ACLU asks for removal of Christian prayer banner at high school graduation

[Bluebear]

PROVIDENCE, R.I.—The Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is asking a judge to forbid the City of Cranston from displaying a Christian prayer banner in a school auditorium.

The ACLU announced Thursday that it wants the banner removed, pending the outcome of a lawsuit alleging the banner promotes a particular religion.

The suit seeks the banner's permanent removal from Cranston High School West. The plaintiff is sophomore Jessica Ahlquist, a 15-year-old atheist who says the banner is offensive to non-Christians.

The banner encourages students to strive academically and begins with "Our Heavenly Father" and ends with "Amen."

Last year, the ACLU asked the school to remove the banner after a parent complained. School officials voted in March to keep the banner, which has been displayed since the 1960s.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2011/05/27/aclu_asks_for_removal_of_high_school_prayer_banner/

[Mojeoux]

1. Good ~nt

[Fumesucker]

2. Cue death threats against Ms Ahlquist in 3.. 2.. 1..

Who does she think she is, trying to shove her lack of religion down everyone else's throat?

WWJTTK?

Who Would Jesus Threaten To Kill?

[laconicsax]

3. I know! You'd think she'd just be grateful that she isn't being tied to a stake and burned.

Doesn't she realize that by asking for her rights to be respected she's restricting the right of the majority to deny them?

[B Calm]

4. Those poor persecuted Christians will be screaming about the liberals again.

[iwishiwas]

5. I am reminded it is time (past time for me) to give a donation to the ACLU. They

truly are a group for good causes and do tremendous work.

[pipoman]

6. Offensive? Really?

I can see prayer in class and such as being uncomfortable and thus shouldn't be permitted. But a banner from the 60's? She is in for a lifetime of being offended, poor, poor, fragile thing..

[trumad]

7. Give qn inch

They'll take a mile.

[pipoman]

8. It's been there for 50 years...apparently they are moving very slowly..

[LAGC]

11. Keep in mind, it hasn't been until just recently that we've been able to turn the tide...

And reverse these many First Amendment violations in court.

The First Amendment suffered greatly in the ultra-conservative 1950s, and its taken this long just to get momentum going back in the right direction.

Give us 20 more years, and we'll finely be rid of "God" on our currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance, Goddess willing, and be able to return to a pre-1950's norm, where separation of church and state is respected.

[pipoman]

16. Christianity in US schools dates far back.

The 50's? Many rural schools in the 18th and 19th centuries doubled as community churches. I believe we as liberals should pick our battles, and bitching about a 50 year old banner is picking a scab which will do nothing but polarize.

[LAGC]

22. Yes, of course, we can't offend any delicate Christian sensibilities now can we?

Too polarizing indeed.

That excuse has flied for far too long. Its time the Bill of Rights be upheld as the Founders intended, and I, for one, support the ACLU in their endeavors.

Gonna donate another $100 to them today, just for you.

[Union Scribe]

33. Lol

People are having apoplexies over a banner and you say OTHER people have delicate sensibilities.

Will you now make it $200 more dollars? Please? They need money to fight this 50-year creeping theocracy!

[LAGC]

72. It's not the offense towards the banner, as much as it is the principle of the thing.

Either the Constitution means what it says, or it doesn't.

If you truly believe in separation of church and state, that banner is a blatant violation, endorsing a particular religious belief by a government entity.

It's just the nature of the beast that the ACLU can't act until someone files a complaint, so they can threaten to sue. I don't blame offended students for bringing it to the ACLU's attention. They are really risking their necks to change the unconstitutional status quo.

Just because an injustice has stood since the McCarthy Era doesn't mean we have to still tolerate it now.

[tekisui]

86. It doesn't matter how long it's been there. It is, in essence state

sanctioned religion, which violates the 1st Amendment. Nothing having to do with apoplexies, just with adherence to the Constitution.

[hootinholler]

18. And that's 50 years that athiests and non christians

Have felt intimidated enough to keep silent on the matter because the persecuted christians would make life hell for those who would speak up.

-Hoot

[pipoman]

20. The fragility of some people's feelings is astounding to me..

I've seen many stars of David, and other religious symbolism which I don't adhere and have not once been offended, or intimidated by any of them. A claim that this banner could do any is more a statement of the mental instability of the claimant than the offensiveness of the banner in question. It's nonsense.

[hootinholler]

21. Thank you for calling me mentally unstable

Fortunately, I'm aware of my mental status and I can assure you that this is not an episodic triggering event for me.

The symbolism of which you speak, was that on public buildings? In public schools? Or were they raised with private money on private ground?

I'm beginning to be convinced that you are one who has no problem with the 10 commandments festooning our court houses?

Where do you stand on the application of biblical law by our courts? By our Congress?

Where do you stand that our motto was changed from E Pluribis Unum to In God We Trust roughly some 150 years after our founding?

You see, well apparently you don't see, that this is not about an individual's religion, but about freedom from others religions. It's also about guarding our Constitution.

-Hoot

[Bluebear]

29. So now you're diagnosing "offended" people as mentally unstable, Dr. Quack?

Whatever.

[WinkyDink]

34. We're talking about a public school. Keep to the point.

[Tesha]

38. Are these symbols displayed by public institutions? (NT)

[astral]

40. This is absolutely true! Why are only Christian religious comments offensive?

I grew up with the talk of "God" being common everywhere, it's on our money, it's in the Pledge of Allegience, it's everywhere, but it is a generic "God," not just the Christian God. Many people have many types of faith, just like many people don't have anything to do with it. What is the big deal now, that we have to erase any THOUGHT of "god" from ANYWHERE anybody could possibly see it or consider it, except within the confines of the walls of a church?

I think it's sad, really, that the mere thought of exposure to the concept of a god in the universe is as offensive to people as stepping into dogshit.

And I pray this extremism isn't allowed to fully run its course.

[Fumesucker]

41. You can put up any kind of religious display you want..

On. Private. Property..

It doesn't have to be a church, it just has to not be on government property.

The government is for *all* people, not just the religious ones.

It's such a clear and simple concept, it's really quite astounding how many people even here on DU don't get it.

[Bluebear]

53. Why are only Christian displays offensive??!!1

:cry:

[Bluebear]

52. Yes, Muslims for instance, are never persecuted against. What's sad is your post.

[tekisui]

89. State action is the issue. Period. Jeebus, people.

[RetroLounge]

61. mental instability?

How about you just PFO then.

Is that stable enough for you?

RL

[Bluebear]

74. +++

[Le Taz Hot]

84. This has nothing to do with "feelings"

as has been pointed out to you several times. It's a clear violation of the separation between church and state. As an aside, I think it's always telling when someone morphs a debate topic so they'll have an arguable point to debate. Classic dodge.

[tekisui]

87. The difference between you seeing things and not being offended

is that this is by a school, meaning it is state sanctioned. It has absolutely nothing to do with people's fucking feelings.

And then you disparage the person bringing the suit, on their mental instabilities, yet am I to assume your mental state permits you to believe in the ridiculousness found in christianity?

Putting that to the side, it is solely that this is state endorsement of a religion, which is violative of the 1st Amendment.

[tblue37]

17. Such things are offensive. We are supposed to tiptoe around aggressive Christianists'

beliefs, but the rights of atheists and agnostics--even those enshrined in the Constitution, can be ignored--bulldozed, even--at will, and if anyone dares to bring them up, that person is subject to serious harassment and possibly even bodily harm.

[WillyT]

44. They Can Go Ahead And Display It... After We Remove Any Public Funding They Recieve...

:shrug:

[Obamanaut]

9. Oh good grief. Does the suit declare which 'particular religion' the

banner promotes? "...the banner promotes a particular religion..."

When will they want us to stop saying "good bye", since that is supposedly another form of "god be with you (or ye)?

What of the religions that use 'amen' that are not Christians? Don't Muslims use that or something that means the same at the end of prayers? Is it offensive to them? "...banner is offensive to non-Christians..." Is it a word used exclusively by Christians?

I am a non-believer, and all this 'offense' outrage makes me laugh.

[backwoodsbob]

10. thank you nt

[WolverineDG]

14. They already want to ban the "M" word

say the word "Miracle" & watch the heads spin & mouths foam.

dg

[Union Scribe]

35. And if a disaster survivor mentions God

it drives them to ranting.

[Raine]

47. Yeah I agree, completely. nt

[SkyDaddy7]

12. GOOD! IT IS NOT ABOUT BEING "Offended" despite...

what the 15yr old child said...It is about respecting the US Constitution! I use to be one of those Atheist who thought stuff like this was ridiculous like others here claim but I have grown up & understand the importance of following the Constitution.

I wonder sometimes where these so-called non believers think the line should be drawn when it comes to religion in government or public schools? They see nothing wrong with prayer in congress, in schools, at graduations, on our money, in the pledge, being the basis for laws, discrimination etc. ? If an Atheist says something they are labeled "angry" to include by other so-called non-believers?

[Fumesucker]

13. Actually I think "rabid" is the usual adjective applied to atheists who don't remain silent.. n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

15. Very True & Very SAD!! nt.

[hootinholler]

19. I've heard evangelical applied

:rofl:

I had a great laugh in the person's face over that one. Sadly they didn't see the irony.

-Hoot

[Bluebear]

30. Pipoman upthread calls them "mentally unstable". nt

[Raffi Ella]

39. you NAILED It.

Way to go Jessica Ahlquist. We need more like her.

[Nye Bevan]

23. Is "Our Heavenly Father" necessarily Christian?

Don't many religions have the concept of Heaven? The prayer does not mention Jesus or Christ so it seems to me that it is not necessarily a "Christian" prayer as such.

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.

[FreeState]

24. There s no heavenly father in two of the for most followed religions in the world n/t

[Obamanaut]

25. There's some really bad stuff in that prayer. Imagine - being honest, kind, helpful,

good sports (win OR lose); to grow mentally, morally, and physically.

How dare they put that on a banner to inspire young people!

(This was all sarcasm, you know.) Why anyone can justify getting knicker knotted over this is beyond me.

I am a non-believer, but it looks like good stuff to me. Would it have been more acceptable if it had started "Oh Great Spirit" or "Oh Great Wind of the North"?

Sheesh!

[Forkboy]

27. Why tie those things to any kind of religion at all in the first place?

Aren't we capable of teaching those things without the need to invoke a spirit or a God, etc?

[astral]

43. Aren't we capable of erasing God from EVERYTHING? (sarcasm intended)

"Why tie those things to any kind of religion at all in the first place? Aren't we capable of teaching those things without the need to invoke a spirit or a God, etc?"

You can teach your children things without the use of "God," if you want, just plain, "This is Right," "That is Wrong." That does not mean the whole world of humanity, of many differing faiths and beliefs, is not allowed to breathe the word "God," or whatever their name for God is, in earshot of anyone who happens to NOT believe in God.

Knowing that people believe in God does not HARM people who do NOT believe in God. You have the right to keep anybody from getting in your face trying to convert you. The separation of church and state never intended the complete annihilation of religion from our culture.

I am very offended by the smell of cheap perfume yet I have no right to tell anybody they can't wear it and walk right in front of me where I can smell it.

Why can't we allow the diversity that is humanity to exist without having to pound on each other's heads because we don't all share the exact same belief?

[Fumesucker]

48. Why is it _so_ important that there be religious displays on government property?

Government property belongs to everyone, why put up a display that goes against the beliefs of some members of society?

I would be equally against a display on government property that said "There is no God".

[Forkboy]

51. Enough straw here to built a hut, and painfully ignorant of the Separation of Church and State.

And I do mean painful.

That does not mean the whole world of humanity, of many differing faiths and beliefs, is not allowed to breathe the word "God," or whatever their name for God is, in earshot of anyone who happens to NOT believe in God.

Probably a good thing I didn't say that, or anything like that then, huh? Nor did anyone else in this thread, in that school, or anyfuckingwhere else. Why is the concept of Separation of Church and State so hard to grasp? I know a kid as young as 11 who gets this concept already. Why do so many adults struggle with it? Your religion, my religion, or anyone elses religion, is not to be promoted by a government in any way. End of fucking story.

Knowing that people believe in God does not HARM people who do NOT believe in God

No shit. Water is wet, and the sun is hot. Glad we could get the bloody obvious things out of the way.

The separation of church and state never intended the complete annihilation of religion from our culture.

And it's not trying to. Your reaction here is hyperbole and drama to the extreme. It's been centuries since you were fed to the lions, it's time to drop the oppressed act.

I am very offended by the smell of cheap perfume yet I have no right to tell anybody they can't wear it and walk right in front of me where I can smell it.

LOL....that's the stupidest damn thing I might ever have read here. I'm having hard time replying because the laughter is making my hands shake. Do you really equate the Separation of Church and State with someone wearing a perfume you don't like? Seriously? Wait, I have to ask again...seriously? Good fuckin' Lord. :eyes:

Why can't we allow the diversity that is humanity to exist without having to pound on each other's heads because we don't all share the exact same belief?

We can. And we can start by not promoting any religion over any other. Hence, the Separation of Church and State. Duh.

Good fucking grief. I think I lost 20 I.Q. points just by reading your post.

[Bluebear]

55. 'that's the stupidest damn thing I might ever have read here'

And that takes a lot! :rofl:

[astral]

58. My point is that Separation of Church and State

is to not force any religion upon anyone. Back in the day all of these blasphemous practices such as praying before meetings and mentioning "God" on our money and posting excerpts from the Bible on the walls of the court house, it was not believed that the mere presence of religious beliefs would harm those who had no religious beliefs.

The atmosphere has changed and people want MORE than mere separation of church and state. They want STATE to PROTECT them from ANY EXPOSURE to any religious idea.

If this is what the people of this country want, now, that is a change. It may be 'right' for the present day, but it is not what the "separation of church and state" ever meant.

I am not feeling a 'victim' here, I am personally not a "Christian," I came to believe in my own concept of God as an adult and not by looking for a religion and picking one out, but by the realization that God exists through circumstances in my life.

I care not whether anyone around me believes the way I do but I do not feel we need to SANITIZE the public environment from any notion of God.

You may think I am stupid for not recognizing the separation of church and state to mean what you say it means, however to me it is as plain as the nose on your face that if that ***WAS*** the intent, the sanitation of public buildings, public practices, public currency of religious connotations would have happened a long time ago and we wouldn't be HAVING this debate now.

Diversity never harmed anyone. You can wear a veil, you can wear a cross, you can wear a white sheet, you can criss-cross your heart and hope to die right in front of me, I won't be damaged by your freedom to do so.

GROUP PRAYER is a right just as NOT PARTICIPATING in group prayer is a right.

"In God We Trust" doesn't mean you yourself has to trust in God, even if you use that coin to buy your diet Pepsi with.

People have the right to perform their practices and beliefs in the presence of others who are not intersted in the practice.

How many times in my life have I lowered my head and closed my eyes because someone said "Let Us Pray," and not in a church, and maybe not even when I was expecting it? Does it matter whether I am praying or not? Isn't it just being respectful of the world around me?

The courts will decide what is right and what is wrong here, and I know anybody who disagrees with the lockstep views of The Democratic Underground will be branded 'stupid' but still again I am explaining my point of view because that is my point of view.

Just as I am reading everyone elses' point of view here, but I am not calling anyone stupid.

[Fumesucker]

59. A lot of the resistance you are seeing is due to the Republicans using religion as a weapon..

It's also due to the fact that the country is becoming less religious overall and those who still feel religious are moving away from the mainline religions.

So you basically have two factors, a substantial minority of the population uses its religion to metaphorically beat people around the head and shoulders and another smaller but not negligible minority basically either are atheists or apatheists.

When people are using religion as a weapon those at whom it is aimed get gun shy.

[Bluebear]

65. No, you don't call people stupid, you call them extremists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1188345#1191208

[Forkboy]

67. You're still incredibly wrong.

Back in the day all of these blasphemous practices such as praying before meetings and mentioning "God" on our money and posting excerpts from the Bible on the walls of the court house, it was not believed that the mere presence of religious beliefs would harm those who had no religious beliefs.

It was, but the atmosphere to speak out was even harsher than it is today. And again, you want to use strawmen. No one has said these practices are "blasphemous". Strawman #1. You're arguing with your own thoughts, not anything anyone here has said.

The atmosphere has changed and people want MORE than mere separation of church and state. They want STATE to PROTECT them from ANY EXPOSURE to any religious idea.

No, they don't. Strawman #2. They want the State to actually follow THE CONSTITUTION. You have a severe persecution complex going on, which is laughable because well over 70% of the country calls themselves religious in one form or another. Non-believers aren't looking for protection from exposure (like we could avoid it anyways), they're looking for the government to follow that pesky Constitution.

If this is what the people of this country want, now, that is a change. It may be 'right' for the present day, but it is not what the "separation of church and state" ever meant.

It's not what they want. Strawman #3. You've shown no evidence that you understand the Separation of Church and State at all so far. None.

I care not whether anyone around me believes the way I do but I do not feel we need to SANITIZE the public environment from any notion of God.

Strawman #4. No one is saying the religion needs to be "sanitized" from anywhere but GOVERNMENT FUNDED buildings. Do you understand the difference? And do you understand why? Do you know how many religions there are in America? Off the top of my head there's Christianity (and it's many offshoots), Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Satanism. Do they all get to say something in court or public schools? You know as well as I do that any Satanist sure as shit wouldn't get the chance to thank Baphomet at a school function without incurring a shitstorm from Christians. And any Muslim trying to invoke Allah would probably have Homeland Security called on them, because we all know how much most Americans want to hear Allah Akbar said in our schools. Not all religions are viewed as equal, especially by religious people. So the intent was to ensure that the Government didn't even give the appearance of favoring one over the other. No offense, but we've seen history, and we know what happens when one religion has control, or is given the benefit of favor over the rest. It ain't a pretty sight, and our forefathers, bless their souls, had the foresight to recognize this possibility because they had studied their history, and that's why we have the Separation of Church and State.

You may think I am stupid for not recognizing the separation of church and state to mean what you say it means, however to me it is as plain as the nose on your face that if that ***WAS*** the intent, the sanitation of public buildings, public practices, public currency of religious connotations would have happened a long time ago and we wouldn't be HAVING this debate now.

How can that "sanitation", as you like to put it, happen when so many people like you still don't get what the damn thing meant? Pretty hard to get 3/4 of of Americans to buy into something they don't want to buy into. Doesn't mean they have the intent right, just that they refuse to understand it because they don't want to. And, as you've repeatedly made clear, some feel downright persecuted by people even daring to bring it up. This is 2011...imagine what it was like 50 years ago or 100. We're having this debate now because religious people refuse to get it. When they do the debate will end toot sweet, but as most never will, I'm not holding your breath.

Diversity never harmed anyone. You can wear a veil, you can wear a cross, you can wear a white sheet, you can criss-cross your heart and hope to die right in front of me, I won't be damaged by your freedom to do so.

And I'm not damaged by your beliefs. Just don't do it, and I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this, ON GOVERNMENT FUNDED PROPERTY. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....". In other words, you can be a fucking Jedi for all the Constitution cares, just don't expect the government to support it on their dime (or actually, the taxpayers dime). And this part by you brings up another interesting point: Putting aside the fact that wearing a white sheet isn't a religion, should we let the KKK speak out in schools, and put up pictures of burning crosses in courthouses? After all, "diversity never harmed anyone", right?

GROUP PRAYER is a right just as NOT PARTICIPATING in group prayer is a right.

I agree 100%, and you can do that anywhere, except, once again, ON GOVERNMENT FUNDED PROPERTY.

"In God We Trust" doesn't mean you yourself has to trust in God, even if you use that coin to buy your diet Pepsi with.

I don't lose any sleep over this being on coins, but it shouldn't be. It originates from the Bible (Psalms 20: 7 and Psalms 62: 8 come to mind, there's probably more), and everyone associates it with Bible. It's a violation of Church and State, but not one I really care about all that much. I don't get angry when i see a coin with it, but it shouldn't be there. Let's replace with In Allah We Trust and see how that goes over. Think people will accept it? We both know that answer, don't we? So one religion gets favored while another wouldn't. Again, this is the whole point.

People have the right to perform their practices and beliefs in the presence of others who are not intersted in the practice.

Not on the taxpayer dime they don't. Use your home, your church, your street corner, but not a GOVERNMENT FUNDED place. And why do you need to pray around others anyways? Didn't Matthew say "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites : for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men . Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Do you listen to your own beliefs, or just the parts that suit you?

How many times in my life have I lowered my head and closed my eyes because someone said "Let Us Pray," and not in a church, and maybe not even when I was expecting it?

No idea.

Does it matter whether I am praying or not?

Only if it's in a GOVERNMENT FUNDED place, and you can even do it there if you do it silently in your head. God can hear you whether or not you speak aloud, right? Or does he need a Omnipotent hearing aid?

Isn't it just being respectful of the world around me?

Not really. Where's the respect for Allah, for Baphomet, for Odin and Zeus?

The courts will decide what is right and what is wrong here, and I know anybody who disagrees with the lockstep views of The Democratic Underground will be branded 'stupid' but still again I am explaining my point of view because that is my point of view. Just as I am reading everyone elses' point of view here, but I am not calling anyone stupid.

You may not be stupid at all, and may indeed be smarter than I am (not hard to do), but on this topic you couldn't be more off in your understanding of the Separation of Church and State. You're not just wrong, you're waaay wrong, and add to that wrongness a heaping dose of persecution.

[RetroLounge]

62. Really?

:rofl:

Dog, that's about the most idiot post on this subject...

RL

[Bluebear]

75. !

[GReedDiamond]

28. They could have very easily...

...gotten all of the "good stuff" into such a banner without referencing some kind of "heavenly father," and without the "amen." Both of which are indicators of Christianity, which, as everyone knows, is what those who put up the banner were going for, and for which, to this day, is what it stands for.

We have a Constitution which stipulates neutrality and separation when it comes to Govt. institutions' relationship to ALL religious beliefs, not just the ones which are not currently in vogue. We either enforce that version of the Constitution or start (some would say, continue) the slide down the proverbial slippery slope of selective enforcement at the expense of those in the minority.

"Sheesh" right back at ya!

[Obamanaut]

36. Isn't it 'non-establishment' that is stipulated?

Isn't the 'amen' just another way of saying 'in truth', or 'so be it', or 'let it be so', and doesn't have anything to do with religion at all?

If it were to happen that a shaman of some sort were to wave a feather and make an incantation and then request good things befall the listener, all here would be agog with awe and a brazillion 'recs' and multiple posts of "Wasn't that the most wonderful thing ever heard!"

Did not SCOTUS say it is ok to have an opening prayer in congress, and that they use different denominations/sects/belief systems to do this? But 'heavenly father' on a banner suggesting that the reader be and/or become a good/better person - ooh, grab some pearls, I feel the vapors about to overcome me!

And, when people bring out the Santa Fe School District v Doe, didn't the decision mention football as an area of prohibition and nothing else? Or, did I miss the part that included all other activities? Football was mentioned specifically a couple of times.

[GReedDiamond]

37. I have rarely heard the word "amen" being uttered...

...in its most recognized manner of use, without it being attached to some kind of preceding prayer or religious sermon of some type. Likewise, I have never heard a prayer or sermon end with any of the phrases you suggest, in place of the word "amen."

If it were to happen that a shaman of some sort were to wave a feather and make an incantation and then request good things befall the listener, all here would be agog with awe and a brazillion 'recs' and multiple posts of "Wasn't that the most wonderful thing ever heard!"

OK, I have no clue what you're talking about here, so I'll pass on that.

There should be no opening prayer in Congress. Just because it happens, that does not make it correct. Additionally, "In God We Trust" should be removed from U.S. currency, and "One Nation, under God," should also be removed from the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.

Re: Santa Fe School District v Doe, it was not so much football games alone, it had to do with conducting prayers on all school property, and at any school-sponsored events, not just football games, so I think your assertion here is also incorrect.

[Nye Bevan]

45. Amen to that (nt)

[GReedDiamond]

49. And one more grievance I have...

..."faith based initiatives" should not be receiving any Federal monies. There should be no such thing as "faith based initiatives" in Government, at any level.

Can I get an "amen" to that?!

Sorry, could not resist.

[RainDog]

78. a-fucking-men

it DISGUSTS me that the religious right is getting paid money from the govt to teach lies, bigotry, hatred of other religions - WTF is wrong with our politicians these days?

just too scared of the rr to tell the truth.

vigilante-led "democracy" is only one of those things.

[Obamanaut]

50. "I have rarely heard...", as you said, is not the same as "I have NEVER

heard", and even if you have rarely heard it does not mean it isn't done.

I have rarely heard people say as they depart "God be with ye" but I have heard folks utter "Good bye" and they mean the same but have changed over time.

"If it were to happen..." is conjecture (note the 'if' at the beginning). Du abounds with support for everything 'non christian' - muslim, paganism, atheism, and on and on - and one can find an overwhelming acceptance of any/all of these.

As to Santa Fe et al, here are some of the words from the Wiki site re that "...It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored..." Pregame prayers on school property at football GAMES are not the same as a general purpose banner. I guess another suit is forthcoming.

"One nation" was part of the earlier pledge, with "under god" added during the Eisenhower admin IIRC, so why not just change it back to the earlier one to make all the complainers happy.

[GReedDiamond]

57. I just say: "bye"...

...I leave out the good and the god.

Sometimes I say "guh-buy," but that is usually when I'm intoxicated, and therefore, I have no memory of saying anything like that, so we don't actually know if this is true.

I also do not say "God bless you" when somebody near me, whether I know them or not, sneezes.

The rest of your response seems Kosher to me.

Indivisibly yours,
GReedDiamond

[StarsInHerHair]

80. except Amen-Re is the Ram God from Egypt.........but sssshhh, it's just

the Fish's roots showing

[0rganism]

76. So keep everything worthwhile and change the first line and the last word

How difficult is that? Is it impossible for you, a self-proclaimed "non-believer", to conceive of "stuff" like good sportsmanship and personal growth in the absence of the personal interventions of a deity?

We aspire 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.
We'll be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.
We'll learn the value of true friendship
And conduct ourselves so as to bring credit
to Cranston High School West.

Is that SO INCREDIBLY HARD to imagine? Really?

[WinkyDink]

32. Missing the Constitutional POINT here.

[immoderate]

46. Here's Gene Autry's Code of the Cowboy

Gene Autry's Code of the Cowboy

1. The Cowboy must never shoot first, hit a smaller man, or take unfair advantage.

2. He must never go back on his word, or a trust confided in him.

3. He must always tell the truth.

4. He must be gentle with children, the elderly, and animals.

5. He must not advocate or possess racially or religiously intolerant ideas.

6. He must help people in distress.

7. He must be a good worker.

8. He must keep himself clean in thought, speech, action, and personal habits.

9. He must respect women, parents, and his nation's laws.

10. The Cowboy is a patriot.

It's really not too different.

I'm as against god silliness as anybody, but art, and in this case, folk art, gets a pass from me. :)

--imm

[Union Scribe]

26. Thank goodness the 50 year reign of terror is nearly over.

Now the sweet breath of liberty shall return to that school. Flowers will once again grow in the accursed soil. The sun will break through the impenetrable gloom of decades. And, at last, one interpretation of the Constitution will be safe. Some of it. A little bit of it, I guess.

Not even bothering with the sarcasm graphic.

[lynne]

56. LOL! You forgot that this sign is the reason for the recent bizarre weather -

- Agree that this is a bit of an over reaction for what appears to be a 50 year old town tradition.

I also found it interesting that the ACLU requested this sign be removed last year. Notice that the article doesn't tell us if the town or school complied with that request. As it has occurred again, it would appear that the ACLU did nothing in the past year to legally prevent.

[StarsInHerHair]

81. yeah except for cults like this, do U know Dogemperor?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/03/253028/-Dominionism-as-a-coercive-religious-movement-%28part-2%29

[WinkyDink]

31. God does not need the PR; PRAY TO YOURSELVES.

[aaaaaa5a]

42. This is one case I hope the ACLU wins! nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

54. And thus... The world is safe for one more night... n/t

[astral]

60. Let's go back. "Separation of Church and State" means WHAT?

Excerpt from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
_______________________________________________

This is to protect people's freedom of religion, not to take it away.

If we want to make a bunch of laws respecting the practice or mention of religion, we can certainly do so, but don't use the established "Separation of Church and State" as a backup justification, because to make more laws where none exist is to do the OPPOSITE of what that means.

[Fumesucker]

63. It means the government should stay out of religion...

And religion should stay out of government.

Look at places like Iran and Saudi Arabia if you want to see what happens when government and religion get really cozy..

For that matter you could look at Ireland until not all that long ago, have you heard of the Magdalene asylums?

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

Magdalene asylums were institutions for so-called "fallen women". Asylums for "fallen women" operated throughout Europe, Britain, Ireland, Canada and the United States for much of the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century. The first asylum in Ireland opened on Leeson Street in Dublin in 1767, founded by Lady Arabella Denny. In Belfast there was a Church of Ireland run Ulster Magdalene Asylum (founded in 1839) on Donegall Pass, while parallel institutions were run by Catholics on Ormeau Road and Presbyterians on Whitehall Parade.<1>
Initially the mission of the asylums was often to rehabilitate women back into society, but by the early twentieth century the homes had become increasingly punitive and prison like (at least in Ireland and Scotland). In most asylums, the inmates were required to undertake hard physical labour, including laundry and needle work. They also endured a daily regime that included long periods of prayer and enforced silence. In Ireland, such asylums were known as Magdalene laundries. It has been estimated that up to 30,000 women passed through such laundries in Ireland.<2> The last Magdalene asylum in the Republic of Ireland closed on September 25, 1996.

[RainDog]

64. no one wants to take away anyone's right to freedom of religion that I know

and if I knew anyone who did, I would disagree with them.

our founders did not only want freedom to practice religion. they also wanted freedom FROM religious tests, a state religion, a state that limited its writings in such a way that it favored one religion, even when not making that religion one of the state.

this issue isn't something I am up-in-arms about - but this is the second person in two years who has complained about the overt religious nature of the sign - and, honestly, why is it any big deal if the sign is there?

what does it harm you if it is not there? in what way does it impact or negatively effect your life in any way if that sign is not there?

the founders certainly did not endorse religion in any way - quite a few of them had strong things to say against religions - Paine, an atheist, was fully part of the revolution - it was his freedom to not have religion as well as others' freedom to practice whichever one they pleased. (hey, I have quotes too!)

how is having that sign a way to practice religion for you or, for that matter, anyone else at that school?

is anyone prohibited from practicing his or her religious beliefs if that sign is removed?

I'm guessing - but I think that quite a few of the complaints we hear about at this time have to do with the fundamentalist/evangelical attempt to push religion into places where in which it has no place.

this is the push back.

John Adams' defense of the constitution made clear that the insertion of religion into any form of govt was not the intention of the founders - that a deity had no place in the way in which this govt was conceived or should be governed. It seems clear that someone who declares there was no deity involved in the creation of the constitution - that constitution would also assume freedom from religion as important as freedom of religion.

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...

the overriding issue in all of these complaints and counter arguments is that the majority wants things to stay as they are and a minority wants them to change public displays of faith to demonstrate the respect for founding claim that this nation was created by reason, with no deity necessary or involved.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. lets go back and read analytically instead.nt

[Bluebear]

68. Talk about agendas.

[Forkboy]

69. Here...I'll double post this just for you.

Back in the day all of these blasphemous practices such as praying before meetings and mentioning "God" on our money and posting excerpts from the Bible on the walls of the court house, it was not believed that the mere presence of religious beliefs would harm those who had no religious beliefs.

It was, but the atmosphere to speak out was even harsher than it is today. And again, you want to use strawmen. No one has said these practices are "blasphemous". Strawman #1. You're arguing with your own thoughts, not anything anyone here has said.

The atmosphere has changed and people want MORE than mere separation of church and state. They want STATE to PROTECT them from ANY EXPOSURE to any religious idea.

No, they don't. Strawman #2. They want the State to actually follow THE CONSTITUTION. You have a severe persecution complex going on, which is laughable because well over 70% of the country calls themselves religious in one form or another. Non-believers aren't looking for protection from exposure (like we could avoid it anyways), they're looking for the government to follow that pesky Constitution.

If this is what the people of this country want, now, that is a change. It may be 'right' for the present day, but it is not what the "separation of church and state" ever meant.

It's not what they want. Strawman #3. You've shown no evidence that you understand the Separation of Church and State at all so far. None.

I care not whether anyone around me believes the way I do but I do not feel we need to SANITIZE the public environment from any notion of God.

Strawman #4. No one is saying the religion needs to be "sanitized" from anywhere but GOVERNMENT FUNDED buildings. Do you understand the difference? And do you understand why? Do you know how many religions there are in America? Off the top of my head there's Christianity (and it's many offshoots), Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Satanism. Do they all get to say something in court or public schools? You know as well as I do that any Satanist sure as shit wouldn't get the chance to thank Baphomet at a school function without incurring a shitstorm from Christians. And any Muslim trying to invoke Allah would probably have Homeland Security called on them, because we all know how much most Americans want to hear Allah Akbar said in our schools. Not all religions are viewed as equal, especially by religious people. So the intent was to ensure that the Government didn't even give the appearance of favoring one over the other. No offense, but we've seen history, and we know what happens when one religion has control, or is given the benefit of favor over the rest. It ain't a pretty sight, and our forefathers, bless their souls, had the foresight to recognize this possibility because they had studied their history, and that's why we have the Separation of Church and State.

You may think I am stupid for not recognizing the separation of church and state to mean what you say it means, however to me it is as plain as the nose on your face that if that ***WAS*** the intent, the sanitation of public buildings, public practices, public currency of religious connotations would have happened a long time ago and we wouldn't be HAVING this debate now.

How can that "sanitation", as you like to put it, happen when so many people like you still don't get what the damn thing meant? Pretty hard to get 3/4 of of Americans to buy into something they don't want to buy into. Doesn't mean they have the intent right, just that they refuse to understand it because they don't want to. And, as you've repeatedly made clear, some feel downright persecuted by people even daring to bring it up. This is 2011...imagine what it was like 50 years ago or 100. We're having this debate now because religious people refuse to get it. When they do the debate will end toot sweet, but as most never will, I'm not holding your breath.

Diversity never harmed anyone. You can wear a veil, you can wear a cross, you can wear a white sheet, you can criss-cross your heart and hope to die right in front of me, I won't be damaged by your freedom to do so.

And I'm not damaged by your beliefs. Just don't do it, and I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this, ON GOVERNMENT FUNDED PROPERTY. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....". In other words, you can be a fucking Jedi for all the Constitution cares, just don't expect the government to support it on their dime (or actually, the taxpayers dime). And this part by you brings up another interesting point: Putting aside the fact that wearing a white sheet isn't a religion, should we let the KKK speak out in schools, and put up pictures of burning crosses in courthouses? After all, "diversity never harmed anyone", right?

GROUP PRAYER is a right just as NOT PARTICIPATING in group prayer is a right.

I agree 100%, and you can do that anywhere, except, once again, ON GOVERNMENT FUNDED PROPERTY.

"In God We Trust" doesn't mean you yourself has to trust in God, even if you use that coin to buy your diet Pepsi with.

I don't lose any sleep over this being on coins, but it shouldn't be. It originates from the Bible (Psalms 20: 7 and Psalms 62: 8 come to mind, there's probably more), and everyone associates it with Bible. It's a violation of Church and State, but not one I really care about all that much. I don't get angry when i see a coin with it, but it shouldn't be there. Let's replace with In Allah We Trust and see how that goes over. Think people will accept it? We both know that answer, don't we? So one religion gets favored while another wouldn't. Again, this is the whole point.

People have the right to perform their practices and beliefs in the presence of others who are not intersted in the practice.

Not on the taxpayer dime they don't. Use your home, your church, your street corner, but not a GOVERNMENT FUNDED place. And why do you need to pray around others anyways? Didn't Matthew say "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites : for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men . Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Do you listen to your own beliefs, or just the parts that suit you?

How many times in my life have I lowered my head and closed my eyes because someone said "Let Us Pray," and not in a church, and maybe not even when I was expecting it?

No idea.

Does it matter whether I am praying or not?

Only if it's in a GOVERNMENT FUNDED place, and you can even do it there if you do it silently in your head. God can hear you whether or not you speak aloud, right? Or does he need a Omnipotent hearing aid?

Isn't it just being respectful of the world around me?

Not really. Where's the respect for Allah, for Baphomet, for Odin and Zeus?

The courts will decide what is right and what is wrong here, and I know anybody who disagrees with the lockstep views of The Democratic Underground will be branded 'stupid' but still again I am explaining my point of view because that is my point of view. Just as I am reading everyone elses' point of view here, but I am not calling anyone stupid.

You may not be stupid at all, and may indeed be smarter than I am (not hard to do), but on this topic you couldn't be more off in your understanding of the Separation of Church and State. You're not just wrong, you're waaay wrong, and add to that wrongness a heaping dose of persecution.

[astral]

77. Forbidding anyone from practicing prayer on government property

is going beyond what the separation of church and state is. THAT is the point of difference I was trying to make.

If you are on government property, you are forbidden to pray out loud?

If you are on government property, you are forbidden to engage in group prayer?

Look, this isn't about ME praying out loud or ME wanting to stage group prayers -- anywhere at all. I am arguing that this is NOT COVERED by the separation of church and state. If people want to put an end to the practice of (a) using prayer to start a meeting, (b) allowing postings from the Bible to be visible on government building walls, that's fine, but it is a NEW LAW, and a NEW RESTRICTION that is being asked for.

And if I were to want to go hang out in a government building and say a prayer out loud, not that I particularly feel moved to do so, there would be no law forbidding me to pray, out loud, where someone could hear me, or to have someone else praying with me.

We can outlaw these types of behaviors, if we want to, but it would be a NEW law, a NEW practice, to go along with the NEW attitude.

When I used the term "blasphemous," I was being tongue-in-cheek, as these are the kinds of things we are hearing the challenges against now. That was a point I was making, that the separation of church and state DO NOT INCLUDE THESE PRACTICES.

If people want to make this change because the times have changed, the majority of people do not hold the beliefs and attitudes they did before, then fine, change the law. But you are putting restrictions on the expression of religion that were not there before, and this is exactly the opposite of what the separation of church and state SAYS. The plain words say government shall make no laws; what we are talking about now are making JUST THOSE KINDS OF LAWS.

[RainDog]

79. making Alabama remove the ten commandments from the court is not new

the controversy over the 10 Commandments and starting trials with a prayer was an issue before the 1990s - it started during the George Wallace administration.

from wiki on Judge Roy Moore (who couldn't get elected but who, by a gift of god, was appointed to this judgeship, btw)

In March 1995, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Moore, claiming that the pre-session prayers and the Ten Commandments display were both unconstitutional. This original lawsuit was eventually dismissed for technical reasons, but Governor Fob James instructed state Attorney General Bill Pryor to file suit in Montgomery County in support of Moore. The case ended up before state Circuit Judge Charles Price, who in 1996 declared the prayers unconstitutional but initially allowed the Ten Commandments plaque to remain on the courtroom walls.

Immediately after the ruling, Moore held a press conference vowing to defy the ruling against pre-session prayers and affirming a religious intent in displaying the plaque. Critics responded by asking Price to reconsider his previous ruling, and the judge issued a new ruling requiring the Ten Commandments plaque to be removed in ten days. Moore appealed Price's decision and kept the plaque up; ten days later the Alabama Supreme Court issued a temporary stay against the ruling. The Court never ruled in the case, throwing it out for technical reasons in 1998.

On the day that the circuit court ruling was stayed, Moore appeared on the national morning program Today, praising the ruling and vowing to continue his practices. A poll released soon after found that 88 percent of Alabamians supported Moore. Though Moore was later investigated by the state Judicial Ethics Committee regarding the use of money raised by Coral Ridge Ministries in his defense, the investigation eventually ended with no charges being brought. The practice of opening court sessions with prayer, though not uniform throughout Alabama, continues in state courtrooms today.

the case never got to a ruling, imo, b/c of the wish to not have to admit that this situation is unconstitutional and fly in the face of the merger of church and state that has been so much a part of the republican party in the south since the passage of the civil rights act.

In 2009, the Supreme Court let stand a ruling that a post office that was operated on private property - that was, in fact, a church (the Full Gospel Interdenominational Church,) could not display religious symbols in the post office area b/c the post office was operating as an extension of the federal govt. The case was brought by the ACLU after a complaint.

At the same time, the ACLU also defends the right of individuals and groups to practice their faith - including xtians.

http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression

the problem is when a govt entity puts forth religious beliefs and actions, not when private citizens do so. it's really simple. your fears that no one may pray as a self-selected group, etc. are not supported by the work of the ACLU to support private religious practice.

but that's the thing - the difference is private actions vs. public representations of any one religion. if Judge Moore wants to lead a prayer or invite a minister in to read a prayer before an official govt function - that's wrong.

if a group of people want to gather for a prayer before one of Moore's proceedings start, as an action they initiate - that's within the boundaries of public v. private.

just because this nation has a history of outbreaks of religious fervor and reactionary politicians respond to this - that doesn't make their actions correct or constitutional. it's okay to correct the situation when boundaries were passed in the past.

[Forkboy]

82. I give up.

I might as well just go outside and smash my face into the concrete.

[darkstar3]

70. Remember, freedom of requires freedom from.

You can't have the free expression clause without the establishment clause.

[onpatrol98]

71. Waste of time...for everyone but the ACLU.

It must be time to raise money. If this is the most important thing the ACLU has to pursue, apparently, there are no other problems.

[Bluebear]

73. "It must be time to raise money." - Despicable comment.

[Forkboy]

83. Lame. Not them...your post.

[Bluebear]

85. +

[Canuckistanian]

88. Good luck.

America is a Christian nation. Like it or not. And if you don't, you'll be viciously attacked until you get your mind right.