Cranston Ri School - Religious Intolerance

[Papist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1329782965' post='2390308']
It's not to prevent her from being offended. The legal issue is not whether she is or was offended. The issue is weather the banner amounts to a state endorsement of religion. That's not difficult to understand. You don't have to agree that the banner amounts to a state endorsement of religion. But you should be able to grasp what the issue at stake is. Why you and so many people seem chronically unable or unwilling to grasp a very basic point is infinity mysterious.
[/quote]

How does the [color=#282828]banner amount to a state endorsement of religion?[/color]

[Papist]

Was it the girl was not offended, why then she fight against the banner?

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1329783353' post='2390312']
How does the [color=#282828]banner amount to a state endorsement of religion?[/color]
[/quote]

Because the school is a state institution. If individuals in the school want to come up with their own prayer for the school and its students and the teams et cetera and encourage parents to wear those shirts to school events, that is fine. The school as an institution just can't do it.


[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1329783443' post='2390315']
Was it the girl was not offended, why then she fight against the banner?
[/quote]

Because she's an activist and believed the banner was unconstitutional. It may have offended her at a personal level. I don't know. But her suit wasn't based on her personal feelings. t was based on weather the banner amounted to a state endorsement of religion.

[Luigi]

Two points, one practical & one theoretical.

Practical - So the girl won her suit to have the banner removed. I don't consider the banner a state endorsement of religion, but at any rate, now she doesn't have to see the words "Heavenly Father" and "Amen" every day. But if the students say the Pledge of Allegiance, they say the words "under God;" she may not, but everybody else does. If the students sing "God Bless America" in an assembly or something, that's an even more direct and stronger reference to God. Her money still reads, "In God we trust." In a court of law, does she still have to swear on a Bible? I don't know if they've changed that or not. The point being she has won this victory, but she still lives in a society that not only recognizes citizens' belief in God but actually incorporates it into various forms & levels of government.

Theoretical - Is there a difference between a religion, a church/demonination, and generic faith? The sentence in the Constitution that people refer to for separation of Church and State is: "The government shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion." Now, the grammarian in me interprets that sentence to mean, "The government shall not pass any laws regulating religions-churches-denominations or their institutions," but that's not the way the courts have been interpreting it lately. Even if the founding fathers intended it to mean, "The government shall make no attempt to establish a state Church," (because that had been a problem back in England), I don't see generic words like "Heavenly Father" or "Amen" as contributing to the establishment of a government-backed Church. I see a difference between:
A. The government trying to establish the Southern Baptist Convention, or Catholicism, or Judaism as the state Church and
B. The government allowing members of the Southern Baptist Convention, or Catholics, or Jews to reference their faith-beliefs in their speech - including their public speech, including written speech, including in schools.

The banner was in no way proseltyzing. It did not say or even imply, "You should join this particular Church (or any church at all)."

To ask people of faith to completely isolate that aspect of their lives in public is to infringe on their free speech rights. It would be like asking people to never mention their families, or their national heritage, or their age, or the sports teams they follow. We are integrated human beings - for people of faith, that includes our religion-faith - and the government ought not to ask us to leave parts of ourselves at home.

The government cannot sponsor a state religion. But neither can it prevent citizens of faith from saying so... even in public.

[4588686]

[b]I do not hate a sixteen year old girl. I do not approve of anyone threatening a sixteen year old girl - either her life, her safety, or even her sense of security.[/b]

Really. I guess I got confused when, rather than express outrage, or even mild disapproval, with her life being threatened you said that 'she started it' and then meditated a bit on the fact that those who 'go cruising for a bruising' sometimes get bruised.


[b]However. The sixteen year old girl is the one - let me repeat [i]ONE[/i] - who lodged the complaint with the school. [/b]


BECAUSE SHE IS AN [b]AMERICAN CITIZEN[/b]. AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN HER RIGHTS AND THE LIMITS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT SETS UPON THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT [b]ARE NOT SUBJECT TO MAJORITY APPROVAL[/b]. THIS IS WHY YOU CAN SAY UNPOPULAR THINGS. BECAUSE YOUR RIGHT TO ADVOCATE AN UNPOPULAR OPINION IS NOT SUBJECT TO MAJORITY ASSENT.

[b]Let's do some math, shall we? Suppose Cranston High School graduates only 200 students per year - let's assume it's a small school. In forty years, 8,000 American citizens have graduated from Cranston. If it's a larger school, the number of graduates would, of course, be proportionately higher. Those 8,000 American citizens have probably something like 10 or 12,000 parents - let's assume some families send multiple children to the same high school, some of the parents are dead, some are divorced, whatever. So a total of 18 or 20,000 American citizens - stakeholders in this school - have had no problem with this banner. If we add in the high school administration, board of education, janitors, teachers, librarians - what you do guess - another 250 people? Well, that's an insignificant number, let's just ignore them.

Over the course of forty years, 18 or 20,000 American citizens have seen a banner hanging in some hallway at Cranston high. Not one of them filed a legal complaint against the banner. They may not have liked the banner. They have been offended by the banner. They may have asked the administration to remove the banner - the original newspaper article didn't say; but I assume that if this ugly question had been raised in the past, the newspaper would have recounted that so we could see the true perversity of this pattern of discrimination. So it would appear that not one of those 18 or 20,000 American citizens filed a legal complaint against the school for publicly hanging a banner with the words Heavenly Father and Amen on it.

But then one day, a particular student - in this case a sixteen-year-old girl - looks at these words. The words were part of the school tradition for 24 years before she was even born, and for another 16 years since she was born. So she sees these words and is - what? You tell me. Upset? Angered? Offended? Hurt? Cut to the quick? Wounded in the core of her being? Whatever her reaction is, she decides she must go to law over this. And somehow, she manages to actually do it.[/b]


There are plenty of banana republics where the majority can always piss all over the rights of the few. Where there is no limit on the government and where individuals only have the right to do or say that which a majority of the people approve. Unfortunately, you do not live in such a system. Since you clearly do not agree with the Framers on the very fundamental point that individuals have rights that ought to be protected from majority tyranny maybe you should move elsewhere.
[b]Now, I'm particularly curious about how this happened. I don't know any sixteen-year-olds who have a lawyer on retainer. I don't even know any sixteen-year-olds who have the cajones to challenge the school board. [/b]

Then maybe she should be congratulated for being willing to assert her opinion and open herself up to being bullied and threatened in order to stand up for what she feels to be right rather. As opposed to adults implying that she's basically a sock puppet and has no right to complain that her life is being threatened, since, you know, she went cruising for a bruising.

[b]But I'd be especially curious to know how this particular sixteen-year-old happened upon a lawyer who works for the ACLU. My guess is either this sixteen-year-old [i]or her parents[/i] called the ACLU, which is possible, or the ACLU got hold of[i] her[/i]. And - this is strictly speculation on my part - I think that's what happened. Because although the ACLU could [i]never[/i] be accused of a pattern of discrimination the way a majority-run institution is, they do have a.. shall we say... long history of finding.. of, what's a good term?.... Banner Children to carry their water for them. A couple of years ago, a guy (not a lawyer at all, so definitely not an ACLU lawyer, but the same basic tactic) filed a complaint on behalf of his ten-year-old who was being forced to say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.[/b]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston[/url]
[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]
[i]In July 2010, the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union"]American Civil Liberties Union[/url] (ACLU) sent a letter to the school superintendent on behalf of an unnamed parent who complained about the banner.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#cite_note-4"][5][/url][/sup] Initially, school officials thought the banner could be modified, avoiding the prohibitive expense of a lawsuit.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#cite_note-5"][6][/url][/sup] Ahlquist had noticed the banner in her first year in high school. After reading about the complaint, she decided to sit in on the school board meetings. She also created a Facebook page[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#cite_note-6"][7][/url][/sup] to try and raise support for the cause. At an August 2010 meeting of the Cranston School Committee, a subcommittee was asked to make recommendations about the disposition of the banner; Ahlquist attended the public meetings of the subcommittee in November 2010 and February 2011. At the end of the November meeting, out of safety concerns, a police escort was provided for Ahlquist and one other person who spoke in favor of the banner's removal.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#cite_note-ruling-7"][8][/url][/sup] At a contentious meeting of the full committee, she argued the case for the removal of the banner and a similar display at Bain Middle School.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#cite_note-HuffPo_2-8"][9][/url][/sup] The committee voted 4-3 in favor of keeping the banner in place, despite a budget deficit and the threat of an ACLU lawsuit.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#cite_note-9"][10][/url][/sup][/i][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]
[i]The Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU asked Ahlquist if she would serve as a plaintiff in a lawsuit.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#cite_note-NYT-3"][4][/url][/sup] The suit was filed in April 2011.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#cite_note-10"][11][/url][/sup] The Cranston School Committee had made defense arrangements with [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Cavanagh"]Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr.[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Becket_Fund_for_Religious_Liberty"]The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty[/url] which represented them without charge.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#cite_note-11"][12][/url][/sup][/i][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]
[i]District Court Judge [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_R._Lagueux"]Ronald R. Lagueux[/url] issued a decision in favor of Ahlquist on January 11, 2012.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#cite_note-12"][13][/url][/sup] The decision was in part based on the Establishment Clause of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]First Amendment[/url], and the United States Supreme Court's earlier rulings in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman"]Lemon v. Kurtzman[/url] (1971), [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynch_v._Donnelly"]Lynch v. Donnelly[/url] (1984), and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman"]Lee v. Weisman[/url] (1992).[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston#cite_note-ruling-7"][8][/url][/sup][/i][/size][/font][/color]

[b]So what do we have at this point? A forty-year-old banner with three religiously-tinged words. 18 or 20 thousand people who've never had a problem with it. And a sixteen-year-old student who is either consciously in league with the ACLU or is being manipulated by the ACLU - either way. The ACLU volunteers its services for this student; the hearings rack up $170,000 in court fees. The school loses the case. The student wins. Then banner is coming down. And the ACLU is asking the court to require the school to pay the $170,000 that the ACLU racked up for them in court costs. [/b]

God bless America

[b] In my neck of the woods, we call that "the protection racket." You own a business - I want you to pay me money, without working for your business. I threaten you - pay me the money, or things could start happening to your business. I don't pay you the money - there's a fire, somebody chucks a brick through my display window, the city building inspector shows up; I pay the money - all my bad luck stops. And this sixteen-year-old student is the ACLU's shill. [/b]

The ACLU isn't getting money from the school as a profit. They are asking the school to pay the court costs and legal fees. That's fairly common in lawsuits.

[b]One student trumps forty years of tradition and the rights of the 18 or 20,000 to live their lives as they always have. She and the ACLU make it seem like these 18 or 20,000 peaceable American citizens intentionally set out to violate the rights of this sweet, innocent, unable-to-defend-herself-so-we-have-to-come-to-her-aid girl, this damsel in distress. When in fact, the 18 or 20,000 were there first, minding their own business, and going about their constitutional little lives. [/b]

Yep.

[b]It seems supremely and inexcusably unfair to me that the supposed rights of one person can trump the rights of a pre-existing community. [/b]

She's part of the community. And again, since you clearly do not agree with the basic governing principles laid out in the constitution, you could always move to another country that has a view more agreeable to your sense of the proper rights of the individual against the masses. The rights of everyone else was not violated. If you want to wear a t-shirt of the pledge all around town you can. But majority assent does not give a state institution the right to overstep its bounds an endorse religious faith in clear violation of the First Amendment.

[b]It seems to me that this "offense" was so mild as to be tolerable to even the most sensitive spirit. And that's what infuriates me about the ACLU, about "Obama's war on religion" - I don't actually see Obama as being intelligent or organized enough to wage war on his next door neighbor, but I understand why other people feel that way - about the culture wars. [/b]
ok

[b] Hasan mentioned earlier that it's pretty obviously a frivolous suit. Wrong again, Hasan. Obviously not. The court [i]could[/i] have dismissed it as a frivolous suit - that's a well-established legal term - but the court[i] didn't[/i] dismiss it as frivolous. Any sixteen-year-old with common sense should be able to see the frivolity of this suit prima facia, and that the court should have dismissed it. But not this student, not the ACLU, and not the court. So now it seems like this babe, the ACLU, and the court are all in league against just-your-average-Americans. And maybe I'm wrong about that - maybe Cranston High is a center of neo-Nazism, racism, and all things anti-liberal - I don't know, I've never been there.[/b]

I think the issue is frivolous. I don't think it's worth the money to carry out this battle. But the constitutional grounds upon which she stood were perfectly firm. You're right, the court didn't throw out the case. Because she was correct in her suit.

[b]Jesus left the 99 in search of the one lost sheep. I understand that. But I don't understand the one lost sheep trumping the rights of the 18 or 20,000. That's what pisses me off. There are a lot of a-religious people in this country. I'm not worried about them. They let the religious people do whatever they want, and we kind of ignore each other. Just like the Occupy Wall Street people complaining about the 1%? I'm complaining about the .00005% (1 / 20,000) that are actively anti-religious - in the name of liberalism, they've become the new Dracos. [/b]

You do not have any right to have your state institution endorse any religion or religions. That right does not exist. Sorry.

[b]er mind.But the Church has been through worse persecutions than this - we'll go through them again, in the near future from what I can tell - and we'll survive them again.[/b]

[b]But it does make me sad to see what used to be a pretty good democracy going to hell right before my very eyes.


And dear, sweet, Innocent.... never mind.

I'm done now.

And dear, sweet, Innocent... nev[/b]

No Priest's lives were threatened. A 16 year old girl's was. And having her state representative call her an 'evil little thing' must have been quite nice. If members of the community want to have their own pledge, they can. If they wan't to wear t-shirts with the pledge on them, they can. If they want to pledge tattooed across their foreheads, they can. They do not, however, have any right, to use a state institution to endorse religion.

[Luigi]

I re-reading my previous post, another thought struck me.

The line in the Constitution says: "The government shall make no law regarding an establishment or religion."

The banner in no way constitutes a law. It's just a banner.

[Papist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1329785363' post='2390340']
Because the school is a state institution. If individuals in the school want to come up with their own prayer for the school and its students and the teams et cetera and encourage parents to wear those shirts to school events, that is fine. The school as an institution just can't do it.




Because she's an activist and believed the banner was unconstitutional. It may have offended her at a personal level. I don't know. But her suit wasn't based on her personal feelings. t was based on weather the banner amounted to a state endorsement of religion.
[/quote]

The banner was a gift from a graduating class, not the state. To say the banner is the state's endorsement of religion is absurd, and you know it.

[Innocent]

Hasan, surely Luigi and Papist have a point in that the banner was not an official statement from that institution endorsing any religion?

From what I understand, a group of alumini donated that banner to their school as an expression of their love for their old school. The school displayed the banner as an acknowledgement of their expression of love.

If a future group of students were to donate a banner stating something like, "We're from the batch of 2086 and we're atheists and so in this banner in which we express our affection for our school we also deny the existence of any god whatsoever." then surely, if the school were to display this banner you wouldn't say that the school was thereby endorsing atheism, would you?

[Luigi]

BTW, I misquoted the Constitution. Just for the sake of accuracy and intellectual honesty, the words from the first amendment are:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

So the prohibition is actually limited to Congress.