Cranston High School Prayer Banner Banned
By now most are probably aware that a Rhode Island federal district court ordered Cranston High School to permanently remove a mural hanging in the gymnasium. The mural contained the “School Prayer,” which has hung there since the 1960s.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit against the high school was atheist student Jessica Ahlquist. Notably, she didn’t even notice the banner until someone pointed it out, and she later publicly stated she wasn’t offended by it, but it violated the Constitution. This was largely the premise of the defense: The plaintiff had no standing to sue because she wasn’t “injured” in any form, as required by law; she merely had a political disagreement.
The words at issue were apparently these:
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.
Patently offensive words, naturally. The text was prefaced by the titled “School Prayer,” as well as the first line “Our Heavenly Father,” and the closing “Amen.”
The prayer was apparently recited by students until 1962, when the US Supreme Court enjoined mandatory prayer in public school. The school’s first graduating class of 1963 presented the mural to the school, and it has been there ever since.
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux said
no amount of debate can make the School Prayer anything other than a prayer, and a Christian one at that.
The Prayer concludes with the indisputably religious closing: ‘Amen;’ a Hebrew word used by Jews, Christians and Muslims to conclude prayers. In between, the Prayer espouses values of honesty, kindness, friendship and sportsmanship.
While these goals are commendable, the reliance on God’s intervention as the way to achieve those goals is not consistent with a secular purpose.
Lagueux relied on the Lemon test, which analyzes a “governmental practice or legislative act.” It is difficult to see a mural hanging on the wall of a school gym as either.
The judge also repeatedly, and at length, detailed the hostility from the public the Plaintiff experienced. While notable in certain venues, it is unclear how that is remotely relevant to the government’s relationship to a school mural. To assert that the courts are answerable to, or necessarily influenced by, emotional charges and hostility from advocates on either side of the case may pervert the judicial system itself.
Given the somewhat unusual explanations in the judge’s ruling, it would be interesting to see the US Supreme Court hear this case. Whether it goes that far may be a function of the finances of the school district, however, rather than whether it is right or wrong.
With reference to the Religion Clause.
A school is a government institution. As is the school board. The motives of those who spoke in favour of the banner at the school board meetings were clearly to promote a particular brand of religion. As is always the case in these situations, it is the Christians who shoot themselves in the foot. If you go to meetings, and state that you are doing something to promote a religion, then you are going to lose in courts when you try to say that it is not an attempt to promote a religious point of view.
Some upstanding behavior by so-called “Christians”: http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-national/teen-atheist-abused-via-social-media-after-prayer-banner-ruling.
No young woman should receive death threats because she took a stand for preserving the separation of church and state.
It is indefensible that anyone should get death threats for anything. That said, the result is not uncommon in today’s society: virtually everyone who takes a public position receives similar threats. Doesn’t make it right; just makes it common.
Regardless, the presence of hostility outside the courtroom should not affect the application of law. If that were the case, people would know they could sway judges by making such threats — or by claiming they’d received them.
The law is pretty simple in this regard. Public bodies in the USA cannot promote a particular viewpoint. The schoolbooks members went on record as saying they wanted the banner to stay to promote a religious viewpoint. As a result, they got slapped down.
Cannot promote a particular RELIGIOUS viewpoint
“…virtually everyone who takes a public position receives similar threats.” Really? Against teenagers? I call BS. Cite some sources.
In regards to the application of the law, you are completely off base. Mostly because of your cherry-picking. The school board had the option to remove the illegal language (advocating a christian religion) leaving just the positive message, and they chose not to.
The school is publicly funded. It was, therefore, a government decision (hence practice) to push the language. You and I both know this is the case, and both of us know it is illegal.
And, actually, the presence of hostility clearly demonstrates that this was religiously (and thus illegally) motivated. So it is actually very relevant to the case.
Sorry, but the post is so full of cherry-picking and twisted logic that it may be viewed as further justification why the court decision was correct.
@unbound
You said:
From Judge Ronald Lagueux’s ruling:
No option there. Might want to recheck your facts “in regards to the application of law.”
Actually the only objection was to the religious invocation and closing, all that stuff in the middle could have stayed if the school had agreed to remove “Our heavanly father” and “amen”.
They refused, thus making it clear that the intent of the mural was religious and dooming their whole case.
The hostility and outright threats against the young woman who brought the case also demonstrate why she was right to do so; there is clearly an attitude of religious superiority and hatred of those who do not conform to the majority’s beliefs on the part of the banner’s supporters; exactly the kind of thing that led the founding fathers to reject any endorsement of religion by the State or it’s agents.
This was a pretty clear cut case and the judge made the right decision.
JD:
You have it wrong. Your claim is that the body of the prayer (a rather empty set of platitudes) was at issue. It was the two heading lines and the final line which made it a prayer (and a Christian one to boot) that made it unconstitutional. During an earlier negotiation phase, the school board declined to remove (“School Prayer” [bit of a giveaway], “Our Heavenly Father”, and “Amen”). This action precipitated the trial.
As to the judges decision…it is 100% correct with many precedents (some from the SCOTUS) and will stand on appeal to a higher court. Finally, the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case.
The basic points are:
1) The school board and school employees are agents of the local, state and federal governments.
2) All actions by the “school” *MUST* have a secular purpose. There is very little latitude on this because of the nature (minors) and captivity of the students.
3) The banner is a partisan, religious artifact. It is permitted to hang in a government building by the policies of government agents.
The banner might have been saved with a claim of historicity if it were one of a number of different banners from different decades. But if is unique.
So, down it comes. Hopefully the ACLU fees will come out of the board members pockets rather than the school budget, but I don’t think that will happen. Oh, and an appeal will be throwing good money (est $250,000) after bad (est $30,000).
@MartinDH
Actually, the phrasing was intentionally done to highlight the fact people were so offended by the words “prayer,” “Heavenly Father,” and “Amen,” that they filed a lawsuit and threw the baby out with the bathwater, even by their standards.
It is inconceivable the Constitution was written to prevent such a banner from hanging on the wall of the school, particularly given the religiosity in schools both when the Constitution was written and for more than a century thereafter.
The Constitution is a living document. The fact that it was written at a time when the average American resident followed the Christian religion has no bearing on how the Constitution is interpreted today.
A public school has no business endorsing one religion over another.
JD — the people in charge at Cranston West were given the option BEFORE this went to the court to simply remove the religious words. They were given almost a full YEAR to work out what they were going to do before the case was filed. They had, in other words, every chance *not* to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” If you’re going to blame someone for doing that, blame the officials at Cranston West who decided *not* to keep the unobjectionable material and instead take it to court, where a clear precedent has been set.
Nope. There was mention of anyone being “offended” in the lawsuit. You are lying.
There was NO mention… Sorry bad typing on my ipad
@Donalbain
You might consider a dictionary.
You might consider reading the actual lawsuit and the judgement. Read it and find ANY reference to people “being offended” as you claimed. And then perhaps you can answer the questions you have continued to dodge:
1) What policy was implemented in the US military that was opposed by a majority of US citizens?
2) Which marriage would have been defended had my friends marriage been illegal?
@Donalbain
The ruling specifically quoted the plaintiff saying she wasn’t offended — and then the judge had to explain that her statement to that effect wasn’t inconsistent with being offended, because, as a matter of law, she had to be offended to have a case.
@JD
JD, the Constitution was indeed written, among other things, to prevent a secular religious banner from hanging in a government venue. The fact that the Constitution may have been ignored from time to time by certain religious types in order to advance their own beliefs does not invalidate the constitution or its authors.
You see, a movement starts with a banner hanging in a school and end ends in religious hegemony over a broad spectrum of freedoms. It’s the old inch and a mile saw. Religious dominance begins with such banners. Add to that the many other infractions performed routinely by those whose disdain for the constitution is apparent if not obvious and it is easy to see that particular religions and their practitioners seek dominion over others.
The Lemon Test obviates any defense of such a banner and othetr attempts at Christianizing schools.
JD. I’d just love to see you defend with the same vigor a public school’s right to hang such an inoffensive “mural” if it had started with “Allāhu Akbar” and ended with “Amin”. Fundie Christians are all the same..religion in government funded schools is OK, as long as it’s the “right” religion.
@Mark
It’s impossible for an Islamic banner to be in the same position as the one at Cranston because Islam hasn’t been a part of the fabric of American culture for more than 200 years.
Regardless, if you spent some time reading more on this site you’d see a consistent message: Religious freedom applies to all faiths, and the government must act equivalently in respect to each faith. For example, you’ll note this site has praised the military’s fielding of chaplains from various faiths, as it protects religious freedom by doing so.
The “what if” retort about Islam, satanism, etc, is not only tripe, it is offensive to members of those demographics, as it presents them as some kind of token outlier perceived as an extreme in the American cultural gamut.
Yes, it has. There have been Muslims in America for more than 200 years. But hey, we know you have never let facts get in the way before, why start now?
@JD
Same ol’ same ol’. JD what you are saying is that because of Christianity’s majority in America, the familiarity with it that permeates the religious atmosphere and the favoritism it has received from practitioners in positions of prominence and power, that it should continue to be favored and exempt from the conditions other religions must observe.
Christianity’s 250 years or so of majority and familiarity still does not qualify it for special privilege or position. I can understand you wanting it to prevail but your and my oath to uphold the constitution must take precedence. All religions irrespective of their population, popularity or tenure are equal in the eyes of the law. Despite repeated attempts by misguided Christians to advance their beliefs above others we must all be alert to the dangers of the tyranny that majority religions can bring. The bigger and more widespread the religion, the more attention to regulating it must be taken. I give you Islam as an example of a religion in which certain elements have run amok. Jihad is a way of life for some sects and oppression and murder a common practice. Christianity has not reached that stage in America as yet but in certain countries in Africa, South East Asia and other world locations Christian missions have presided over one atrocity after another including witch huints and burning at the stake.
Certain elemenst of Christianity in America, however, seek to emulate Islamic extremism because of their unflagging belief in the superiority of Christianity. We know these sects as “Christian Dominionists” or “Christian Reconstructionists.” The quest for religious supremacy is plain. There are moderate Christians just as there are moderate Muslims but signs of Christian Domionionism are becoming more common. Without some resistance to religious hegemony, Christianity might well become the West’s version of Islam.
@Richard
You’re hardly qualified to tell someone else what they’re saying, particularly when your assertions are based on flights of fancy rather than reality. Not only are you wrong, the text clearly says nothing of the sort.
Someone could say “the sky is blue” and you’d figure out a way to say it means Christians are trying to take over the world. Come to think of it, one might be tempted to ask what color the sky is in your world…
@JD
JD,
It doesn’t take a PhD to figure out what Christian Dominionism is and where and how it is practiced. The Dominionsts are happy to tell you themselves. And they do.
The only qualification one needs to identify Dominionism is the power of observation.
What you are basically saying is that Christianity is America’s religion and should be recognized as such. Baseball, Chevrolet, Apple Pie and Christianity.