruled in Ahlquist’s favor last month. While the district hasn’t yet decided whether it will appeal, the current decision requires the mural to come down and the district to pay for the teenager’s legal feels. According to the final tally, the city of Cranston is being asked to dole out $173,000 in legal fees. This, of course, is on top of the costs the district incurred in both staff and legal fees for its own defense.
A prayer banner, center, is seen on the wall of an auditorium at Cranston High School West, in Cranston, R.I., Thursday, Oct. 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)
Lawyers from the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed the request for funds on Tuesday. In addition to making the monumental financial demand, the ACLU claims that the lump sum doesn’t encompass all of the time that the group spent on the case. Ahlquist will apparently only receive $25 in damages.
Since the ruling, the teenager has faced ridicule from classmates, politicians — even local businesses. However, she’s standing by her original claim that the banner is unconstitutional and she shows no signs of backing down.
“It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to,” she said last week. “It’s for their own good. I feel like they might see it as a very negative thing right now, but I’m defending their Constitution, too.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 587 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 372 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 372 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (266)
THX-1138
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:26am“…It’s for their own good.”
One More Time for the slow ones:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
- C. S. Lewis
Until we can prevent these people from voting it’s going to be one violent revolution after another because some of us would rather die free than live as serfs.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:29am“it’s for their own good”…my how liberal elitist of the young lady. “it’s for their own good”…has a nice Stalinist and Hitleresque ring to it.
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:30amOnce again, to all you Atheists, if you believe something DOES NOT EXIST, why do you spend so much time fighting it?
In essence you are getting people to open up to God because you keep fighting for something that “does not exist”….you appear like fools.That being said, I think I’ll go out back and swing my sword at all the “things that do not exist”, that will help people know I am a rational, sane human being. DOH!!!!
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:32amBy the way..is that legal bill “for their own good” too?
Report Post »bassist237
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:40amHey, I see her taking over pelosi’s spot soon.
Report Post »MarsBarsTru7
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:44am“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
It’s clear that we have the Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion. Forced secularization is government mandated atheism in government and in public domain. It is unconstitutional, amoral, and illogical.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:46am@AVENGERK
I’m surprised she she did not include the line…………………….
“This is going to hurt me more than it will hurt you”
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:08pmRIGHTSOFBILLY…there’s something really scary about a 16 year old telling an entire community..”it’s for their own good”.
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:12pmAs you concern yourselves with HER saying, “it’s for their own good” how easy is it to picture someone saying that as justification for hanging the thing up? Pretty easy. I’ve heard it myself many times. “It’s for their own good. They don‘t believe in my fairy tales but I’m so sure the stories are true that I‘m going to act like they just don’t know any better”
Same thing this girl is doing, hypocrites. Get your PROPAGANDA down off public buildings and property. It wouldn’t COST them anything if they just upheld the Constitution.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:29pmYou want some cheese with the whine DAS KAPITAL QUOTIN, CHRISTIAN FEARIN’, LEFTY? The only propanda apparent in this situation is an indoctrinated 16 year old who calls herself an “activist”. It doesn’t get more propagandized than when “activists” do their thing. When you atheists are “brave” enough to demand Federal, State and Local departments stop recognizing Christian holidays on their calendars I’ll take “activists” like you and this urchin seriously. But you‘re gutless and know that you’ll have a huge publicity nightmare on your hands if you start to rob people of holidays. Until then, you’re clearly nothing but spiteful piles of damaged goods. Your selective adherence to the constitution is noted.
Report Post »TLaVerdier
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:38pmShe’s Right, every case that’s won sets precedent that will help prevent some religious group or cult from getting themselves elected and littering the landscape with false idols.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:41pmThe parents should be locked up for child abuse, and this girl taken and be raised by the state for their own good.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:49pmi was just going to post that…
“It’s for their own good”. that is exactly the problem with people today.
WORRY ABOUT YOURSELVES YOU AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL FREAKS!
Report Post »kettererbg
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:38pmWhen the minority tell the majority how to live, that is national socialism or, rather, the shorter version is Nazi. Godless kid.
Report Post »Gorp
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:59pmThe school ought to make a new banner. Just take off the “School Prayer”, “Our Heavenly Father” and “Amen”.
Report Post »Then call it the “School Slogan” and see what happens. It wouldn‘t be a prayer anymore so the little B1tch couldn’t complain about anything Constitutional.
JRook
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 2:10pm@AvengerK Let’s remember that the quote speaks to either side who justifies controlling other peoples lives through some higher moral calling. Free Will and thus Free Choice comes to mind.
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 2:16pmShe’s no more indoctrinated than someone who is taken to church from birth and drilled into believing in fairy tales “for their own good”. You‘re a total hypocrite if you can’t even admit that it’s the same.
I’m sure holidays are coming. You gotta chip it away. By the way, I’m a Deist like the founding fathers. But hey, all you need to hear is “not a christian” and I MUST be an atheist, right?
you sound pretty indoctrinated, yourself, HypocriteK.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 3:37pm@Gorp
“The school ought to make a new banner. Just take off the “School Prayer”, “Our Heavenly Father” and “Amen”.
Then call it the “School Slogan” and see what happens. It wouldn‘t be a prayer anymore so the little B1tch couldn’t complain about anything Constitutional.”
No kidding? If you took out religious references from a religious banner, it’s obviously just going to be a banner. The girl’s case (and the court’s verdict) wasn’t “Banners are unconstitutional,“ it was ”banners of a religious nature are unconstitutional.” The problem wasn’t the secular content, but the overtly religious content.
Report Post »Amren
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 3:48pmHey, Bible!
Report Post »Most of our Founding Fathers were Christian, not Deist. Looks like you’ve been “indoctrinated” by those who are afraid to admit the Christian principles this country was founded on; like History Channel or Discovery Channel.
AvengerK
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 3:55pmOh really DAS KAPITAL QUOTIN’, CHRISTIAN FEARIN’, LEFTY? “Holidays are coming”? Why the wait champ? You’re the great and noble defender of the constitution right? Isn’t Federal, State and Local government breaching the constitution by recognizing and observing Christian holidays on their calendars? Come on sport….put that mealy mouth where your money is…start lobbying to remove those holidays from their calendars. Yeah…“holidays are coming”…pig‘s arse they’re coming. You gutless atheists (no LEFTY..you’re not a “deist”) know you’d have a PR nightmare on your hands telling people your lobbying against their holidays. Better yet…show some backbone…tell your boss (I can confidently say you can’t “tell your staff) that you’ll go to work on those days out of principle. You don‘t recognize Christian holidays therefore you’ll work on those days. Please…don‘t tell me there’s no work for you…there’s always something to be done. What’s that LEFTY? Oh yes..“holidays are coming”…LOL.
Report Post »Roundup_Logan
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 4:20pm@bible quotin‘ science fearin’ conservative american – “By the way, I’m a Deist like the founding fathers”
Which founding fathers are you refering too? I think you better check your history if you’re talking about the founding fathers of the United States.
Report Post »thunderclap
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 5:19pmMy suggestion is simple: Cranston, Rhode Island should present her with a bill for removal just like it and every other city does with abatement procedures. She wants it down and she won. Let her and her family pay for it. When she realizes that everything costs something, she’ll think twice. But if the city just does it. She’ll continue to harass.
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 5:19pmI don’t disagree that christian principles were part of the foundation of this country. People like Ben Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were raised as christians but became self-admitted Deists later in life. I know this because they admitted it in their own letters. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are littered with Deist philosophy. Deists believe in God. As I’ve already said, OverlookerK, I’m not one to go around protesting stuff and trying to have things removed or whatever. But I will sit here and voice my agreement with some of it. I say holidays are coming because I believe that activist atheist will eventually call for this. I take my kids to church almost every sunday. I’m happy to let them decide for themselves. Just because I think it‘s bull crap doesn’t mean that I force that belief on anyone around me in real life. I know a ton of nice, decent people at my church. The people on this site are the worst kind of christians. This is a hate site. Hypocrite christians hang out here.
Report Post »MakeItSo
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:49pmThe best thing they could do is cover up the “offensive” portions with the words “Censored by U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueu”
Report Post »MarsBarsTru7
Posted on February 2, 2012 at 12:21am@LOCKED and BIBLEQUOTIN
No one is telling you that you have to convert to Christianity. No one is telling you that you have to believe that there is a God. No one is threatening to imprison you if you do not express Christian beliefs. Why then do either of you believe it is alright for you and other atheists to attack the Christian religion, the very religion that forms the foundation for the traditional values of this country that both of you more than likely observe. You are nothing but blatantly dishonest to portray it as keeping with the Constitution. It is in direct conflict with the Constitution. Make your case against the Constitution if you feel so compelled. If you believe that it is fair for you to impose atheism on everyone in this country, then at least be honest about it. I know that as atheists you have no moral absolutes and that the only reason you have to be honest is tradition – or whatever other illogical notion you can come up with – yet, at least if you believe that you should be honest, for whatever reason you give yourselves, then be honest about this. It is wrong for the government to force secularism on religious people, just as wrong as it is for them to force religion on atheists and other nonreligious people.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on February 2, 2012 at 6:57am@Mars
“You are nothing but blatantly dishonest to portray it as keeping with the Constitution. It is in direct conflict with the Constitution. Make your case against the Constitution if you feel so compelled.”
Stop lying. You can rant and rave about the constitutionality, but at the end of the day our government has left the power of deciding constitutionality with the Supreme Court, which has very clear opinions about what is and is not acceptable when it comes to religion in schools. You don’t have to like it, but saying things like “it is in direct conflict with the Constitution” is a lie. Preface it with something like “In my opinion” if you want to be truthful.
Report Post »TRUTHSENSE
Posted on February 2, 2012 at 8:41amGood point CESSNA152. Strange that they never go after Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Could it be as some scientist’s have said about evolution, that the evidence really points to an intelligent creator, but they can’t accept that as being true, because then they know they would be responsible to such a creator.
Report Post »MarsBarsTru7
Posted on February 2, 2012 at 12:53pm@ LOCKED Because it is not my opinion. The Supreme Court has never adequately qualified decisions against religious expression by the standard of the Constitution simply because it can’t. Vague notions about the “separation of church and state” have been given. The clause doesn’t even exist in the Constitution. It exists only in a letter from Jefferson explaining why he thought it was important to prohibit a direct endorsement of any organized religion by the government.
It IS clearly unconstitutional. You can’t even bring up the wording of the Constitution. Every time someone quotes the Constitution you have nothing to say to refute it. You have nothing, and you know it. Admit it. It isn’t about conforming to the Constitution for you. It’s simply about winning in favor of atheism.
The only lies between the two of us are the lies being put forth by you. Every thread relating to atheism and Christianity you make the same arguments without substantiating it with anything more than “Well the Supreme Court sides with me”, while claiming your position is the legally correct one. You have no logical argument because the wording of the Constitution is clear. The best you can do is cite specific legal cases where judges have sided with secularist interests. You do realize that citing someone else agreeing with you doesn’t validate your position, don’t you?
Report Post »MarsBarsTru7
Posted on February 2, 2012 at 1:04pm@ LOCKED P.s. Just wanted to point out that along with it being you projecting your opinions as fact, your only factual support lies in that there have been Supreme court cases that have sided with secularist interests. In other words, because you can‘t dispute the Constitution you’re saying your position is the correct one because the Supreme Court sides with you. Of course, this is ignoring the times when the Supreme Court has decided against secular interests. But even so, you‘re basing the correctness of your entire position on the Supreme Court’s decision.
Whatever it’s authority may be, the Supreme Court is fallible. Considering that while the Constitution is a constant, its wording never changes and therefore it provides an absolute position upon which our rights are based no matter what the Supreme Court decides, the Supreme Court has, does, and will change it’s opinions from time to time. Recognizing this, it is reasonable to conclude that it may eventually decide heavily against secular interests in the future. When/if that happens, I wonder how much you will tout the Supreme Court as the standard by which our rights are guaranteed.
Report Post »turkey13
Posted on February 2, 2012 at 5:11pmThis doesn’t take into account the citys expense in having around the clock police protection. Those policeman could be doing something for the real citizens of the community. I think the city residents should demand police protection be given to everyone – that would be fair. something bad is going to happen to this little girl sooner or later. I used to support the ACLu but all funds are cut off as of now. If everyone would do the same this nonsense will end. That is like cutting off the head of the snake.
Report Post »miren
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:24amShe is EMPTY Inside. There is nothing to her but her flesh shell. Wandering looking for someone to worship. Someone that will be all things to her and yet Never be truly happy or satisfied because humans make mistakes, humans let you down. There is an extremely high probability she is a Liberal in training.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:31amshe should just find a new school..she’s created a toxic environment at her current one.
Report Post »mikelivi
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:42amI live in beautiful Rhode Island and I can tell you the girl has not been to school in two weeks, when she does finish school she will leave R.I. The aclu has now saddled Cranston with 173k is legal bills that are unjustified and excessive. This will hurt more folks than the prayer banner ever did. Shame on the aclu and Stephen Brown who is their director. Of course we know the excessive legal bill is just a strong arm tactic to stop any appeal. They KNOW Cranston cant pay it. Isnt that against what the aclu does, defend the folks that dont have money or recourses to fight for themselves? Also when this all started the aclu and their VOLUNTEER lawyers said they would defend Ms Alqhuist for free! so why the excessive legal bill? Hmmmmmm, something is rotten in lil Rhody….Stephen brown and the aclu is what stinks here!
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:16pmYou can cry and moan all you want but it’s hypocritical of you to do so. Why do you take children to church? For their own good. Why do you send out missionaries to non-christian areas? For their own good. Why do you try to actively spread your religion at all? For people’s own good.
Bottom line, like it or not you act just like this girl, just from the other side of the coin. You can either have the sack to admit that or you can spew garbage out of your mouth like Avenger K does every day while pretending to be Team Jesus.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:31pmDid you pout and stamp your foot as typed your idiocy DAS KAPITAL QUOTIN’, CHRISTIAN FEARIN’, LEFTY?
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:39pmYou gotta admit, she‘s pretty cute for someone who’s going to spend eternity in the tormenting flames of hell. I love athiests claiming to follow the constitution. For the 1 millionth time, “Separation of Church and State” exists NOWHERE in the Constitution nor the concept of it. It was a Supreme Court decision by a God hating chief justice. “What part of Congress shall make NO law” sounds like “Government should outlaw”? Intellectually Bankrupt, par for an athiest.
Report Post »donnyho
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:13pm@Bible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American
Parents do have a right to raise their children in a way they feel best benefits the child. I would venture to say that most if not all parents, whatever religion or not, take their children to their particular house of worship as often as they desire. An atheist will teach their child there is no God “for their own good.” However, a 16yo child does not have the right to tell me that what she has done “is for your own good.” 16-years-old is not of sufficient age to tell this 65yo what is in my best interest. Further, I see nothing in that prayer that should be offensive to anyone. While the content of the prayer itself promotes healthy ideals, it is the fact it is addressed to God, the Creator of all things, including you, where her problem lies. And its her problem because she was most likely taught to not believe in God “for her own good” by parents who do not believe in God. In a sense, while she may feel God is being forced on her through this prayer, she is forcing her God-less view on the rest of her classmates.
Missionaries go to areas where Christianity is not known for the express purpose of exposing the inhabitants to the free gift of Christ. We do not force anyone to accept Christ, we just let them know about Him. Whether it is for their own good is their choice, not mine. We missionaries “go into all the world” as we are commanded by Jesus, to speak His Gospel (Good News). Everyone has the choic
Report Post »donnyho
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:26pm….continuation of previous post…
Everyone has the choice to accept or reject His Good News. We simply present it, and only if they want to hear it. No one will be dragged kicking and screaming into Heaven; it will be only by personal choice. We may believe it is for their own good, but nothing is forced on anyone as this young atheist has forced the removal of a prayer from this school on everyone. The more the Creator is removed from society the more we spiral into immorality.
No, we do not act as this young lady has. She is one forcing her will on many
Report Post »iScooter
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:29pmWow, AvengerK is so easily intimidated. So much anger lack of respect for others. CLEARLY you don’t understand or comprehend the US Constitution.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:36pmReally ISCOOTER? You do understand and comprehend the constitution right? So why aren’t you lobbying for all Federal, State and Local departments to stop recognizing Christian holidays like Easter and Christmas on their calendars? Let me help you champ- I’ll tell you why…because you atheist creeps would have a publicity nightmare on your hands..and quite frankly you like the time off from work. You don‘t care that’s it’s a Christian holiday at that point do you oh noble defender of the constitution? So I’ll tell you what sport….when you atheists start lobbying for the removal of these holidays from ALL State, Federal and Local department holidays..I’ll take you and your “comprehend” the constitution seriously. Until then…you’re an empty joke. Did I sound intimidated enough there for you champ?
Report Post »Mtroom
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:51pm@bible quotin’…How about you let someone answer your questions, instead of thinking you know what the answers would be..The answer to all those questions is because that is what they believe in, and would like to share it …There is a difference in telling someone what you believe and dragging someone into get a shot. I like this girl, she stated what she believed at the beginning, but this was highjacked by the ACLU and should have never ended up in court..Too many headstrong idiots involved…This banner could have been a great op for this school to start an open minded debate, and educate the children on why she felt this way…Instead, now she’s demonized and the school has to deal with a bill it will never be able to pay. Who won?…ACLU and that is it.. I have no love for any organized religion, but also no love for those offended by it..If someone says “God bless you” after I sneeze, I say “thank you”..They just have a different way to show kindness than I do..How was that offensive? Because of the word GOD? ..You say “I can cry and moan”..makes me laugh…I have never ran to a court because of a banner..You see, I am strong in my ways and a banner isn’t going to effect me in any way..A person going to church doesn’t bother me..A cross on a hill doesn’t offend me..A picture of Christ behind a judge with the Ten Commandments under it, is just another picture. Stop being so thin skinned and give someone a hug.
Report Post »Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 2:31pmI was talking to AvengerK who is always on here praising Jesus out of one side of the mouth and spewing hate out of the other. It doesn’t take much to put AvengerK in a rage. And it’s entertaining.
This kid has as much right to believe in this and ask for the change as any other 16 year old who is a devout christian and expresses those beliefs. Christians think they‘re being persecuted but they’re just being treated like they treat other belief systems. It’s not persecution. It’s equalization and the end of preferential treatment for Christianity. Hang what you want in a private school. A person doesn’t need a magical person to monitor them and a judgement to face in order to be a good, moral person. If they do need that, then they have a problem. I’m not one of these people who cares about a sign like this enough to try to have it taken down. It just doesn’t matter to me. But I also don’t care if someone does try to have it taken down.
Christians are incapable of just living and letting live. Same goes for activist atheists. Everybody needs to just calm down and stop worrying so much about how people live their lives.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 3:00pmBible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American You lying turd, I have never seen a church group sue to have any other religions stuff taken down, never seen them sue groups for smoking pot, drinking, handing out condoms, etc. But that is all the left has is straw man arguments and lies.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 3:49pmLOL….“same goes for activist atheists”..while DAS KAPITAL QUOTIN’, CHRISTIAN FEARIN’, LEFTY uses his own screenname to attempt to ridicule Christians? No really..just ignore LEFTY’s post-after- post of venom and bile directed at Christians…he’s not an atheist activist…he’s a “deist”…LOL. Get material idiot.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 7:14pm@BIBLE QUOTIN‘ SCIENCE FEARIN’ CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN
Oh….my…..God? Someone else here FINALLY making sense. Maybe it’s a miracle?
Keep pointing out the hypocrisies….and maybe they will eventually see them and try to adjust accordingly.
Report Post »asybot12
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:55pm@Donnyho, remember the old saying kids should be seen not heard and the other one remember when you were considered an adult @21 there were reasons for that so I agree with you
Report Post »@ moderationisbest, remember your moniker when you load your pipe and your Kool-aid bottle.
Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:56pmI’ve been telling this Avenjerk einstein that I consider myself a Deist anytime he or she has asked. Sorry that doesn’t fit in with the cartoon of me in your mind. We‘re even though because you’re a cartoon in my mind too.
Report Post »rabblechat
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:23amWhat part of the Constitution is she defending?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:31amEstablishment Clause, first amendment. See relevant SCotUS cases for more information:
Report Post »Engel v. Vitale (1962) (Religious prayer endorsed by public schools, even those that are voluntary, violate the first amendment)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) (Basis of the “Lemon Test” of what constitutes establishment of religion in public schools)
AvengerK
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:41amJust the parts that don’t take away federal, state and local recognition of Christian holidays like Easter and Christmas holidays. You see..if atheists started doing that it would be too much bad publicity for them..so they stick to banners and “displays” for their war on Christians. In short..it’s an unspoken selective application of the constitution that this young lady is so passionate about defending. When she demands that Federal, State and Local departments no longer recognize holidays like Christmas..I’ll take the urchin seriously, until then, she’s just another spiteful, bitter little atheist.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:49am@LOCKED
Are you a member in good standing of the ACLU?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:51am@Billy
Nope, just a person who studies our legal system in his free time. Playing armchair lawyer: even more fun than collecting stamps!
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:52amLocked,
Report Post »The rulings in those cases aren’t Constitutional as the they prohibit religion. You can’t claim Constitutionality in one part of the first amendment while trampling the second part. School weren’t then and still are intended to be part of the federal government. Fact is a federally ran schools system is creates a conflict of issues standard that can be over looked.
While I agree no school has the right to force prayers no group or government agency has the right to deny it either. And no federal agency or court system has the constitutional authority to rule either way. It’s an issue that should be left to the people in the school district. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER RELIGION
Locked
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:00pm@Smith
“The rulings in those cases aren’t Constitutional”
This is an old argument, brought up every time a Supreme Court case article is posted on this site. Let me say how it goes:
A: “This isn’t Constitutional”
B: “The SCotUS is the arbiter of Constitutionality.”
A: “That’s not in the Constitution!”
B: “The Constitution doesn’t give the power explicitly to any branch. However, early on (1802) the courts ruled with it and for the past 200+ years, it’s been part of how the government rules.”
A: “But I say it’s not constitutional because of XYZ.”
B: “Then there’re two choices: change the Constitution (by becoming a Congressman and proposing an amendment); or become a Supreme Court justice and argue your opinion if a similar case arrives on your plate in the future.”
A: “But what they‘re ruling isn’t in the Constitution!”
B: “And repeat. Ad nauseam.”
If this conversation will go any other way than this, I’ll check back. Otherwise it’ll just go in circles around these points most of the time.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:05pmLock is right, folks. I don’t like it, but that’s how most legal minds interpret the constitution these days. They rely more on precedence than the constitution itself. There are some people that still look towards the constitution first, such as Scalia, and Thomas. They’re just a dying breed. The real problem comes from people willing to accept certain things based on precedence, but revert back to original intent when it suits them. Kind of like the religious folks here on the Blaze that are so offended by this case; citing the constitution itself, but are willing to forgo the constitution when it comes to bombing Muslims. You all can’t have it both ways. Meh, anyone interested; check out the following links. I get censored every time I mention the different schools of thought on this site. I think Scalia, and Thomas are right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
Report Post »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
justangry
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:28pmOh and… when I’m looking a president, I‘m looking at which way I think he’ll come down on this issue because of the judges they would appoint.
I know where my boy stands.
Santorum says he’d appoint orignalist judges, but my gut‘s telling me he’s one of those people who uses which ever theory best suits him for each issue. I’m still trying to work that one out.
As for Newt and Romney, they most certainly fall into the Woodrow Wilson, Kagan, etc. school of thought.
Report Post »holy ghostbuster
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 7:20pm@ avengerk – Easter is not a federal holiday.
Report Post »SayNoToTeaBaggers
Posted on February 20, 2012 at 1:23am1st ammendment
Report Post »Tri-ox
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:21amGood job obama liberals!
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:20amGet it from obamamama’s stash!
Report Post »And I Say
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:20amwhom every brings suit against someone or something, they should pay for the fea’s. if they win it can come out of thier earnings and if they loose out of thier pockets. this will keep the law suits down to those that want to take the risk of out of pocket money if they loose. reform this now.
Report Post »THX-1138
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:32amLoser Pays will never happen because there are too many Losers (and we let them vote).
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:43pmLooser pay will never go in, because 95% of the guys who write laws are lawyers. You put in looser pay, the number of cases plummet to a normal level, useless lawyers starve, we can’t have useless lawyers starving now can we?
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 5:15pmShe didn’t sue for damages. She just sued for a change of policy. Remember that the rules you advocate would also affect people trying to enact changes that you agree with, and who don’t have the backing of organizations like the ACLU.
Report Post »Noahide Ron
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:19amLots of information in this article about who the “players” are in this case:
http://cranston.patch.com/articles/aclu-files-lawsuit-against-prayer-banner#c
ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Prayer Banner
April 5, 2011
The ACLU will hold the city of Cranston responsible for all attorneys’ fees they incur if they win the case,
RELATED:
Report Post »http://cranston.patch.com/articles/school-committe-decides-to-defend-banner
School Committee Decides to Defend Banner
lizaz
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:13amI feel sorry for her!!!
Report Post »SayNoToTeaBaggers
Posted on February 20, 2012 at 1:24amfor doing the right thing?
Report Post »Railroadman
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:12amHey Cranston city officials, you know where to send the bill. We triple dog dare you to send it to her!
Report Post »holy ghostbuster
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 7:24pmDid you read the article? The judge ordered the City of Cranston to pay the girl’s legal fees.
Report Post »Carol Ingian
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 9:05pmTime to raise the taxes on her parent’s home and cars (if they own any).
Report Post »IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:11amGodly people stand up and defeat people like Jessica. This Country was founded on religion and they are trying to destroy what our men and women has fought and died for. Freedom is great. If you believe in nothing then why are they so ready to fight against others who believe and want this to be a country of love and our next life to look forward too. This country is filled with churches, Mosques, temples, etc. So get over it There is plenty of nothing so enjoy nothing if that is your desire however, if you think you are and want to be free of guilt to do what you want just wait you will find out the truth and the consequences.
Report Post »EchoHawk
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 2:28pmCorrection, this country was founded on Liberty, not religion. Because of the religious persecution suffered by some, it was well recognized that respecting an establishment of religion by the government would create inappropriate influence on matters of a political nature. Conversely, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, religion, by the government has to do with the peoples right to practice their religion privately without fear of reprisal from the government. This appears to be the most difficult concept for most people to understand, that government and it’s public activities should be held separate from the peoples relationship with God and to their practice of religion thereby reducing and in fact attempting to eliminate eithers influence on the other.
Report Post »Phoneguy
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:09amWhat a one girl wrecking crew, she needs a spanking!
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:06amThere is no legal reason the city should pay legal fees, unless the judge found that their defense was frivolous. The city should appeal and will likely win on the fees.
Report Post »EchoHawk
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 2:33pmIt is a commonly held practice, in civil litigation, that whom ever prevails should justly receive legal fees incurred from bringing a case with cause.
Report Post »RightThinking1
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:05am“…It’s for their own good.”
Report Post »Ah…, the ultimate triumph of the socialists/facists. A childs mind co-pted. This little girl will likely never be able to think for herself again. That short phrase “for their own good’ should send chills down the spine of any thinking person.
WashingtonIsMyHero
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:26amEspecially when this worldly knowledge comes from a young skull full of mush. Why are atheists the most powerful religion in America (other than Islam)?
Report Post »WashingtonIsMyHero
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:28amHow does an underage punk get to dictate to the rest of society? Answer: ACLU.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:57amThis is why we need legal reform. Loser pays must be implemented in these law suits.
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:07amSo you‘re saying you’re happy with this? FYI: the loser in this case is paying the fees.
Report Post »Mateytwo Barreett
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:56amDid the li’l tweetheart have to face cwiticism. Should have been shown the door! A 16 year old constitutional scholar. So what was the legal counsel for the school? The principals brother-in-law?
Report Post »moreteaplease
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:53am“It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to,” she said last week. “It’s for their own good. I feel like they might see it as a very negative thing right now, but I’m defending their Constitution, too.”
Report Post »***********************
Please kid, don’t do me any favors…alright?
Just in time
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:52amHopefully they will win their appeal. And the banner with good values written on it can return. And the little miss I’m offended can eat the cost.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:59amShe should be responsible for the cost or the ACLU should be forced to eat it. she chose to sue over s sign she didn’t have to read and the ACLU chose to take the case.
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:50amAtheists are very thin skinned people, like our very own King Obama. Their “unconstitutional” argument is completely without basis. The ACLU are nothing but a bunch of communist agitators. We will not be silenced!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:13am“Their “unconstitutional” argument is completely without basis.”
Their basis would be precedence from prior cases, which is how the law system works in the United States.
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:37amThose rulings should be overturned. Period.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:53amThey might be, one day. Our legal system and laws are constantly changing, and the Constitution itself has an amendment process. Until that time though, the courts rule based on prior cases and their legal verdicts and opinions.
Report Post »Nanner-SW
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:40pmA friend of mine once told me that the branch that has grown the most was not the president but the judicial, that most of the government power lies with them. I did not think much of it at the time but now I think it’s true. They have the power to interpret law however they see fit to the point of creating totally different laws disconnected from the founders’ intent. With the right people in the court they could effectively shut down the bill of rights and they can not be voted out and they were not elected in by the people. Huh, I did not realize how scary it was until I typed it.
Report Post »Noahide Ron
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:50amThe fee is punitive:
a) For challenging the ACLU in court in the first place, while
b) Sending a message to any other town/school board who might oppose them in the future.
A great moral lesson to teach kids these days. . .
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 5:22pmThey deserve to be punished for wasting the time of the court and the public’s money fighting a suit that they should have known they could not win.
Report Post »jakartaman
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:47amThis Republic is not only economically bankrupt
but it is also spiritually and morally bankrupt as well.
When GOD is removed from society – society is removed from GOD
Report Post »SayNoToTeaBaggers
Posted on February 20, 2012 at 1:25amThe worst things have come from christians in the US.
Report Post »Gold Coin & Economic News
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:44amThe city should just refuse to pay this little extortionist’s legal bills. What are they going to do then? Really, just stand up and say, “FU, not gonna do it!”
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:54amExactly she chose to sue she should pay.
Report Post »SoiledDove
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:55amWell, then the city would be in contempt and some of the city leaders would be thrown in jail until they paid up. Alternatively, the judge could impose MORE fines for refusing to pay. Brilliant idea.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:17am“The city should just refuse to pay this little extortionist’s legal bills. What are they going to do then?”
You want to know? There are several possible outcomes.
1. Jailing the school administrators for being in contempt of court.
2. Forcing the government to pay, and thus taking the fees out of the school’s funding
3. Allowing the ACLU to foreclose on the school and sell school property and supplies to pay back the fees that the court designated.
You can’t just say “I disagree with this legal outcome, I won’t pay!” and expect to get away without consequences. Read some of the articles on when Bank of America refused to pay the fees of court fights and what happened: the winners of the case were legally allowed to take their property in recompense (and add the moving fees to what they’re owed).
Report Post »http://moneyland.time.com/2011/06/06/homeowner-forecloses-on-bank-of-america-yes-you-heard-that-right/
Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 2:47pm@LOCKED
I’m all in for your #3
Then maybe private citizens could purchase the school at auction.
Then they can display any dang banner they please.
It’s nice to daydream sometimes.
Report Post »wargames83
Posted on March 11, 2012 at 4:42amSo what incentives would cities have to not trample over their citizens rights if they know that they don’t have to face the consequences even if they lose in court. You must trust city governments a lot. In libertarian circles people who trust government as much as you do are referred to as statists.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:43amAgain here is an example of one religion displacing another and getting government support doing it. Atheism is a religion of itself and government is choosing one over another. By the way this government is choosing one business over another and getting away with that as well. Speak at the polls, get rid of anything that even looks like a Democrat.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:55amexactly
Report Post »Locked
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:11am“Atheism is a religion of itself and government is choosing one over another.”
Atheism is not a lack of a religion. It’s a belief that there is no God. Secularism is replacing a Christian display.
For your contention to be accurate, the banner would have to have been replaced with something like “There is no God.”
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:27amSooooooooooooooooo, if Athiestism is a Faith, or Religion, forcing citizens to abide by This Religions tennants is OK??? Go figure
Report Post »Locked
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:33am@13th imam
“if Athiestism (sp) is a Faith, or Religion, forcing citizens to abide by This Religions (sp) tennants (sp) is OK?”
Nope. If the banner had read “There is no God, but let’s do our best!” it would still violate the Establishment clause. Removing a banner endorsing a monotheistic religious view reverts the area to secularism, not atheism.
Report Post »infidelible
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:50pm@Locked – “Atheism is not a lack of a religion. It’s a belief that there is no God.” Actually, atheism is, by its make up, “not theism”. It is the rejection of the assertion that there is a God. That does NOT constitute a belief, but the rejection of one. It also is not a particularly useful description beyond this. To say what a person does not believe does not say what she does.
As for the school’s liability, their defense had to know the risks going in and therefore were obligated to warn their clients. That the school decided that the sign was so important as to risk the possible damages shows a failure of leadership.
As individuals, we have the right to believe any ridiculous and patently absurd ideas that we would, but the state does not have the right to compel children to attend an institution where they receive religious instruction. This is a case of Christian message and so many people are sympathetic with the school. What if were Jewish, Islamic, Wiccan, etc. Would you feel comfortable with your child being presented with that message as the truth or the way? Better to have no message and leave it to the parents to instill the values into their children than they choose. Better yet to do away with state controlled education and then you wouldn’t have to worry about the agenda of those in power.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:03pm@Infidelible
“Actually, atheism is, by its make up, “not theism”. It is the rejection of the assertion that there is a God. That does NOT constitute a belief, but the rejection of one.”
“a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.”
I’m going with the actual definition of atheism. It is most definitely a belief; as theists quite correctly say, it’s impossible to prove there is no higher power (even if there is no proof of a higher power, that doesn‘t mean there can’t be). Thus, atheism is indeed a belief. Saying “I don’t believe in anything” is a statement of your own belief: you just believe there’s nothing else. It‘s not proven fact that a higher power doesn’t exist, there just isn’t scientific proof behind it.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 5:20pmNeither the plaintiff nor the judge seek to force the school to teach that God does not exist. Therefore, there is no displacement of one belief system by another, merely a respectful neutrality.
Report Post »infidelible
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 6:42pm@Locked – prefixing a word with “a” means it is “not” something. To say that to not have belief is itself belief is to say that that words have no meaning. I’m sure definitions can be found or contrived to suit any purpose. At the very least, it demonstrates that one who is wedded to baseless beliefs cannot conceive of not having them.
As for the rest of your comment, you assert that agnosticism is the best we can get to as one can never satisfactory disprove the random assertions apt to come from people. Can you disprove that the pantheon of Greek gods did not intervene in the lives of the ancient Greeks? What about Dawkins’ Flying Spaghetti Monster? Do you believe that they exist? Agnostics say that we can never know. It is a worse position than that of a theist – at least the theist, who is philosophically wrong, hasn’t precluded the state of eventually coming around.
Regardless, the scope of human delusion is so vast that you’d think all would be agreeable to avoiding explicit religious instruction in public schools (do what you want in private schools). Most here would no more want their children chatting with me about metaphysics and what that means about tithing on Sunday than I would want them to have free reign to teach my child not to think.
Report Post »SayNoToTeaBaggers
Posted on February 20, 2012 at 1:26amatheism is a religion? How?
And the gov. is not choosing atheism
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:43amBy not believing in SOMETHING… one actually acknowledges its EXISISTENCE…. hhhmmmm
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:54amSo you awknowledge santa claus’s existence?
Report Post »zman173rd
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:08am@ NICK.. “Yes Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus”. The INTENT is not the LETTER of the law.
Report Post »Nick84
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:13amAcknowledge*
Report Post »infidelible
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 12:59pmYou assert something exists. I say that your assertion is weak in that it lacks supporting evidence and accepting your assertion would conflict with a sensible understanding of the universe. At no time do I need to acknowledge your something as valid. Were it otherwise, anything conceived and communicated by man would, by virtue of being asserted, exist. You have to agree that holding a definition of existence like that has some problems, right?
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 5:17pmThat doesn’t make any sense. Do you believe in werewolves? Does your disbelief constitute an acknowledgment of their existence?
Report Post »I.Gaspar
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:43amLet’s see…every time the aclu pushes one of these ridiculous lawsuits through a friendly activist judge, the aclu makes money.
Report Post »Hmmm…..
Protecting us from the evil God Pushers…and the aclu makes money.
Protecting minorities from evil racists….and the aclu makes money.
It must be a coincidence….
moreteaplease
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:51amYep, and it sounds like the ACLU is not yet finished padding the bill either.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 10:40amThis legalistic evil organization such as the ACLU, described by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, as being ‘reminiscent of a temple board meeting’…
The real anti-Christians are not Arabs.They are Jews. Ask a Rabbi.
Harry Assenback
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 11:00amJerk…..There are always extremists and being one yourself your only outlet is to focus all of your hatred at Lapin. Can you not see how delusional you are based on your continued references to Lapin. Get some help! Quickly!
Report Post »kettererbg
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:46pmI bet your grandfather was lost during the Holocaust. He fell out of the guard tower.
Report Post »wvernon1981
Posted on February 1, 2012 at 6:39pmIf it takes the support of a public school sponsored prayer banner rather than a rational defense of their beliefs, they should be running scared.
Report Post »