Student faces town's wrath after protest to have prayer removed from school

[Blake]

CRANSTON, R.I. —She is 16, the daughter of a firefighter and a nurse, a self-proclaimed nerd who loves Harry Potter and Facebook. But Jessica Ahlquist is also an outspoken atheist who has incensed this heavily Roman Catholic city with a successful lawsuit to get a prayer removed from the wall of her high school auditorium, where it has hung for 49 years. A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional......

.......State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show. Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/us/rhode-island-city-enraged-over-school-prayer-lawsuit.html

A politician calling a non religious teen "evil"...

I don't know anything about Palumbo, but I still sense the irony oozing out of his mouth.

[clambake]

she probably hasn't heard about that fish passage.

[TeyshaBlue]

She needs to learn the lesson: "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to do something".

[TheSkeptic]

She needs to learn the lesson: "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to do something".

Agreed. Although that politician was most definitely behaving badly.

[TeyshaBlue]

Agreed. Although that politician was most definitely behaving badly.

The politician could benefit from the same lesson, I suspect.

[RandomGuy]

She needs to learn the lesson: "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to do something".

That depends on what your conscience dictates I guess.

I don't think that less of a "lesson". It seems more like a cop-out for putting up with things that are unethical.

[Trainwreck2100]

Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.
If they like her so much pay to get them delivered from a different town

[TeyshaBlue]

That depends on what your conscience dictates I guess.

I don't think that less of a "lesson". It seems more like a cop-out for putting up with things that are unethical.

Unethical? Wtf?

[LnGrrrR]

She needs to learn the lesson: "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to do something".

Being an outspoken atheist myself, I totally agree with this statement. It may be technically wrong for the school to have that up, but what is it hurting?

It's a big difference from a case where the Ten Commandments are in a court of law.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think that less of a "lesson". It seems more like a cop-out for putting up with things that are unethical.

I don't think a religious quote in a school is unethical. It may be that the quote is one that should be heeded by all peoples (for instance, the Golden Rule.)

[LnGrrrR]

If they like her so much pay to get them delivered from a different town

Uhm... the athiest group paid for the flowers. And the florists refused to deliver them. That's a pretty easy case. Also, pretty sure businesses can't just choose to not serve atheists, just like they can't choose not to serve blacks or homosexuals.

[RandomGuy]

She needs to learn the lesson: "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to do something".

That depends on what your conscience dictates I guess.

I don't think that less of a "lesson". It seems more like a cop-out for putting up with things that are unethical.


Unethical? Wtf?

To be clear:
I wasn't talking about this instance in particular, although I do think putting prayers on walls in public schools is unethical, and very obviously unconstitutional.

I was noting that drawing the line of things you "have to do" and "don't have to do" is not always easy.

You seem to be implying that this was something she didn't have to do, and the girl obviously feels otherwise.

Are you criticising someone for a matter of conscience here? (trying to get a clarification)

[TeyshaBlue]

Being an outspoken atheist myself, I totally agree with this statement. It may be technically wrong for the school to have that up, but what is it hurting?

It's a big difference from a case where the Ten Commandments are in a court of law.

Indeed. I don't subscribe to the viewpoint of Christians. I'm an atheist, and like you, would allow people to find comfort and meaningful structure in their lives without my enlightened guidance.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think a religious quote in a school is unethical. It may be that the quote is one that should be heeded by all peoples (for instance, the Golden Rule.)

Religious quote is one thing, and it does depend on the context.




Our Heavenly Father.
Grant us each day the desire to do our best.
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically.
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers.
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others.
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.
Teach us the value of true friendship.
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

Amen.
—School Prayer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston

Here is a letter to the NYT on the subject:



Re “Student Faces Town’s Wrath in Protest Against a Prayer” (news article, Jan. 27), about a successful lawsuit brought by Jessica Ahlquist, a 16-year-old atheist in Cranston, R.I.:

There are only six words in the text posted on the wall of Cranston High School West that are the cause of the problem. They are “School Prayer,” “Our Heavenly Father” and “Amen.” Take them out. The text can then read, with slight modification:

“May we each day desire to do our best, to grow mentally and morally as well as physically, to be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers, to be honest with ourselves as well as with others. May we be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win. May we value true friendship and always conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.”

Who could possibly object to that?

JOHN WILLENBECHER
New York, Jan. 27, 2012

I would not object to that.

[TeyshaBlue]

Religious quote is one thing, and it does depend on the context.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston

Here is a letter to the NYT on the subject:




I would not object to that.

It's a shame that option was either never considered or tossed aside in favor of a lawsuit.

[TeyshaBlue]

Sometimes the ends define (not justify) the means?

[baseline bum]

Props to Jessica for getting that garbage out of a public school.

[TeyshaBlue]

garbage? lol

[baseline bum]

garbage? lol

Yeah, a public school trying to instil subservience to white ghost in the sky is garbage.

[baseline bum]

The prayer might as well read "Please God, I suck; make me good." :cry

[cantthinkofanything]

The prayer might as well read "Please God, I suck; make me good." :cry

keep trying. eventually someone will get into this with you.

[TeyshaBlue]

Instill subservience?

You've got to really want to believe that to believe that.

[TeyshaBlue]

See Chapter titled: "Enlightenment Enforcement"

[jack sommerset]

She needs to learn the lesson: "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to do something".

Amen. God bless.

[baseline bum]

Instill subservience?

You've got to really want to believe that to believe that.

Seems pretty cut and dry that the prayer is espousing the belief that man is inherently flawed and needs god to fill the hole.

[TeyshaBlue]

Seems pretty cut and dry that the prayer is espousing the belief that man is inherently flawed and needs god to fill the hole.

Um. No. Seems pretty cut and dried that anybody could esposue the listed values:
Grant us each day the desire to do our best.
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically.
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers.
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others.
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.
Teach us the value of true friendship.

The rest is virtual colloquialism concering the community it exists in. I'm not saying it's not technically wrong. I am saying that in order to be offended or threatened by it, you've pretty much got to be predisposed to be offended or threatened.

Hell, I've had coaches cover some of these. I don't think I ever felt like I needed Coach J to fill a hole in my life. He was known to tear a few new ones in my carcass from time to time.:lol

[baseline bum]

Um. No. Seems pretty cut and dried that anybody could esposue the listed values:
Grant us each day the desire to do our best.
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically.
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers.
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others.
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.
Teach us the value of true friendship.

The rest is virtual colloquialism concering the community it exists in. I'm not saying it's not technically wrong. I am saying that in order to be offended or threatened by it, you've pretty much got to be predisposed to be offended or threatened.

Hell, I've had coaches cover some of these. I don't think I ever felt like I needed Coach J to fill a hole in my life. He was known to tear a few new ones in my carcass from time to time.:lol

It's religious indoctrination when it espouses the need for god to give one the power. Taking out those six words for Willenbecher's alternative completely changes the meaning of the passage.

[jack sommerset]

Um. No. Seems pretty cut and dried that anybody could esposue the listed values:
Grant us each day the desire to do our best.
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically.
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers.
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others.
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.
Teach us the value of true friendship.

The rest is virtual colloquialism concering the community it exists in. I'm not saying it's not technically wrong. I am saying that in order to be offended or threatened by it, you've pretty much got to be predisposed to be offended or threatened.

Hell, I've had coaches cover some of these. I don't think I ever felt like I needed Coach J to fill a hole in my life. He was known to tear a few new ones in my carcass from time to time.:lol

This is some of the best stuff I have read on ST in years. God bless

[Blake]

I am saying that in order to be offended or threatened by it, you've pretty much got to be predisposed to be offended or threatened.


This girl prayed to God to heal her mother and he didn't.

I think her being offended is justified.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's religious indoctrination when it espouses the need for god to give one the power. Taking out those six words for Willenbecher's alternative completely changes the meaning of the passage.

lol...if you say so.

[TeyshaBlue]

This girl prayed to God to heal her mother and he didn't.

I think her being offended is justified.

She's an atheist, yet she's pissed at God?

Really now.

[baseline bum]

lol...if you say so.

Lol that something beginning with "Our Heavenly Father" isn't an outright prayer to god and just colloquial language. You can't be serious.

[TeyshaBlue]

BB, how is it that I read the exact same lines yet I'm not at all disposed to interpret them that way? I don't feel "indoctrinated" in the least.

I've been spending money for 50 years. Somehow, I've yet to become indoctrinated or trust in some unknown being.

[TeyshaBlue]

Lol that something beginning with "Our Heavenly Father" isn't an outright prayer to god and just colloquial language. You can't be serious.

When I sneeze and someone says "Bless you", I don't immediately assume I'm being blessed.

The Words aren't colloquial. The entire context is.

[clambake]

When I sneeze and someone says "Bless you", I don't immediately assume I'm being blessed.

The Words aren't colloquial. The entire context is.

thanks. now you've just ruined the sneeze.

[baseline bum]

BB, how is it that I read the exact same lines yet I'm not at all disposed to interpret them that way? I don't feel "indoctrinated" in the least.

I've been spending money for 50 years. Somehow, I've yet to become indoctrinated or trust in some unknown being.

In God We Trust is pretty ridiculous too, but it's not plastered in giant letters on a bill like that stupid prayer likely is in the auditorium.

[Blake]

She's an atheist, yet she's pissed at God?

Really now.

She wasn't always an atheist.

Now that she's figured out for herself that there is no god, she's pissed that the school is basically telling her every day that she's wrong.

[TeyshaBlue]

Or she's pissed at herself for believing that.

[baseline bum]

When I sneeze and someone says "Bless you", I don't immediately assume I'm being blessed.

The Words aren't colloquial. The entire context is.

I'm stunned that you seriously do not consider that passage an outright prayer. It's a somewhat sanitised version of The Lord's Prayer, which was the one used there immediately before. Maybe it would be thinly veiled enough without that first line, but come on. Seriously?

[TeyshaBlue]

thanks. now you've just ruined the sneeze.

I'm a giver.:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm stunned that you seriously do not consider that passage an outright prayer. It's a somewhat sanitised version of The Lord's Prayer, which was the one used there immediately before. Maybe it would be thinly veiled enough without that first line, but come on. Seriously?

If I read it, am I praying, BB?

Seriously indeed.

[baseline bum]

If I read it, am I praying, BB?

Seriously indeed.

You have an authority figure paid in tax dollars telling you to ask god to make you a good schoolboy.

[TeyshaBlue]

We like to examine these issues as if we are in a sterile environment where there is nothing outside the white walls of the issue.

This is not the case. In context with the community it's taking place within, the issue takes on a whole different note.

[TeyshaBlue]

You have an authority figure paid in tax dollars telling you to ask god to make you a good schoolboy.

Ok. I'm seriously not following you here.

How are we paying God (the authority figure?) tax dollars to make me a good school boy?

[TeyshaBlue]

Oh wait..the school is the authority figure. Got it.

[baseline bum]

Ok. I'm seriously not following you here.

How are we paying God (the authority figure?) tax dollars to make me a good school boy?

The school is the authority figure endorsing religion.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't think a poster is telling me anything, btw. As an atheist, it sure as hell isn't going to even cross my mind.

[TeyshaBlue]

The school is the authority figure endorsing religion.

Yeah...I figured that out too late. lol

[baseline bum]

We like to examine these issues as if we are in a sterile environment where there is nothing outside the white walls of the issue.

This is not the case. In context with the community it's taking place within, the issue takes on a whole different note.

The context seems to be the school making up their own specialised version of The Lord's Prayer right after the real one was ruled unconstitutional.

[TeyshaBlue]

I understand the technicalities of the case, BB. What I don't understand is the rationale behind the intent of the recent lawsuit.

Again, the ends define the means.

[TeyshaBlue]

and why do you have pi to 21 places in your usertitle?

[baseline bum]

Do you feel the Supreme Court case that made them change the prayer was wrong?

[baseline bum]

and why do you have pi to 21 places in your usertitle?

I figured people would get pissed if I posted it to 10,000 and made every page 100,000 pixels wide tbh.

[TeyshaBlue]

I figured people would get pissed if I posted it to 10,000 and made every page 100,000 pixels wide tbh.

:lol:lol

[ElNono]

and why do you have pi to 21 places in your usertitle?

Clearly, god's will :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Do you feel the Supreme Court case that made them change the prayer was wrong?

Not really. Again, I understand the technicalities. I understand the intent. I'm often fuzzy on the motivators behind the intent.

[ElNono]

I wonder what the commentary would be if the banner read:

Our Heavenly Mohammed...

[TeyshaBlue]

Or for LnGrrrr....Our Heavenly Spagetti Monster.:lol


Fuck..I know I just misspelled spagetti, right?:depressed

[Blake]

Or she's pissed at herself for believing that.

Believing what?

[Warlord23]

The question "why should it bother atheists, why can't they just let it be?" is commonly asked in cases like this one. The best way to test the validity of the atheist girl's position is to turn the situation around. If the school displayed a quote from the Koran exhorting the faithful to go to war for Allah (there are phrases in the Koran that say this almost to the letter), would not the townspeople be within their rights to ask the school to remove this, citing the very same separation between religion and the state?

Just because the prayer is a Christian one, and because the town has a majority of Christians, doesn't make it right. Laws cannot be interpreted to keep the majority happy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc.

[Warlord23]

I wonder what the commentary would be if the banner read:

Our Heavenly Mohammed...

Damn, you beat me to it :lol

[MaNuMaNiAc]

The question "why should it bother atheists, why can't they just let it be?" is commonly asked in cases like this one. The best way to test the validity of the atheist girl's position is to turn the situation around. If the school displayed a quote from the Koran exhorting the faithful to go to war for Allah (there are phrases in the Koran that say this almost to the letter), would not the townspeople be within their rights to ask the school to remove this, citing the very same separation between religion and the state?

Just because the prayer is a Christian one, and because the town has a majority of Christians, doesn't make it right. Laws cannot be interpreted to keep the majority happy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc.

well the situation here is not much like the one you're providing. In your scenario the townspeople would not only be within their rights to ask the school to remove this due to separation between state and religion, but also because its enciting violence, something we can all agree is negative.

To clarify, I do share your point of view, I just thought the example was mas a bit unclear because of that fact.

With regards to Teyshaw, and while I respect that he's an athiest himself. Just because you're willing to live with certain injustices, doesn't make them any more justifiable.

Christian's don't want God removed from the wall, but in that same way they would not approve of any other religion's God being exalted in its place either. I think its hypocritical at the least

[TeyshaBlue]

Christian's don't want God removed from the wall, but in that same way they would not approve of any other religion's God being exalted in its place either. I think its hypocritical at the least

Yeah, I have a hard time reconcilling the inconsistencies which probably why I'm trying to drag context into this like some kind of hazy filter.:toast

[Blake]

but also because its enciting violence, something we can all agree is negative.


The Islamophobes all agree with you.

[boutons_deux]

What if the Koran quote in a public school was not about violence against non-Muslims?

Christians would very probably still want the quote removed.

[ElNono]

The Islamophobes all agree with you.

Not only that...

"If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War."

- George Washington

That commie Washington inciting violence is probably off limits too...

[Warlord23]

well the situation here is not much like the one you're providing. In your scenario the townspeople would not only be within their rights to ask the school to remove this due to separation between state and religion, but also because its enciting violence, something we can all agree is negative.

To clarify, I do share your point of view, I just thought the example was mas a bit unclear because of that fact.

With regards to Teyshaw, and while I respect that he's an athiest himself. Just because you're willing to live with certain injustices, doesn't make them any more justifiable.

Christian's don't want God removed from the wall, but in that same way they would not approve of any other religion's God being exalted in its place either. I think its hypocritical at the least

The problem I have with your rationale is that it presupposes interpretation. A Muslim might contend that the Koran uses the word "war" as a metaphor for striving to uphold the faith, much in the same way that some Christians like to call themselves "God warriors", or like those kids at Jesus camp who're called "Warriors for Jesus".

One could play the interpretation game and claim that Jesus' message of "Repent and be saved" can be viewed as an abandonment of individual accountability. Does Jesus encourage criminals to continue their ways, because they know they have a get-out-of-jail-free card which they can conveniently play and still get into heaven?

So let's leave interpretations aside. Bottom line, as you said, Christians are OK with God on the courthouse wall, as long as he is their God. That is wrong, and worth fighting against.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm stunned that you seriously do not consider that passage an outright prayer. It's a somewhat sanitised version of The Lord's Prayer, which was the one used there immediately before. Maybe it would be thinly veiled enough without that first line, but come on. Seriously?

Is a paraphrased Lord's Prayer really that bad? *shrug* Just because I don't believe in God, doesn't mean I can't recognize there are worthwhile passages from the Bible.

Edit: That said, I think taking off the six words the write suggested above would be an excellent compromise.

[RandomGuy]

It's a shame that option was either never considered or tossed aside in favor of a lawsuit.

Link?

[baseline bum]

Is a paraphrased Lord's Prayer really that bad? *shrug* Just because I don't believe in God, doesn't mean I can't recognize there are worthwhile passages from the Bible.

Edit: That said, I think taking off the six words the write suggested above would be an excellent compromise.

I think in this case it is bad: it is an authority figure instilling the idea into a child's mind that one should need god to act morally.

[TeyshaBlue]

Link?

It has not been mentioned as an option in any of the links in this thread (w/ the exception of the comments section of the NYT)

Feel free to explore the interwebs.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think in this case it is bad: it is an authority figure instilling the idea into a child's mind that one should need god to act morally.

I think you almost have to predisposed to view it that way.

[baseline bum]

I think you almost have to predisposed to view it that way.

I think you're dead wrong; the very first line of the passage is addressed to god and the prayer sounds subservient as hell. Addressing something to "Our heavenly father" is in no way comparable to meaningless colloquial sayings like "bless you" or "thank god".

[TeyshaBlue]

I certainly could be.
On the other hand, I think you're dead wrong: The very first line is irrelevant unless you want it to be otherwise.

[baseline bum]

I certainly could be.
On the other hand, I think you're dead wrong: The very first line is irrelevant unless you want it to be otherwise.

I don't see how it can be irrelevant: it's a prayer addressed to god asking him to teach us, to help us, to grant us strength, etc. "Teach us the value of true friendship" is a lot different then "May we value true friendship".

[Blake]

I certainly could be.
On the other hand, I think you're dead wrong: The very first line is irrelevant unless you want it to be otherwise.

After decades, someone finally found it relevant and wants it removed.

They need to remove it or at the least, the 6 words.

[TeyshaBlue]

After decades, someone finally found it relevant and wants it removed.

They need to remove it or at the least, the 6 words.

Someone always finds something relevant.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't see how it can be irrelevant: it's a prayer addressed to god asking him to teach us, to help us, to grant us strength, etc. "Teach us the value of true friendship" is a lot different then "May we value true friendship".

It's words on a page. No magic ghost daddy hiding behind the paper waiting to cast special thought-blessings upon those who gaze upon it.

[baseline bum]

It's words on a page. No magic ghost daddy hiding behind the paper waiting to cast special thought-blessings upon those who gaze upon it.

It's words from an authority figure encouraging young impressionable minds to view morality as a subset of faith.

[TeyshaBlue]

Overthinking.

[baseline bum]

If it's just words on a wall, why do you support the Supreme Court telling them they couldn't have The Lord's Prayer?

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't equate my interpretation with the SC's interpretation. Not sure why you are making that particular comparison.

I think there is a lawful interpretation for their ruling. I'm not sure I agree with it, legal <> ethical.

But, I'll live either way. The young lady probably could too.
Good back and forth, BB. I enjoyed it. Now it's time to commute home and become one with a pitcher of girly drinks. Have a good weekend.:toast

[Blake]

Someone always finds something relevant.

I don't know about that. I do know this is relevant though.

[Blake]

It's words on a page. No magic ghost daddy hiding behind the paper waiting to cast special thought-blessings upon those who gaze upon it.

Invoking "our heavenly father" is expressing a faith in a judeo christian religion.

Doesn't belong in public schools for what should be obvious reasons

[baseline bum]

Now it's time to commute home and become one with a pitcher of girly drinks.

Haha. All the best.

[RandomGuy]

I wonder what the commentary would be if the banner read:

Our Heavenly Mohammed...

"Joseph Smith, who art our prophet"

"Buddha, who lights our way"

[LnGrrrR]

Or for LnGrrrr....Our Heavenly Spagetti Monster.:lol


Fuck..I know I just misspelled spagetti, right?:depressed

Yes, but I won't hold it against you. The FSM might, but I won't. :)

[TheSkeptic]

It's words from an authority figure encouraging young impressionable minds to view morality as a subset of faith.

I still think it was going overboard in her case. Part of maturity is being able to handle the fact that your beliefs might differ from those of other people and taking a live and let live approach to these issues.

Since it looks like the majority of people didn't agree with her stance and nobody was getting hurt in the process, there was no need to go over people's heads for the sake of getting her own way. What she did was selfish, inconsiderate, and was exactly the kind of meddling that she was accusing the school of.

If she really didn't like what her school was doing all she had to do was transfer. That's it. I'm saying this as someone who attended a Christian school growing up and hated it because I didn't believe the same way as everybody else but they were still making us sign code of conduct agreements and the like. However, I recognized that the school's way of doing this was beneficial for a lot of people.

Instead of going to court and meddling, I told the administrators that I didn't share their belief system, didn't want it forced on me on a regular basis, and that I wanted out. I was removed from that school and signed up at a different one in less than a week. It really was that simple and this student should've done the same.


"Joseph Smith, who art our prophet"

"Buddha, who lights our way"

If I was in, say, Salt Lake City or a predominantly Buddhist community I'd see those signs -maybe critique the accompanying artwork if there was any- and I'd go about my day. I've got better things to do than get mad at people for being open about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

[Blake]

I still think it was going overboard in her case. Part of maturity is being able to handle the fact that your beliefs might differ from those of other people and taking a live and let live approach to these issues.

Since it looks like the majority of people didn't agree with her stance and nobody was getting hurt in the process, there was no need to go over people's heads for the sake of getting her own way. What she did was selfish, inconsiderate, and was exactly the kind of meddling that she was accusing the school of.

If she really didn't like what her school was doing all she had to do was transfer. That's it. I'm saying this as someone who attended a Christian school growing up and hated it because I didn't believe the same way as everybody else but they were still making us sign code of conduct agreements and the like. However, I recognized that the school's way of doing this was beneficial for a lot of people.

Instead of going to court and meddling, I told the administrators that I didn't share their belief system, didn't want it forced on me on a regular basis, and that I wanted out. I was removed from that school and signed up at a different one in less than a week. It really was that simple and this student should've done the same.



If I was in, say, Salt Lake City or a predominantly Buddhist community I'd see those signs -maybe critique the accompanying artwork if there was any- and I'd go about my day. I've got better things to do than get mad at people for being open about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

lol meddling.

You were at a private school, she's at a public school. Generally the only way to switch schools is to live in a different area.

Iirc from the article, she did take it up with the school and the school board first. It was an organization that approached her and asked if she would be a plaintiff in this case.

[ElNono]

I still think it was going overboard in her case. Part of maturity is being able to handle the fact that your beliefs might differ from those of other people and taking a live and let live approach to these issues.

Since it looks like the majority of people didn't agree with her stance and nobody was getting hurt in the process, there was no need to go over people's heads for the sake of getting her own way. What she did was selfish, inconsiderate, and was exactly the kind of meddling that she was accusing the school of.

If she really didn't like what her school was doing all she had to do was transfer. That's it. I'm saying this as someone who attended a Christian school growing up and hated it because I didn't believe the same way as everybody else but they were still making us sign code of conduct agreements and the like. However, I recognized that the school's way of doing this was beneficial for a lot of people.

Instead of going to court and meddling, I told the administrators that I didn't share their belief system, didn't want it forced on me on a regular basis, and that I wanted out. I was removed from that school and signed up at a different one in less than a week. It really was that simple and this student should've done the same.

If I was in, say, Salt Lake City or a predominantly Buddhist community I'd see those signs -maybe critique the accompanying artwork if there was any- and I'd go about my day. I've got better things to do than get mad at people for being open about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

Terrible take, all around.

I wouldn't have a problem working with people from any religion as long as they keep their religion to themselves. If they start hanging posters at the office, damn right I'm going to tell them to keep that shit at home.

Whether you agree with them or not as to the "beneficial" aspect, it's irrelevant.

[baseline bum]

I still think it was going overboard in her case. Part of maturity is being able to handle the fact that your beliefs might differ from those of other people and taking a live and let live approach to these issues.


That's much more an indictment of the adult administration of the school, pushing their beliefs on kids.



Since it looks like the majority of people didn't agree with her stance and nobody was getting hurt in the process, there was no need to go over people's heads for the sake of getting her own way. What she did was selfish, inconsiderate, and was exactly the kind of meddling that she was accusing the school of.


:rollin Selfish and inconsiderate for making her public school live up to the constitution.



If she really didn't like what her school was doing all she had to do was transfer. That's it.


Love it or leave it? :rollin



I'm saying this as someone who attended a Christian school growing up and hated it because I didn't believe the same way as everybody else but they were still making us sign code of conduct agreements and the like. However, I recognized that the school's way of doing this was beneficial for a lot of people.


Private schools can do what they want. Public schools can't endorse a religion.



Instead of going to court and meddling, I told the administrators that I didn't share their belief system, didn't want it forced on me on a regular basis, and that I wanted out.
I was removed from that school and signed up at a different one in less than a week. It really was that simple and this student should've done the same.


LOL at the idea that it's on her when the school is the one breaking the law.



If I was in, say, Salt Lake City or a predominantly Buddhist community I'd see those signs -maybe critique the accompanying artwork if there was any- and I'd go about my day. I've got better things to do than get mad at people for being open about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

Not everyone likes being walked on, but cheers to you for being the sad clown.

[TheSkeptic]

Terrible take, all around.

I wouldn't have a problem working with people from any religion as long as they keep their religion to themselves. If they start hanging posters at the office, damn right I'm going to tell them to keep that shit at home.

Whether you agree with them or not as to the "beneficial" aspect, it's irrelevant.

You'd be entitled to feel that way but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter.

Nobody's getting hurt if they put up a religious poster in their own office/cubicle. Just like how your wife/family is important to you so is religion and faith to others.

Getting offended and freaking out over things like that is petty. I'd be saying that regardless of the religion/belief system being put on display it doesn't have to be just Christianity. If everybody else is mostly fine with it but it's still that big of a deal just transfer.

The school and the politician behaved badly as well but that doesn't excuse the fact that this was all unnecessary and the court case really didn't need to happen.


lol meddling.

You were at a private school, she's at a public school. Generally the only way to switch schools is to live in a different area.

Iirc from the article, she did take it up with the school and the school board first. It was an organization that approached her and asked if she would be a plaintiff in this case.

Not exactly. It was a complicated situation where they were classified as a public school but were using two different accreditation bodies to be able to teach Christianity. All of this was attached to our grades and stuff so the religious aspects were mandatory.

Not at all. I was able to just call the other school and register. Whole thing took less than a week from start to finish.

[Blake]

Not exactly. It was a complicated situation where they were classified as a public school but were using two different accreditation bodies to be able to teach Christianity. All of this was attached to our grades and stuff so the religious aspects were mandatory.

Not at all. I was able to just call the other school and register. Whole thing took less than a week from start to finish.

What's the name of the school (s) ?

[ElNono]

You'd be entitled to feel that way but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter.

You don't get to pick what matters/doesn't matter to anybody else.

You also don't have to "get offended" to find certain things inappropriate in certain places.

[Drachen]

There are parents getting felony charges for trying to put their children in a school outside of their area. Many thousands of dollars in restitution....

Skeptic, you are wrong about this. Also, how do you know this didn't really bother her? There are plenty of people who would get PISSED and storm the school board with torches and pitchforks if someone posted a banner at a school that said As-Salamu Alaykum, even if that school had a small group of well meaning muslims.

[mingus]

Was having the banner put up an administrative decision? I say if the kids want it up there then let them. If a Muslim wants his/her beliefs up there then let him/her. If an atheist wants his/her beliefs put up there then let him/her.

[Drachen]

Was having the banner put up an administrative decision? I say if the kids want it up there then let them. If a Muslim wants his/her beliefs up there then let him/her. If an atheist wants his/her beliefs put up there then let him/her.

There are a lot of religions out there, if you take that tact then where will you put the poster of the cat falling off the tree saying "hang in there"?

[mingus]

There are a lot of religions out there, if you take that tact then where will you put the poster of the cat falling off the tree saying "hang in there"?

Sure, there are a lot of religions out there. But I doubt they're even nearly all represented at the school (plus, you are assumming anyone of a particular faith would even ask for a banner to be put up there, which is clearly incorrect). And if someone decides to mock the school by coming up with the example you gave, then you simply call it out fo r the bullshit mockery that it is.

[Drachen]

Sure, there are a lot of religions out there. But I doubt they're even nearly all represented at the school (plus, you are assumming anyone of a particular faith would even ask for a banner to be put up there, which is clearly incorrect). And if someone decides to mock the school by coming up with the example you gave, then you simply call it out fo r the bullshit mockery that it is.

Look, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you can't possibly be that naive. People will argue about which religion gets "the best" spot, then who regulates exactly what gets on the banners. Guaranteed that someone gets angry if an athiest puts up a banner that says "the reason for the season is reason", and so on.

[mingus]

Look, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you can't possibly be that naive. People will argue about which religion gets "the best" spot, then who regulates exactly what gets on the banners. Guaranteed that someone gets angry if an athiest puts up a banner that says "the reason for the season is reason", and so on.

I think you're jumping to conclusions. I seriously doubt anyone would care whether their poster had the best spot. That's so stupid. But say it does happen, then do just do it randomly. And if people disagree as to what should be said on the poster, then, again, just do a random selection. If those problems did happen, they're not that difficult to resolve. I didn't think about them not because I'm naive, but because I think those scenarios are not only unlikely to happen in my view, but because they are so easily resolveable anyway that I do not think they deserve attention.

[Blake]

Was having the banner put up an administrative decision? I say if the kids want it up there then let them. If a Muslim wants his/her beliefs up there then let him/her. If an atheist wants his/her beliefs put up there then let him/her.


Sure, there are a lot of religions out there. But I doubt they're even nearly all represented at the school (plus, you are assumming anyone of a particular faith would even ask for a banner to be put up there, which is clearly incorrect). And if someone decides to mock the school by coming up with the example you gave, then you simply call it out fo r the bullshit mockery that it is.

Faith based banners of any kind asking a ghost dad for guidance have no business in a public school, regardless of what the majority of the kids may or may not want.

If just one kid wants them removed, they need to remove them

[mingus]

Faith based banners of any kind asking a ghost dad for guidance has no business in a public school, regardless of what the majority of the kids may or may not want.

The girl though has raised her own faith-based banner while making the others take theirs down. The school is being partial to her beliefs.

[Drachen]

well if you really feel that this will fly, then more power to you. You and I disagree on this. I am pretty sure that if there were ever a situation where something like this was allowed that the moment the religion of the majority didn't have prime position and a religion they hate did, then the problems would begin.

[Blake]

The girl though has raised her own faith-based banner while making the others take theirs down. The school is being partial to her beliefs.

Huh? What faith based banner did this girl raise and where in the school is it located?

[mingus]

Huh? What faith based banner did this girl raise and where in the school is it located?

By having the others take their's down, she put her's up. She might as well have put up a banner that says God doesn't exist. Now, if the adminstration had said said they are not going to have any banners up they would have been impartial in doing so. But its not coming from them, it's coming from the girl who wants it taken down because she doesn't believe in God. Taking it down is a manifestation of her belief, and thus an adminstrative choice in support of her (whether they want to or not).

[Blake]

By having the others take their's down, she put her's up. She might as well have put up a banner that says God doesn't exist. Now, if the adminstration had said said they are not going to have any banners up they would have been impartial in doing so. But its not coming from them, it's coming from the girl who wants it taken down because she doesn't believe in God. Taking it down is a manifestation of her belief, and thus an adminstrative choice in support of her (whether they want to or not).

Taking down a religious banner is not metaphorically raising an atheist banner up.

It's stupid and naive to think it is.

[mingus]

Taking down a religious banner is not metaphorically raising an atheist banner up.

It's stupid and naive to think it is.

Not in all cases, but I believe that in this case it would be particularly naive and stupid to believe it is not.

[Blake]

Not in all cases, but I believe that in this case it would be particularly naive and stupid to believe it is not.

Even if I agreed with that, that argument still sucks

since it's a metaphorical and not a physical banner, it would simply be a matter of time before it's forgotten, making it worth taking all physical religious banners down asap.

[mingus]

Oh, you agree with it. She didn't call for the banner to be removed so much as it was unconstitutional as much as it was a metaphorical/subtle statement of her beliefs. She can and will hide behind the supposed unconstitutionality of the banner but she knows, I know, and you know (don't give me the "even if I agreed" baloney) that her taking down the banner was a belief based act, not a constitutional one. She wasn't sent flowers by constitutionalists, she was send flowers by atheist organizations who actively try and promote atheism and eliminate religion, and hide behind the constitution to do so.

[Blake]

Oh, you agree with it.

No I don't.


She didn't call for the banner to be removed so much as it was unconstitutional as much as it was a metaphorical/subtle statement of her beliefs. She can and will hide behind the supposed unconstitutionality of the banner but she knows, I know, and you know (don't give me the "even if I agreed" baloney) that her taking down the banner was a belief based act, not a constitutional one. She wasn't sent flowers by constitutionalists, she was send flowers by atheist organizations who actively try and promote atheism and eliminate religion, and hide behind the constitution to do so.

The metaphorical atheist banner is as much a figment of your imagination as a heavenly father is.

lol your imaginary war on religion

[baseline bum]

:cry Separation of church and state was a platform put into the constitution by militant atheists :cry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:cry Separation of church and state was a platform put into the constitution by militant atheists :cry

Thomas Jefferson is not loved by thumpers. I found this gem:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/thomas_jefferson.htm


I was greatly saddened to learn that Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was NOT a Christian. Jefferson made so many wonderful patriotic quotes concerning freedom and the dangers of the central bank. I was amazed as I watched a PBS documentary on the life of Thomas Jefferson. He was a scientist first, a farmer second and politician last. Jefferson was a witty inventor.

Jefferson was an accomplished architect. George Washington and Jefferson laid out the city of Washington D.C., clearly in an occult manner. Both men were high-level Freemasons. Jefferson's Monticello estate was superb. He also designed the state house for Virginia.

It is tragic that such a brilliant man would be so foolish as to reject the Word of God. I realize that there are historical writings which reveal that Thomas Jefferson claimed to be a Christian, including an actual photo of Jefferson's handwritten statement “I am a real Christian.” Albeit, just as most professed Christians today are not true born-again believers, the following quotes from Mr. Jefferson make it quite clear that he was NO Christian:

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.” —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Here you clearly learn that Jefferson denied Jesus' virgin birth, and so denied the Son of God. Jefferson was an incredible orator, admirably patriotic and certainly spoke the truth about the evils of the central banks. Sadly, Jefferson's writings reveal him to be no Christian . . .

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

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

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites" –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

"Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

SOURCE: Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat.

I see eye to eye with Tom tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, you agree with it. She didn't call for the banner to be removed so much as it was unconstitutional as much as it was a metaphorical/subtle statement of her beliefs. She can and will hide behind the supposed unconstitutionality of the banner but she knows, I know, and you know (don't give me the "even if I agreed" baloney) that her taking down the banner was a belief based act, not a constitutional one. She wasn't sent flowers by constitutionalists, she was send flowers by atheist organizations who actively try and promote atheism and eliminate religion, and hide behind the constitution to do so.

Why couldn't it be both and how is lack of belief, belief. The lack of happy is not happy.

[mingus]

No I don't.



The metaphorical atheist banner is as much a figment of your imagination as a heavenly father is.

lol your imaginary war on religion

Lol with the personal attack. I'm not arguing what is and isn't real in terms of faith. Done that with you already. I have no intention of getting into a discussion that amounts to the revalation your faith is just as cyclical as mine.

[mingus]

Why couldn't it be both and how is lack of belief, belief. The lack of happy is not happy.

Her motive could've been constitutional and belief-based, but I doubt it. Atheists don't simply not believe in God, they loathe the entire idea of God and are extremely disrespectful to those who believe in God, as shown by Blake and other militant atheists on this site, and that's what they are primarily driven by. The constitution is just cover they hide their agenda behind like pussies.

[Wild Cobra]

I personally hate how liberals have turned the constitution upside-down.


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.

There is no Separation of Church and State clause. It's one-way... that congress will not interfere with religion, yet they do so all the time.

[Blake]

Lol with the personal attack.

Lol just clowning you



I'm not arguing what is and isn't real in terms of faith. Done that with you already. I have no intention of getting into a discussion that amounts to the revalation your faith is just as cyclical as mine.

I don't have an active faith that there is no creator. If I had to guess, I'd say there isn't, but I don't care enough to call myself an atheist and join an atheist club.

What I do know is that the Bible is a crock of unbelievable fantasy shit that has no place in a public school aside from a literature or possibly a philosophy class.
My stance on the Bible doesn't come from faith; it comes from logic.

[Blake]

Her motive could've been constitutional and belief-based, but I doubt it. Atheists don't simply not believe in God, they loathe the entire idea of God and are extremely disrespectful to those who believe in God, as shown by Blake and other militant atheists on this site, and that's what they are primarily driven by. The constitution is just cover they hide their agenda behind like pussies.

Who gives a fuck what her motive is. It's either acceptable to hang the banner or it isn't.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I personally hate how liberals have turned the constitution upside-down.



There is no Separation of Church and State clause. It's one-way... that congress will not interfere with religion, yet they do so all the time.

You're right. Theocracy is the way to go. Maybe then troposphere explosions can become curriculum.

And its not 'how liberals have turned the constitution upside-down.'

Research the SCOTUS case 'Reynolds v US' from 1879. I am not surprised that you do not understand this or how SCOTUS interprets law using common law. You cannot even grasp the notion of presumption.

[Blake]

I personally hate how liberals have turned the constitution upside-down.



There is no Separation of Church and State clause. It's one-way... that congress will not interfere with religion, yet they do so all the time.

I personally love the way you take silly pot shots at "liberals" in seemingly every thread.

You are one stupid partisan moron.

[Blake]

I personally hate how liberals have turned the constitution upside-down.



There is no Separation of Church and State clause. It's one-way... that congress will not interfere with religion, yet they do so all the time.

I personally love the way you take silly pot shots at "liberals" in seemingly every thread.

You are one stupid partisan moron.

[Wild Cobra]

Some laws are so clearly written, it is wrong to find a legal way to reverse their intent.

[Wild Cobra]

I personally love the way you take silly pot shots at "liberals" in seemingly every thread.

You are one stupid partisan moron.
I just despise liberals who are mindless. Not all are, but it seems most here are.

[Wild Cobra]

You are one stupid partisan moron.
Partisan to what ideal?

[Blake]

Some laws are so clearly written, it is wrong to find a legal way to reverse their intent.

This isn't a freedom of religion issue. It's an establishment of religion issue.

You're a fucking idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

This isn't a freedom of religion issue. It's an establishment of religion issue.

You're a fucking idiot.
Really?

If that's how you wish to argue it, doesn't 49 years means that the prayer on the wall is already established?

Seems to me, after 49 years, it is already established, and part of tradition.

[ElNono]

lol tradition
lol constitutional expert

[Blake]

Partisan to what ideal?

You've made it clear on a number of occasions that you think you are a libertarian.

Did you finally realize you're not?

[Blake]

Really?

If that's how you wish to argue it, doesn't 49 years means that the prayer on the wall is already established?

Seems to me, after 49 years, it is already established, and part of tradition.

49 years of unconstitutional establishment

[Wild Cobra]

49 years of unconstitutional establishment
You don't consider it censorship?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't consider it censorship?

I consider a Supreme Court ruling from 1879 to be much more of a precedent than a unilateral action by a religious organization.

If your interpretation was correct them people indigenous to Southern Mexico could perform human sacrifice, Mormon's could be polygamists or Rastafarians csould smoke weed in front of cops.

Prima facia its a stupid notion and SCOTUS has been quite clear on the matter. They do not ignore the legal context just so you can have asinine literal interpretations. Its actually quite similar to what Churches do to explain the nonsense within their doctrine.

That has been firmly established process sine the Marshall courts of the early 19th century.

YOU

ARE

DUMB

[Blake]

You don't consider it censorship?

No

[Drachen]

Her motive could've been constitutional and belief-based, but I doubt it. Atheists don't simply not believe in God, they loathe the entire idea of God and are extremely disrespectful to those who believe in God, as shown by Blake and other militant atheists on this site, and that's what they are primarily driven by. The constitution is just cover they hide their agenda behind like pussies.

Great generalization. Thanks for the info buddy.

[Oh, Gee!!]

everybody is against us!!! why??

signed,

every fucking religious group that has ever existed ever

[TheSkeptic]

everybody is against us!!! why??

signed,

every fucking religious group that has ever existed ever

Not just religious groups imo. Identifiable groups in general.

I've actually thought this one over and while I do maintain that this whole thing wasn't necessary the student may not have been entirely in the wrong here. Since obviously her priorities (and those of the town for that matter) are different from mine, from her perspective she was doing the right thing. After all, people have different tolerance levels...

So ElNono, Baseline Bum, and whoever else, I owe you guys an apology.

[ElNono]

So ElNono, Baseline Bum, and whoever else, I owe you guys an apology.

You don't owe me anything. We're here to discuss.:toast

[Goliadnative]

If they start hanging posters at the office, damn right I'm going to tell them to keep that shit at home.

If they keep it to their own personel workspace, why would a mere poster showing a person you believe is fictional bother you so much.

Does it insult your intelligence?

Is your intelligence very fragile?



A mere poster







A






mere







poster

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If they keep it to their own personel workspace, why would a mere poster showing a person you believe is fictional bother you so much.

Does it insult your intelligence?

Is your intelligence very fragile?



A mere poster
A mere poster

I personally think religion and by extension its dogma to be a blight on learning. There is about two millennium of evidence. If my child went to a school that had indoctrinating messages on the walls i would mos def have a prob with that.

i would prefer my kids learn truthful things and not have fairly tales and myths presented as truth.

[mingus]

I personally think religion and by extension its dogma to be a blight on learning. There is about two millennium of evidence. If my child went to a school that had indoctrinating messages on the walls i would mos def have a prob with that.

i would prefer my kids learn truthful things and not have fairly tales and myths presented as truth.

Don't forget to keep your kid away from his evil religious friends, too.

Lol totalitarian parent

[mingus]

So when is the ban on kids wearing yamakas going to come? Already happened in France.

[ElNono]

If they keep it to their own personel workspace, why would a mere poster showing a person you believe is fictional bother you so much.

It doesn't bother me at all. I think it's inappropriate and bad for business. This thread being the exact representative of why.

How dumb are you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Don't forget to keep your kid away from his evil religious friends, too.

Lol totalitarian parent

Why? I think its important that my kid decides who they like. Thats nothing like a public institution that forces that it upon them. If they want to go to church thats fine. I will never force them to go.

You do know I am not an atheist right? Most followers of a monotheistic exclusionary religions always conclude a rejection of religion = rejection of god.

[mingus]

Go back to my original point. If the kids voluntarily want it up there I believe a school can agree to it, as long as they support any others who may want theirs up as well. Otherwise, put a ban on t-shirts, yamakas, discussion, etc that invoke religion because by extension of those things being on school public property, it's the same thing as the banner.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Go back to my original point. If the kids voluntarily want it up there I believe a school can agree to it, as long as they support any others who may want theirs up as well. Otherwise, put a ban on t-shirts, yamakas, discussion, etc that invoke religion because by extension of those things being on school public property, it's the same thing as the banner.

And back to my original point. Majoritarianism is not the way to go in this. You also cannot equate what a child or their family decides to wear and talk about to what a school forces a child to read, discuss or wear. Different standards.

You can try to equate the actions of a public school to the actions of an individual and their family but its definitely apples and oranges.

[Spurminator]

Yeah if kids want to wear t-shirts with the prayer on it, more power to them. Completely different when it's on the wall of a classroom.

Thing is, if the school had just taken the poster down without any fanfare, it's unlikely anyone would have raised a fuss.

[mingus]

And back to my original point. Majoritarianism is not the way to go in this. You also cannot equate what a child or their family decides to wear and talk about to what a school forces a child to read, discuss or wear. Different standards.

You can try to equate the actions of a public school to the actions of an individual and their family but its definitely apples and oranges.

You can equate them. France equated them. Yamakas aren't allowed in public shcools in France. Public property is public property, whether it's a gymnasium or the pavement.

You're child is no more forced to regard a banner in a gymansium than a kid they let attend who wears a yamaka or a girl a hijab that they see everyday taking the same route to class. In fact, it's probably easier to disregard the banner.

The school is not forcing your kid to do anything in either cirumstance.

The school is no more standardizing religious values by following the wishes of a religious group of kids that wants to have a banner up in the gymansium than they are by letting them come to school in religious wear. In both cases, the school is allowing for freedom of expression, in this case religious, not advocating it. That freedom of expression I believe has been undermined in this particular case.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can equate them. France equated them. Yamakas aren't allowed in public shcools in France. Public property is public property, whether it's a gymnasium or the pavement.

You're child is no more forced to regard a banner in a gymansium than a kid they let attend who wears a yamaka or a girl a hijab that they see everyday taking the same route to class. In fact, it's probably easier to disregard the banner.

The school is not forcing your kid to do anything in either cirumstance.

The school is no more standardizing religious values by following the wishes of a religious group of kids that wants to have a banner up in the gymansium than they are by letting them come to school in religious wear. In both cases, the school is allowing for freedom of expression, in this case religious, not advocating it. That freedom of expression I believe has been undermined in this particular case.

If it happens in the US where we actually can vote to change things then let me know. I disagree with Sarkovy's policy if that makes you feel better.

Painting public school property is quite a bit different.

Its school officials doing it not the kids themselves. Its school sanctioned religion.

Further a majority is no excuse to deprive kids and families that are minorities their rights to practice or not to practice as they see fit, Separation of church and state is clearly defined in legal statutes so its a moot point. You can send your kid to private school if you need a school that does that.

[RandomGuy]

By having the others take their's down, she put her's up. She might as well have put up a banner that says God doesn't exist. Now, if the adminstration had said said they are not going to have any banners up they would have been impartial in doing so. But its not coming from them, it's coming from the girl who wants it taken down because she doesn't believe in God. Taking it down is a manifestation of her belief, and thus an adminstrative choice in support of her (whether they want to or not).

The absence of a banner does not imply some other imaginary banner.

Logic fail.

Would you say the same thing if it had been a muslim asking for it?

A mormon?

Taking down a banner to God does not mean an imaginary banner to Allah was raised in its place, or a banner praising the pope, or a banner praising the Elders.

The first amendment doesn't work that way.

[RandomGuy]

You can equate them. France equated them. Yamakas aren't allowed in public shcools in France. Public property is public property, whether it's a gymnasium or the pavement.

You're child is no more forced to regard a banner in a gymansium than a kid they let attend who wears a yamaka or a girl a hijab that they see everyday taking the same route to class. In fact, it's probably easier to disregard the banner.

The school is not forcing your kid to do anything in either cirumstance.

The school is no more standardizing religious values by following the wishes of a religious group of kids that wants to have a banner up in the gymansium than they are by letting them come to school in religious wear. In both cases, the school is allowing for freedom of expression, in this case religious, not advocating it. That freedom of expression I believe has been undermined in this particular case.

So you are for a mostly muslim school putting up "there is no God but Allah, and mohammed is his prophet" in their gynasium?

[RandomGuy]

Go back to my original point. If the kids voluntarily want it up there I believe a school can agree to it, as long as they support any others who may want theirs up as well. Otherwise, put a ban on t-shirts, yamakas, discussion, etc that invoke religion because by extension of those things being on school public property, it's the same thing as the banner.

Things of that size can only be posted with the explicit permission of the school's administration.

That is vastly different than kids talking about religion in a bible reading club, which is allowed. Hell, you can even pray in the hallways if you want to.

The deliniation between constitutional and unconstitutional, is when you use the power of the government to advocate one religion over another.

The same people screaming "free expression" would be the first ones lining up to complain about a Hindu banner put there by a Hindu principal.