Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

Full story.

Many of you may have seen this already, an atheist high school student had a prayer removed from the auditorium of her school, a prayer which had been there for 49 years and had been made and gifted to the school by a seventh grade student.

The prayer is as follows:

Quote

• Jessica, the atheist student, believed the prayer was an affront, saying "It seemed like it was saying, every time I saw it, ‘You don’t belong here,’”.
  
• A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.
  
• Last March, the school board voted 4-3 to keep the prayer. Some members said it was an important piece of the school’s history; others said it reflected secular values they held dear.
  
• No one had ever been forced to recite the prayer.

Is the ruling by the federal judge correct or unconstitutional? Does the presence of such prayer really violate the principle of government neutrality in religion?

Is the prayer really an affront to people with different religious views, or does it "espouse nothing more than those values which we all hope for our children, no matter what school they attend or which religious background they hail from", as someone in the article said?

State your thoughts and opinions, and remember this is not a place to debate the existence of a deity or to debate religious views.

This post has been edited by Itu: 27 January 2012 - 06:04 PM

So, a bit of a crass move on the students part and from the way this issue has been worded she seems like one of those militant atheist types who are almost as bad as militant religious types.

If the prayer had been put up last year or something then I would say remove it, however as it was a piece of the schools history I would say keep it up instead, it isn't too much a symbol of piety and more so of a child's creativity.

Overall I vote the removal a dick move.

Remove first 3 words and the amen. Bam no loner religious. Is that a decent compromise?

Nik, on 27 January 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

I know haw dare she think the school should abide by the constitution.

@RickAstley They should abide by the spirit of the law not the letter.

No, they should abide by the letter of the law. It's how everything else works. Why should religion get a free pass?

I can guarantee that if it was a Hindu scripture that was removed, or a quote from the Koran, no one would be pissed.

Carcharocles, on 27 January 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

I would...

Though it is true that we don't normally follow the spirit. I would like to change that, but it will never happen.

Carcharocles, on 27 January 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

It's not even scripture or a quote from the bible, it's the thoughts of a child, and doesn't have any religious bearing aside from the first three words and the "amen", as Rawr mentioned. I don't think they have it there as a religious statement at all, or that it assumes the school is religious, but more as a moral guideline to go by, one that people with any religious beliefs can take. Meaning, a "prayer" like that from another religion could be hung beside that one, and I would see no contradiction.

This post has been edited by Itu: 27 January 2012 - 07:35 PM

It's a prayer. It doesn't matter where it comes from, or what it means, it's a prayer to a deity in a public high school. It doesn't matter what the intents behind hanging it there are, it's a fucking PRAYER. It's unconstitutional for it to be there. The school should not have it hanging on their wall.

It doesn't promote religious exercise whatsoever, and has very little to nothing to do with establishment of religion in the school. It is a piece of history addressing what the school sees as its goals, and even acknowledges they are something people have to do for themselves, and not something given to them, asking the deity only for the desire to do so.

It is something akin to Ceremonial Deism, meaning it has become something ritual and celebratory instead of a religious statement (and it wasn't even a religious statement in the first place, more of a moral guideline), like what happened to the "In God we trust" motto on dollar bills.

This post has been edited by Itu: 27 January 2012 - 08:02 PM

Ergh.

What part of "It doesn't matter where it comes from or what it means," did you not get from my statement? It has no place in the school. For that matter, that phrase has no place on government money either. And this isn't my agnostic beliefs interfering with my brain. Back when I was heavily religious, I made this exact same argument. Ceremonial, celebratory, moral guideline, paint it anyway you want, it's addressed to a deity and therefore violates the first amendment.
Your statement that "hur dur it's just a moral guideline," and the fact that you brought up the "In God We Trust" means nothing. It's all talk. Ceremonial Deism, you're acknowledging it has no place in the school. It starts with "Heavenly Father" and ends with "Amen." It shouldn't be hanging in a school. Altering would obviously go against the wishes of the creator. He's all grown up now. Let him hang it in his church.

You have ignored my argument completely, assumed I ignored yours, and simply kept repeating your "it has something to do with religion so it has no place there" argument, though I can understand you don't know what Ceremonial Deism is.

Here.

Following your logic, "In God we Trust" is addressed to a deity and therefore violates the first amendment. That's not how it works.

Ceremonial Deism is "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content". Let me repeat myself for the third time here, it is NOT a religious statement from the school, and it has very little to no religious bearing, and furthermore, it isn't being pushed on anyone by any means. It isn't a standard. It doesn't define a religious position, it's just a piece of history, a composition made by someone and adopted by the school because it reflects their moral ideals.

This post has been edited by Itu: 27 January 2012 - 08:18 PM

In Silly Superstitions We Trust

E Pluribus Stupidum.

Let me explain this to you: if you look up the reference in that article, you will find, among other things, 3 criteria under which something must fall to be covered under your law.
"Under God:" The Pledge, Present and Future | University of Chicago Law School

The "document" doesn't fit any of these. First, it wasn't in place for a significant portion of the nation's history; just since 1963 in one school in one Roman Catholic town. That's a rather SMALL part of history. The pledge of allegiance got a pass here because it existed on a national level for all this time, as does "In God We Trust".
Second, this doesn't fit the requirement of being absent of worship or prayer, since it is spoken directly to God. I mean, it's a fucking prayer. The pledge and the phrase get a pass because they reference God; this one is spoken directly to him.
Third, the prayer doesn't make it because it is clearly Christian in nature; no other faith calls him "Our Heavenly Father." Islam he is Allah (The God, literally) and Judaism doesn't use this phrase, as God being a father is based on the New Testament.

There's a reason I ignored your point. There's also a reason why I took issue with "In God We Trust;" I do not like the Establishment Clause and I don't agree with it. I NEVER have, not even in my most religious days. So stop making the same misguided and incorrect statement over and over; the prayer is a prayer. It isn't covered under the shoddy piece of bureaucratic toiletry known as The Establishment Clause. It has to go.

This post has been edited by Carcharocles: 27 January 2012 - 08:34 PM

The article you linked to talks about the pledge of allegiance, which is so widespread that an exception needs to be permitted for the ones that don't want to do it, and not the other way around, which may lead to social pressure which timid and meek childs probably won't want to fight. You could relate this to the prayer on the wall if the school made the students recite it. It doesn't. It's just there. They don't make an open statement about their religious views unlike in the pledge.

For the first criterion, the "time" and role in history: "In God we Trust" is in all currency in the country, and for that, has to be a part of history of the whole country to support its existence. Saying the prayer on the wall would require to be a huge part of history of the whole country to be able to justify being in just one school doesn't seem very convincing. If it was something that would be implemented or appeared in a lot of schools through the country, it would need to be a huge chunk of history to validate its widespread nature, if you get what I'm saying.

For the second criterion, the "absence of worship": There is a huge difference between the prayer in the wall and the pledge. As the article you linked to says: "The pledge is of course entirely different: impressionable children are being asked to join in a ritual observance that is an affirmation of God as well as of country". No one is asking the children in the school to recite the prayer, or even to acknowledge a god. The pledge explicitly says "one nation under God", acknowledging his existence and worshipping him as a father of the nation. The prayer in the wall doesn't even say that, it just mentions him as someone able to inpire people to go and be better.

I find the third criterion silly, to be honest. The fact that you don't reference a particular religion doesn't mean that you're not excluding a lot of religions and agnostic/atheist positions. The pledge and the motto "In God we Trust" exclude everything other than a monotheistic religion.

You article also says this:

"What about “In God We Trust?” Well, it has in principle the same problem, but it was not introduced with intent to exclude and denigrate, and the fact that it does so much better on the first two criteria seems to me to suggest that the third criterion might be waived in that case. The criteria are not supposed to be necessary conditions of acceptability, just good things to look for."

The prayer was NOT introduced with intent to exlude and denigrate at all, and it even promotes moral values, and states the criteria (even though they're fulfilled by the prayer) are just "good things to look for". You seem to take them as an absolute guideline, which leads you to think the pledge does fulfill them.

I don't see the problem with the establishment clause?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
It just states that no laws can be made to establish a particular religion, which you seem to support, seeing as you hold (and with reason) the separation of church and estate in such a high esteem. If the establishment clause goes, then anyone can make laws and establish state religions.

This post has been edited by Itu: 27 January 2012 - 09:19 PM

You realize that's the only source listed for your Wikipedia article, right? In discrediting this article, you're discrediting your Wikipedia article. A Wiki article is only as good as the sources listed. A Wikipedia article without a source should not be seen as credible, and when the only source listed is discredited, the article is discredited.

My stance is as follows:

It fails the first criteria in that it's not a huge part of history, period. It must be historical for the entire country to fall under the exception; that's how the US constitution works. I'm sorry if you don't find it convincing, but the fact of the matter is one school in one town isn't significant enough for it to count. You're talking about a town that likely has less than 60,000 residents in a country where several hundred million exist, and unless the town is very, very small it's not the only high school in the area. It cannot be considered historically significant.

It fails the second criteria in that it is functionally a prayer. It may be used as a motto, but it's a prayer, and I highly doubt the child who wrote it was anything other than the town's typical Roman Catholic. The writer of the Pledge of Allegiance did not originally include the phrase "under god;" furthermore, it only mentioned God in passing. It was not a prayer nor a method of worship, whereas this document was clearly written with religious intent. Whether or not someone is being forced isn't the issue here, no matter how much you want it to be. No one's forcing me to be a Catholic or Protestant, but I'm surrounded by them. They're still Catholics and Protestants. And the Catholics and Protestants each have their own versions of the bible.

For the last point, I'm going to make the same statement: Our Heavenly Father is a phrase spoken ONLY in Christianity, whereas God encompasses Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Bah'ai (forgive me if I misspelled that). If it's silly and useless, the prayer still faces the other two criteria and fails.

And I should clarify: I don't hate the Establishment Clause, I hate the frequent exceptions to it that are allowed. Sorry if I misspoke on this one.

seems to ne that the motto is reflecting the fact that someone is praying to a spiritual being, to be granted the abilities to do well in school and to be looked upon as a good student.

It's definitely not the only source, and it's not the source for the quote I grabbed, sorry that you misunderstood that. The quotes have their own sources, albeit they're not listed in the bottom where they probably should be. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) is the citation for the quote I adressed, and another one is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004)

The article on establishment clause also has several more citations and references, if you want to look at that.

Criterion 1: It can not be considered historically significant for the whole country clearly, which is why it's not in the whole country. It's historically significant for the school, which is why it's confined to the school.

Criterion 2: It doesn't matter what the pledge of allegiance originally include, but what it is now because that's what's being recited by people and what exerts social pressure. I don't see it as having a clear religious intent. The intent seems to be the will to become a better person. Religion is just referenced in the sense that the child gets his inspiration to do it from god. The fact that no one is being forced is important. These criteria are analized for something to be the standard, meaning something should fulfill these criteria to be able to pass as a standard, like the pledge of allegiance, and from there you can voluntarily decide not to recite it. The prayer is not a standard for anything.

Criterion 3: Yes, it's silly and useless. Again, the bad thing is excluding religious viewpoints, not referencing a particular one. The pledge, the motto and the prayer all exclude religious viewpoints, but the pledge and the motto are accepted while the prayer is not. Maybe this is why the author goes out of his way to state "The criteria are not supposed to be necessary conditions of acceptability, just good things to look for."

Pants, on 27 January 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

The wording is imporant to note. All that the child is doing is asking god for the desire to pursue by himself the abilities and his life. He's not asking him to grant them to him. It would be very different and offensive if it said something like "God, please grant me the <good things>, we know that only you can lead us to them".

This post has been edited by Itu: 27 January 2012 - 09:48 PM

If we're still discussing the OP this atheist teen is a fucking retard

esalaka, on 27 January 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

After 7 hours of a post on reddit on r/atheism saying "Remember the 16 year old atheist girl that got the school prayer removed? There's an online poll that needs our attention. You know what to do Reddit", the online poll has (at this moment) 81.2% supporting the atheist teen, with a total of ~136 000 votes.

My guess is that non religious people have seen so much religious stupidity lately (or always) that they're quick to rush at anything related with religion and bash it, which can prove fatal for religious freedom.

This post has been edited by Itu: 27 January 2012 - 09:59 PM

Or maybe, you know, her claim has merit?

Carcharocles, on 27 January 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

In the words of a man much smarter then all of us. "Cry some more!!!"
Wasn't that big a deal I seriously doubt anyone in the entire school ever talked about it.

Rawrdinosaur, on 27 January 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

"In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion."

I meant prior to her complaining. No one probably ever talked about the the quote or even really looked at it.

Of course everyone was gonna be angry at her after she got rid of it. I mean us on the internet who have no connection at all are talking about it. The town is probably freaking out at her. She probably really feel like she doesn't belong now.

This post has been edited by Rawrdinosaur: 27 January 2012 - 10:17 PM

I just skimmed over the article and didn't see anywhere if the high school was public or private. Assuming it's a public school, then there really shouldn't prayers or things of religious importance out on display. Private schools can do that, no problem.

I understand the prayer was up on the wall for about 50 years, back when something like that would be totally fine by the majority of Americans. Since we were crazed about fighting Communism back in the 60s, practically anything non-Christian was considered to be against America, thus part of a Communist conspiracy. This is also where we got the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance.

In today's age, religious freedom in America is a bit more widespread, but there will ALWAYS be people who will attack anything that's not in their faith. She could have handled it better by requesting the school CHANGE the prayer into a motto that drops the religious themes instead of removing the thing altogether and raising a big stink about it. Probably would have pissed off a lot less people that way.

Quote

this

Quote

Uhhh, no? Obviously not that many others care. Individuals can object on personal grounds, but you cannot force such a thing over other people's heads. If they A) don't want their constitution "defended" or B) value their constitutional rights but have no qualms about this 1/2 century old testament to history and values, which you have a right in following or not following (nobody's making you follow it), then there is no problem.
This is exactly America's problem with the middle east. We think we know what's best for everyone else.

It's her fault for taking offense at it. It's not meant to be offensive or unconstitutional in any way. Colloquially, she should remove that fucking iron bar from her skinny ass and stop being such an overbearing bitch.

This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 27 January 2012 - 11:41 PM

Personally, I'm on the school's side, strange as it may be. I do not believe the person who wrote that prayer wrote it with religious intent; they were just too religious to comprehend how one can talk about morality without referencing religion. And I do not believe the school had religious intent in hanging it up; they simply liked the values it expressed. If they forced the students to recite it, then it would be forcing them to pray and it would be bad, but as it is it simply functions as a reminder that a) honesty, kindness, and diligence are good qualities and b) the town has contained, at some point in its history, at least one religious person. The first is a good thing to be reminded of, and the second is so blatantly obvious that under normal circumstances it would by no means bear mentioning that the existence of religion can be inferred from the phrasing. While there would certainly be no inherent problem in taking it down, as high school students should in theory be at least intellectually aware of such principles as the value of hard work whether or not it's on the wall, I do not believe the school is obligated to do so.

I'm not a christian, but who or what does the prayer hurt?
Also, i feel sorry for the girl, because even if she realizes that she was wrong, she can't get it put back up.

Everyone needs to mind their own business. Enough already.

I support jessica's decision to have the prayer removed its a public school after all who gives a shit if the prayer is part of the schools history its just a fucking prayer. Laws on Jessica's side so everyone else can go shove it.

Ohhhh, so the government's law is the basis for what's right and what's wrong? I had no idea it could be so clean cut

Get that stuff out of schools. People don't need a fucking heavenly mandate to know how to be good people. I'm sure everyone here's had some experience with religion. No matter how much stupid shit is put up on the walls with "inspiring" messages, nobody is ever going to change because of it. It doesn't serve a purpose to be up there, except break the law.

Nurematsu, on 28 January 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

ummm yes? I am pretty sure the law is there to tell you whats right and wrong.

Supah, on 28 January 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

So, if the law says that people who work on Sundays are to be thrown in prison, it's immoral to work on Sundays?

The discussion is not really whether the law is right or wrong, the discussion is whether having the prayer up there or removing the prayer is unconstitutional or not, and maybe wether it's right or wrong. A lot of people are saying "It's prayer, so it has to go because law", without explaining why they think it breaks the law.

Let's not turn this into a debate about whether the law defines morality (Hint: It doesn't).

This post has been edited by Itu: 28 January 2012 - 01:41 AM

Supah, on 28 January 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

No, the law says what's legal and what's not.

And to get back on topic, I don't really think she needed to make a big fuss about the prayer. Was she being forced to recite the prayer every day? If that's the case, that would be pushing it a bit far. If the prayer only came up during assemblies, she would have been better off just ignoring it and letting it go. When she's done with high school in two years, it won't even matter to her if that prayer is still up on that wall.

This post has been edited by Nurematsu: 28 January 2012 - 01:43 AM

Personally, I think making a secular (god-free) version of the banner would've been an excellent compromise. As for whether or not it is legal, I am not entirely certain.
I think a strong case can be made that the display is sectarian in nature based on the phrase "Our Heavenly Father", which is Christianity-specific (thus violating the Establishment Clause). On the other hand, I'm not sure what harm, if any, the banner caused. Perhaps one could say that it made non-Christians feel like second-class citizens or reinforced the image that "Christian = good, Non-Christian = bad". Perhaps, perhaps not.

One thing I am certain of is that the behavior exhibited by some religious people in response to the suit (death threats, etc.) is horrid.
On the bright side, some religious people stood against the horrid behaviors of their peers and even stood up for Ahlquist.
Religious group defends Ahlquist | WPRI.com

Rawrdinosaur, on 27 January 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

The spirit of the law is that there is freedom from religion and no mixing of church and state with is what this is.

No, it's not legal that a school, a public institution I might add, demand that you act on such a leap of faith as accepting the existence of God. If you think otherwise, you have my permission to pour gasoline on yourself, light it and then take up your grievance with The Big Dog Himself if he happens to exist by your definition.

Don't be mad when you see me on the other side, grinning, after having told you I don't exist and to kill yourself for believing that I exist. I will cast you down with the sinners and sodomites, so help me Me.

Hans Vedic, on 28 January 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

Are your retarded? where is the law that says you should be thrown in prison for working on Sundays? you cannot make up hypothetical bullshit to support your argument.

I don't think anyone is implying that it's legal or morally right that a school (or anything, for that matter) forces you to accept the existence of a deity.

Hey guys, some guy took a poop near my school that kind of looks like the baby Jesus in the 50's and we've left it there ever since as tradition. You don't have to believe in poop, you just have to pray to it and make obeisance to it whenever our school does anything.

They made no one recite the prayer either and I don't think they made a big deal about it. It was just there. I'm pretty sure they respected the separation of religion and state.

This post has been edited by Itu: 28 January 2012 - 04:09 AM

The point is its illegal for a public school to display religious things within them. End of story.

Thing is, they weren't displaying it as a religious symbol, but more as an ideal of morals given to them by a student, to show the moral spirit they try to achieve. The prayer just happens to ask a deity for the desire to pursue them because the student was religious.

I don't care if they didn't make anyone recite the prayer, the fact it was there in a school that isn't Catholic from the get-go is wrong. A school should be multicultural and with no bias towards any sort of religion or institution. To have a prayer there is to basically encourage religion, Catholicism no less. It is unconstitutional. There is no debate about it.

If it was a message of morals, then yes that would be fine. But you're arguing something that isn't so. It is a prayer, that was its intention. You cannot argue this.

If they wanted it to be a general moral message, then it should have been that in the first place.

Itu, on 28 January 2012 - 04:09 AM, said:

I'm not going to make you recite it, but I'm going to hang this enormous copy of the lyrics to Gym Class Heroes's "Stereo Heart" in your living room. You don't have to like the song, it'll just be tradition okay?

A student can post a prayer on their own locker.

A school can never post anything religious anywhere. This was a school posting something religious. It does not matter that it originally came from a student; the moment it became something the -school- did it became an illegal establishment/promotion of religion by a governmental institution.

This is absolutely illegal in any public school in the United States.

There is no excuse.

There is a problem I hold with actions like this, which is the ones espousing the "Seperation of Church and State" argument the most tend to be Athiest. There is an amusing bit of hypocrisy to this however. What hypocrisy you wonder? Remember, that Athiesm has been ruled by courts to legally be a religious position. As in, Athiesm, legally, is not a neutral religious position. So when people push forward the "extreme" seperation of church and state where all Public displays of religion are banned, they are in fact pushing a Pro-Athiest viewpoint, and not a purely "secular" one. If Athiesm were not a court-recognized religious position, holding protections, this would not be the case.

The most balanced way to have addressed the situation, would be for the school to accept "prayers" or "anti-prayers" from other religions to also be put up in the Auditorium, so that all would have equal clout and position. By simply removing the prayer, on the silly basis that no religion should be anywhere near public funding, merely raises up the idea that Athiesm is superior to all religions and is the only religious position which shoudl recieve public funding (which runs counter to the Seperation of Church and State.)

The Seperation is to prevent the Establishment of ANY State Religion, Athiesm included.


And in response to the original girl, I think she's a dick like Newsom.

Taeshi, on 28 January 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

The intention of the prayer was not as much a statement of religion, but more a resolution of being a beter person and reflecting the spirit of the school. I guess you're right, if it's the only mention of a deity in the school, they should at least remove the first three words and the "amen" at the end and keep the rest as a moral message. But if there are references about other religious and views in the school and they're given a place there, it would address the pluricultural nature of the school better than having no reference to any views at all.

What I'm trying to say here is that it's not really wrong because it mentions a religion, but it would be wrong if it's the only mention of religion and other possible mentions of religion aren't accepted by the school in such a high level. If they accepted other views and hung their messages it would really reflect the diversity of cultures.

Jerk, on 28 January 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

This is better, but I don't think this really reflects the issue. It's more like "A member of your family likes the lyrics to some song and hangs a poster of them in your living room", which still isn't an accurate representation.

ToraCat said:

If you remove everything atheism is not the resulting posture, there would just be a blank slate akin to the most neutral agnosticism. If they displayed messages that implied there is no god then that would be promoting atheism.

This post has been edited by Itu: 28 January 2012 - 04:40 AM