Innapropriate for the state representative to make such a comment about a 16yo. 'an evil little thing'' he should be ashamed of himself as she is a child.Now having said that really is this worth all this trouble for this young lady and her family? Will the ACLU who put a minor up to this give her 24hr a day security? And in the end this really will not hurt anyone but this principled young lady,if I was her father I would not have allowed my daughter to be put out there like this,shame on you ACLU for using a child to advance this cause. I also must say I am a very strong supporter of separation of church and state.

It's a sad day when standing up for the constitution is labeled as "advancing a cause". I'm just saying ...

Well of course standing up for the constitution is a cause and one I support jeff I just would not use a minor in such a controversial way. I am not a critic of this young lady in anyway,I just worry she may be a pawn.

Good for her! What a brave girl. More youth should stand up for their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. This country wants to enforce Christianity down the throats of others, just like during the Inquisition.

I wish the right extremists would understand that when they do that, more people turn against religion, and create a very hostile atmosphere for prayer. That is when crimes "in the name of God"start appearing.

That is not what religions are for. They are created to bring HOPE and PEACE.

What I find comical is atheist have turned being an atheist into a religion.

This is not a case of standing up for the Constitution. It's strictly a matter of selfishness.

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

-- The First Amendment

There is nothing in the message on the banner that should or even could be offensive to anyone except the first phrase 'Our Heavenly Father', and that is itself benign - it neither promotes, or establishes religion. The banner causes no harm, the harm has been caused by the promotion of self over community harmony, and that for no good purpose. No atheist I know would have pursued such a triviality, it is indeed a selfish 16 year old mindset. I believe it is worthy of appeal and would survive same.

I think it is abou time Christians stand up against people like this! How is it that every other religion is honored and welcomed in schools except Christianity? And they say Christians are prejudiced and backwards! Guess what? Christians have constitutional rights, too! I say those that are pushing for an appeal, keep it up. Involve the ACLJ! God bless the representative who had the guts to speak out against her, although she might have chosen different words. . I will also say this. Those who are sending death threats need to stop. She is misguided and has not learned the truth about Christ. Remember, true Christians show love, not hate. Use legal means to change this , please. And remember to act as Christ would in these matters.

OK, a comprimise. Remove the words "Oh Heavenly Father and Amen" leave the rest.

BUT I also have to say that with all the REAL problems in her community, she takes up valuable resourse because she is offended and I find that to be wrong.

But then again, I guess it is time to remove all aspects of Christianity from society. Especially the ones that have to do with "do to others as you want them to do to you."

Sometimes I think that people want to go to a culture where it is "do what I tell you to do or I will kill you". I mean that philosophy seems to be doing so well around the world. I think that this "brave girl" should take a trip to Afghanistan.

If you don’t believe in that,” she said, “take all the money out of your pocket, because every dollar bill says, ‘In God We Trust.’”

For those that think that we are not a theocratic nation; and that we are heading to have a "Christian Taliban" if the GOP wins the election, should know that our lazy congress only moved their butts to pass a law that would continue this stupid "In God we Trust"name calling around.

A dollar bill is the most inappropriate place to put the name of God. Money is usually the reason for crime, drug use and many of the other suffering in this planet.

If you really think about it, it really should be removed from money. Just ask yourselves if any tycoon in Wall Street deserves to have the name of God written in all the money that they took from Vulture Capitalism.

Don't you agree Mitt????

she takes up valuable resourse because she is offended and I find that to be wrong.

Then that is your weakness, not hers.

Fight them on every stage, every level and at every opportunity.

Otherwise, you might as well give up, shut up and stay at home because you'll never win if you want to quit just because other problems are happening concurrently.

You fight everything you can, as often as you can, or you LOSE.

- it neither promotes, or establishes religion.

BULL CRAP.

It does promote religion. OUR? OUR? Certainly not mine or hers.

That kind of thing sends a message. When a school that gets tax-payer money does something like this, it promotes religion by saying if you disagree, or don't believe, then you don't belong here.

She deserves better as does every student there. We send kids to school to get an education, not to be presided over by people of a foreign and hostile religion.

I think it is abou time Christians stand up against people like this! How is it that every other religion is honored and welcomed in schools except Christianity?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part of the article where Islamic or Jewish or Hindu religious prayers are also hanging on the school walls. Can you point that part out for me?

There is nothing in the message on the banner that should or even could be offensive to anyone except the first phrase 'Our Heavenly Father'

And if that phrase wasn't there, it wouldn't be an issue of government endorsing religion.

Poor Jessica. Her 15 minutes of fame has come and gone at such an early age.

If this 16 year-old is "evil", then so is the court which apparenty agreed with her.

We can ignore the sights and sounds around us which we don't agree with, like a mall preacher at college. Or "pro-choice" / "pro-life" handbill.

But our schools are cloistered environments that need to (as much as possible) keep from alienating kids any more than they already are.

I can recall my high-school teacher putting a passage from the New Testament on all the computers in the Math Resource Room. I remember, being Jewish, how much that bothered me and seemed to accentuate the differences between me and my classmates...instead of highlighting the similarities.

I said nothing. I wish I had.

Because keeping Church and State separated is a general law that--despite its original specificity to the Church of England--removes (or greatly diminishes) one interpretation of God's law holding sway over people who may not agree with that interpretation.

My argument is that this girl is right. And I don't think her representative should publicly demonize her.

Because it's attitudes like that which highlight the reasons why we need that law more than ever.

Will the ACLU who put a minor up to this give her 24hr a day security?

If she needs protection 24/7, that's the responsibility of the police, not the ACLU. She didn't do anything but exercise her constitutional rights.

Freedman1 said:

There is nothing in the message on the banner that should or even could be offensive to anyone except the first phrase 'Our Heavenly Father', and that is itself benign - it neither promotes, or establishes religion

That would be true if all the 'religions' in the world were patriarchal and espoused the idea of a 'heaven' and a 'hell', then 'Our Heavenly Father' would truly be non-proselytizing. However, there are belief systems in this world that are not patriarchal, and a good many don't espouse the belief that there is either some mythical 'place of eternal damnation' (hell) nor some 'place of eternal happiness' (heaven) and so yes, that does promote/establish a religion. and the 'Amen' at the end is Christian.

That being said, however, I do believe that the banner does hold forth some qualities that seem to be sadly lacking in the majority of today's American teens and holds a good message. Let's resolve the conflict with a compromise: They can keep the banner, just strike the 'Our Heavenly Father' at the beginning and the 'Amen' at the end and make it a reminder memo of the qualities that we all should strive to display and practice, every day.

For the record, I was raised Catholic and left the faith soon after high school because the blatantly 'unchristian' attitudes of those around me who professed to be 'true Christians'--even a chaplain--made me re-examine the belief system I'd simply accepted all my life. I am now a practicing pagan.

Also for the record, the government figure who called this child 'evil' is displaying a blatantly un-Christian attitude; what happened to acceptance, tolerance, turning the other cheek? If you truly think this child is wrong, and you ARE a true Christian, wouldn't 'misguided', 'strayed from the flock', or some other such term be more appropriate? Calling a child 'evil' simply displays ignorance, intolerance and highlights the reason why many of us 'former Christians' have left the faith. Children make mistakes and should be forgiven, does not your own Bible teach that you are 'God's children' and your mistakes are forgiven throught he sacrifice of God's Son, Jesus? Live what you preach and you may find more followers. 'Do as I say, not as I do' doesn't work with children.

And while I'm at it, a nitpick: the title of the head line says 'Atheist teen forces school to remove prayer from wall..' once I read the article it said the banner had been covered by a tarp but still remains on the wall pending an appeal. I believe the title of the artilce may be misleading.

I think it is abou time Christians stand up against people like this! How is it that every other religion is honored and welcomed in schools except Christianity?

You must be joking. America is very intolerant of non-Christian religions. Don't believe me - travel abroad and see for yourself. Citizens of most countries in Europe and Asia embrace ALL religions - not just "theirs".

Why is it that people get so irate over the second amendment but ignore the FIRST amendment - which is the separation of church and state?

@Barry and others

If the Florida "dip@!$%#" preacher had to foot the bill for his exercise of his constitutional rights, then this "intolerant spoiled brat" needs to do the same...

Barry, the girl and her family will need to provide for her safety. Of course, she already knows that praying won't help.

For all of the people who say she is "defending the Constitution" please make sure you so vigorously defend the 2nd Amendment as well, whether you agree with it or not, because it is also part of the Constitution. Although I do not get involved with these discussions, I take exception to the idea that a 16 year-old thinks she knows whats good for the rest of us, like "getting a shot." There is always someone trying to force their beliefs on others, including but not limited to atheists. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

MySpell, do you mean the part about a well regulated militia? Sure, I believe in have a LOT of regulations. I want them very well regulated.

But I don't think that is what you meant, is it?

"At Normandale Community College, a public institution in Bloomington, Minnesota, Star Tribune contributor Katherine Kersten reports that a meditation room on campus has become a Muslim-only prayer room with a number of features that make students of other faiths unwelcome. A sign posted at the entrance asks visitors to remove their shoes. Another sign lists the schedule for Islam's five daily prayers, and an arrow inside the room points in the direction of Mecca. Most noticeably, a chest-high barrier partitions the room to separate men and women during prayer. The college building crew erected this barrier, and college officials placed the signs asking students to enter barefoot — "basically a courtesy to Muslim students," says Dean of Student Affairs Ralph Anderson."

@sick:

I'm opposed to spending even a thin red cent of tax-payer money to support any religion's agenda or forcing any student to live under the banner of a different religion than their own.

If you can prove that any of those things came from public money, then I support getting rid of them... unless everyone is given equal billing so long as none of it disrupts the learning environment.

Additional time to pray or a place to pray for students who have religious requirements, is of no consequence to me. I'm not against prayer in school, I'm against schools forcing prayers and religious ceremony on other people.

BarryNJ - It's incredibly ironic that this young girl may even need protection considering those around are so fervently religious....I guess "do unto others" only applies to people from the same religion. They're all hypocrites and I applaud this girl for exposing it.

And as for the girl that told her to throw away her money because it says "In God We Trust". That was not added by our founding fathers - they understood the need for separation of church and state. That phrase, which should be unconstitutional, was added in the 1950's.

@TheGilligan-

it is interesting that you don't care about other people. That points to selfishness being the sole motive for your inexcusable tirade.

why would you think, for even a moment, that you have to 'defend your faith' because someone asks that a publicly-funded institution not promote one religion over all? Is your faith defined by how many people you force into it? Does your faith state that you must publicly shout your beliefs to all at every venue?

you don't want other religions to have permission to post their literature, prayers, requirements, in public places where your children HAVE to go, do you? Would you like your son/daughter to come home from school singing songs about Buddha? What if their instructor was Wiccan? Would it be ok for him/her to start teaching your children about Diana, or the sun god, or how to use an Athame properly?

you don't see how having your, and only your, religion splattered all over is an affront to people of other beliefs.

I felt, for the longest time, that I was being singled out because I could not say the Pledge of Allegiance since I do not believe in God, and certainly do not think we are one Nation Under Him. How can I Pledge myself when the wording contains lies (from my viewpoint).

And an Atheist does not see a religious message and think God is looking at them. Since to them there is no God, how can a non-entity look at anything? your statement only shows your one-sided view.

Atheists, and many religions of the world, do not want to repress anyone. They simply do not want someone trying to oppress them, or brainwash their children!

I have not heard all that the state rep said the media will only give you what will sale. I'm going to think he was talking about getting involved with this and not being a good thing. But I keep reading about rights this right that one kid in 1963 just lost his right to freedom of speech very sad.....

Funny, everyone bytches about Christianity being "shoved down our throats" but NO ONE HERE bats an eyelash now that U.S. schools have to devote several hours for "prayers" each day to enrich our future Islamofascists.

See, this crap right here is not about equality. This thing you wrote is about discrimination and hatred.

On the general principle of the matter, I'd oppose anyone who says stuff like this regardless of their justifications.

I'll have no part in hatred. You can sail that boat all on your own right over the rhetorical cliff of your choosing.

Actually one thing I've always found quite amusing in these types of arguments. People that put up things like this in school say "it's not that big of a deal to have a prayer in a school" or "it's not promoting a religious believe". People on forums also say "aren't there more important things to be concerned about". If it's not that big of a deal, then you should have no problem with it being removed. If you have a problem with it being removed, then you can't really sit there and say it's not that big of a deal to someone that wants it removed. That's cheating.

There is History in High schools, why be so deloused on something so little and piety when you only have a few years to spend their ? I don't get that,

There is more to this girl than just not believing" she is on a mission of hatred for anyone that does..The old movie the Exorcist holds some value.

It is the failure of the courts to realize that so many minorities are causing so many problems. The majority should speak and vote on this and their values should be upheld.
The minorities like this are bringing the U.S. down to the lowest common denominator.
Anarchy.
Separation of church and state is just that, a religion or church should not seek to dominate through the state. Not that religion or religious articles should not be shown, displayed or their existence be excluded from teachings.
As many as possible religious teachings should be taught, explained and taught as much as possible in schools to remove doubts, bigotism and distrust among people of different religions. Those who want to should be able to and a course of study should be included in every school. Then atheism and agnosticism can also be included. This girl needs to be enlightened as to why their are religions and why everyone should respect each other's religious beliefs. The school is not fostering one belief over another. It is honoring a winner of a contest by saluting his winning entry.
This girl needs and education in getting along with people and respecting the rights of others.
This stupidity has gone to far. The student is uncomfortable, then she can go to another school or be home taught. Perhaps she can find an atheistic school in some other country that will make her feel more comfortable. I am an agnostic with Christian values. If the school wants to teach what some people believe, Islam, Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, that is wonderful.
There are too many people here who want to attack the United States for being free and having Christian values. There is a reason for separation of church and state and it is not having a poster that won a contest being displayed.

Kind of ridiculous when your ostracized for standing up for your beliefs. Wasn't that the reason this country was orignally settled, because the pilgrims felt excluded due to their belief structure?

Exactly AZ. Myself I feel sorry for Athiests. Why is it that as a democracy we VOTE for what/who we believe in, but anytime a small minority of people speak up we have to bow to their beliefs? I bet if there was election in the school regarding this prayer that it would stay up.

That's how it should have been handled. It's for the children as a group. Let them decide.

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show.

This representative should immediately be pressed to resign from office. For an elected official to make a comment like this is completely inexcusable. I would expect better of anyone representing me in government, whether they agreed with what the girl was doing or not.

I think that this girl is 100% correct to bring this suit. The display of a prayer like this in a public school is a very clear constitutional violation. The prayer should be removed immediately. For the school board to waste time and money fighting this is absurd. They have absolutely no chance of winning in the courts and are wasting public resources pursuing their own personal agenda. Their actions are not in the best interests of the school district. They are wasting money that could go to much better uses.

Anyone who has made threats against this girl should be prosecuted. Making death threats is illegal. Regardless of the emotional nature of this issue, making these types of terroristic threats against a 16 year old girl for standing up for her rights is completely unacceptable. The entire community should be ashamed of the fact that this girl now needs police protection to attend school. The police and district attorney must do their jobs and arrest and file charges against every individual who has made threats. To do any less would be to condone this behavior and deny the girl equal protection under the law.

Like the respondent above, I, too, left christiantity because of "the blatantly 'unchristian' attitudes of those around me who professed to be 'true Christians'" when I was 10. The flaming hypocrisy of 'pro-life' arguments, when coupled with pro-war, pro-death penalty and their utterly miserly, miserable - and hateful - attitude toward the poor, non-white, etc. made it impossible to sit in the pew and listen to another hateful rant. Even at 10, the moral bankruptcy of the church was apparent to me decades before we found out the priests were buggering kids.

For those who do not feel this way, I suggest meditating on the gospels that refer to Pharisees and Samaratans before they open their mouths and ,make judgements or have the gall to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. In short, take the beam out of your eyes, before you dare tell us to remove the mote in ours.

Way to go, kid! I hope you have a happy and successful life. You're a better person than those who oppose you.

@JP: OH, so its the minorities' collective fault?

I have a better suggestion since you don't think minorities should have equal treatment under the law and constitution. Just apply the golden rule, apply what you would have done to them to yourself.

If you don't like minorities having equal rights, then go somewhere else where minorities are more easily oppressed.

See how I turned that one around? That's your argument and it stinks.

I'm an atheist - pretty much always have been. Those are my views - I don't begrudge a person their right to have a religion, but I personally don't live my life that way and you have no right to force your belief on me.

As for this case - in general I have no problem with the message in the prayer... my problem is the fact that it's presented as a prayer when it doesn't need to be. The prayer in this story was a direct challenge to organized prayer being banned from schools (as stated in the article) - don't tell me this prayer isn't pushing/promoting religion. What I find interesting is this - religious folks push their beliefs on others, then yell and scream when they think atheists are trying to belittle their religious beliefs.

"A dollar bill is the most inappropriate place to put the name of God. Money is usually the reason for crime, drug use and many of the other suffering in this planet."

Why would it be inappropriate? If one believes in God, and God created all things, and God created man, and man who, being a part of God then created money, as being a part of God, why not put God's name on it? I believe your forgetting the main thing here, God created both good and bad as a balance for all things. If we only had good, what would we learn from it, and the same goes for bad. How can one appreciate good, if we didn't have the opposite to compare it with?

This whole story, along with this forum, when followed, makes a person look at how people react to such things. When you read how so called religious people allow hate to take over their thoughts, as they have with this girl, what does that say about what they have learned from the teachings? They have learned nothing. Not when they allow hate to rule their thoughts. If you follow what you have learned from the teachings, hate would have no place in your thoughts.

Huston we have a problem. When a prayer asking for Gods guidance to do good and be gracious in our daily life is considered bad by anyone of any faith or lack there of, we are so screwed as a civilized society. Let the anarchy begin, lets just get it over with. Had the crux of this prayer been addressed to Buddha or (your favorite deity here), I would have no problem with it so long as it promotes civil behaviour toward one-another. Seriously how was this prayer hurting anyone?

When a prayer asking for Gods

That right there is all you have to write to prove the point. Any publicly funded entity CANNOT say that and the fact that you don't understand that makes you truly UNAMERICAN.

Dear Universal-Force-of-Nature that created us all, please help us to accept your inevitabilities with dignity and grace toward you and toward one another, and honor our abilities for higher understanding by seeking your knowledge and reason.

BloodthirstySavage

Wait....if this is a public school, which gets funded with local taxpayer money, then I have to grudgingly agree that the prayer should be removed. OR, the opposite can take place, where prayers representing any and all religions be given just as much right to be posted as the Christian prayer.

The Christians who balk at this ruling, may get a little sense of how it feels to have to tolerate the posting of a prayer that doesn't represent their own beliefs. I dare say that most Christian students and parents will be offended if Muslim, or Hindu, or even Wiccan prayers are posted in public schools. But, you can't have it both ways!! Either all religions are tolerated in schools, or none. Any sort of bias towards one religion over others is unconstitutional, especially in public schools.

Why in the world was this thread collapsed? Be Smart wrote nothing offensive. Some of the other commenters (aka Missi Angel) should be banned.

Worksfor...*********It is not for you or me to consign ANYONE to hell. That is not our job description. That is up to another or (if there is no God) none other.

If God is so powerful, why can't he make me believe in him?

It's amazing the amount of hate that will come out of those who are offended by our Constitutional individual rights because they somehow feel they are special and different and have the authority to override those rights if you are a minority simply because they are in the majority.

Brave young woman, I wish her well.

That school was public and had no business having a prayer banner in it. As a public institution it is a representative of the government and the government may not establish any religion, or any religion as superior to any others or over no religion at all. It must remain strictly neutral in order to remain constitutional, and this prayer banner was a clear violation of this young woman's Constitutional rights to be free of her government establishing religion over her.

Now, those of you who like the prayer banner, you are still free and have the liberty to pray, believe, and think what you want with regards to religion, you are also free to exercise your religion as you wish so long as you violate no one elses rights in the process. If you want to send your children to schools with prayer banners you have the freedom to send them to private religious institutions, or home school them, and no one may rightfully prevent you from doing so.

But that freedom to exercise your religion ends at having the government establish it over others for you. This decision was correct, and upholds one of our most sacred founding freedoms - religious liberty.

@willowbrook:

You fail @ history. In the early years of our nation, the capital wasn't in Washington.

I don't hate Christians, I hate inequality. I also hate logical fallacies.

The existence of 4 churches in the capital says absolutely nothing about the framers of the constitution or their interpretation of the constitution.

Jefferson disliked the bible so much, he re-wrote and removed huge portions of it. For fun.

You're missing the point. Public schools are prohibited by law from displaying any and all religious based propaganda.

The school was in violation of the law.

The separation of church and state is one of the most important parts of the Bill of Rights.

Either man up and fight for your rights, or lose them.

I DON'T CARE

About your religion.

And I DON'T CARE

About your atheism

I do care about the stupidity of both. But if you are really zealous about religion, or against it, you can always strap a bomb to yourself and go to the Middle East. There's a whole giant sandlot for people like you!

Now, back to talking to the thinking people. Yes, thinking is actually the antithesis of zealousness. In fact, zealots HATE thinking.

Indy Patriot, you need to learn a little bit about cultural history. "Christmas" is a far older holiday than Christianity. It is a celebration of the Winter Solstice. The Romans exchanged "Christmas" gifts on Saturnalia, a major holiday which was celebrated between December 17 and 23. Long before that, the Babylonians celebrated December 25 as a major holiday (Son of Isis.)

As for the Christmas tree, it was a tradition going so far back it was old when the Celt ruled Europe.

I think you need to find a more convincing argument, Indy.

@Julio

It is the failure of the courts to realize that so many minorities are causing so many problems. The majority should speak and vote on this and their values should be upheld.

You are quite incorrect. First, the United States is NOT a democracy. It is a federal republic. It is, because the founding fathers realized that a democracy would trample the rights of the minority. Therefore, the courts are quite correct.

As evidence, these quotes ...

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -- Benjamin Franklin

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. -- James Madison, Federalist Paper #10

It's so funny seeing all of the outright HATE only coming from the so-called Christians. I mean it is overwhelming the amount of hate they are typing in here.

They are proving there isn't any difference between Christians and Muslims.

Oh... For the people that made the inane comment about Christmas...

Christmas has NOT been about anything but crass commercialism. It has had absolutely nothing to do with Christ, Christianity or religion in a very, very long time. Just look at houses decorated with lights and a christmas tree in the living room. None of that has anything to do with Christianity. Christmas was originally a PAGAN HOLIDAY that was appropriated by Christians. The Christmas tree was also never associated with Christianity.

Christmas is a totally SECULAR holiday with people giving each other presents, eating a nice dinner and vegging out in front of the TV watching sports.

How many of you athiests enjoyed Christmas this year? Did you give presents to your kids? Did you put up a tree, complete with lights, and place all kinds of nice little "christmas-y" things around your house?

Boy, I bet you athiests spent a lot of money for a holiday you espouse to want nothing to do with, right?

Mmm-hmmm.

Even as an agnostic, I still enjoy Christmas for the feasting, presents, and family that goes on at that time of year... but to be honest, the "christ" in christmas has all the meaning, importance and relevance for me as does the "reuben" in reuben sandwich... which is basically none.

Christians no more own Christmas as do Heathens own Thursday (named in reverence of Thor).

It is downright disgusting that an elected official would attack a sixteen year old girl for standing up for a constitutional principle that he himself was too much of a coward to defend. This behavior is unacceptable and disgusting, and he should resign immediately.

I fully support this student's move to get that unconstitutional religious image removed from government property. She did the right thing even if some lowlife representative feels that he should personally attack the 16 year old girl for standing for our constitutional principles.

Sorry, Christians but your unlawful privilege is slowly eroding in the United States. I would get used to it if I were you!

If any religious reference needs to be removed from public schools, then you need to be fair and remove all references to Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Viking, etc. religions and gods from the history books the students use.

This banner has more to do with the history of the school and what a student made 49 years ago than with propagating religion. It may be perfectly legal to sue over this, but I don't think that was what the forefathers had in mind when the constitution was written, because it incites more hate than it brings people of different beliefs together.

But then again, I guess it is time to remove all aspects of Christianity from society.

Oh, so its OK to remove all aspects of islam from society too? Or is it just Christianity that you have a problem with?

What about the rights of the child that WROTE it? Perhaps the “moral guide” offends the atheist. Obviously, she never READ the prayer…“grant us each day the desire to do our best, to grow mentally and morally as well as physically, to be kind and helpful.”

Not from society, just public spaces. Which is what the constitution says, Fed. And if you don't like our most basic constitutional liberties, nobody is preventing you from moving to a place without those same protections. But I guarantee you life will suck there. So perhaps it's time for you to take a good, hard look at the constitution you so despise, and consider the nightmare that you could have been born into instead.

I don't think it should have ever been put on that wall to begin with. It is a sanctioning of religion to use our tax dollars, to paint prayers on the walls of our schools.

That being said, I also don't think having it there was that big of a deal. If you're an atheist than it holds no value or purpose for you anyway, it's akin to everything else painted on school walls. Any value or purpose it holds is dependant on your beliefs.

All said and done, who cares??? It should never have been put up, but it was, and if it means nothing to you anyway why the big kerfuffle? It's not like you're being forced to pray it everyday. If it does mean something to you, than copy it down and hang it up in your locker. It's not like anyone's telling you, you can't pray it on your own. Much ado about nothing.

That being said, I wonder what the people who are calling this girl names would do if it started, "Oh Great Allah"???? After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right Christians?

Julio Perez @ 1.53

"It is the failure of the courts to realize that so many minorities are causing so many problems"

One of the primary functions of the Constitution of the United States is to protect the very rights of those minorities you consider "problems". If you need access to a copy so you can read it, there's one on my wall about 5 feet from where I'm sitting.

AZChzhd @ 1.48

"My take is simply dont read it if you dont believe it. I think removing anything resembling Christianity in society is just as offensive to the Christians as having it there is to the atheists. If atheists can put up signs saying "There is no god", then this banner should be allowed"

You are still free to attend the church of your choice or to put a cross or sign on your yard (subject to city ordinances) or to go door to door and try to preach your gospel or in any lawful way practice your religion as long as you respect the rights of others. What the GOVERNMENT is not allowed to do is promote the ascendency of one religion over another, as it was trying to do in this instance.

I'm not a religious person, more like an agnostic, but there's something fishy about either this girl's motives or the article itself.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a national atheist group, has given Jessica $13,000, so far. The ACLU, another supporter of atheism, should get her some money as well.

So she stopped believing in God when she was in elementary school and her mother fell ill for a time.

“I had always been told that if you pray, God will always be there when you need him,” she said. “And it didn’t happen for me, and I doubted it had happened for anybody else. So yeah, I think that was just like the last step, and after that I just really didn’t believe any of it.”

The reason I say this is because her reason for turning her back on god is very weak, i.e. her mother obviously survived, so some might say that her prayers WERE answered. Another thing is the fact that a tidy sum of money is involved, with the potential of a lot more to come.

Devil's......You logic is impeccable. Take the prayer down because it is a public school supported by tax dollars. Wait a minute, that tax dollar promotes Christian beliefs by saying "IN GOD WE TRUST". So by your logic the tax dollar can not be used to support the public school. What now, you can't have it both ways.

A friend brought the prayer to Jessica’s attention in 2010, when she was a high school freshman. She said nothing at first, but before long someone else — a parent who remained anonymous — filed a complaint with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Why is the “anonymous parent” forcing THEIR agenda on a 16 yr old MINOR?

So? Unconstitutional is uncosntitutional, FX. It is right and proper that someone standing up in the face of death threats to support our constitutional liberties should be rewarded by like-minded patriots. Hopefully that $13,000 will help pay for the college education of this courageous young woman.

Sigh -

All right, now I'm just seeing the same recycled arguments over and over - they've already been rebutted, rebuked, debunked, and destroyed.

Please, either make a counterpoint or gtfo.

Should I list the already rebutted arguments?

1) Freedom of =/= freedom from

- Actually it's an intrinsic property as indicated by framers and constitutional scholars for centuries.

2) It's been there a long time!

- Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, just because something has been wrong for a long time does not make it right. People believed the earth was flat for a long time, did that make them right?

3) Strawmans of various sorts

- This is in respect to a government facility, not a kmart, not your house, not the streets.

4) This wasn't hurting anyone!

- It violates the first amendment, the reasons for the separation of Church and State have been repeated over and over again - not just in this thread, but in documents going back to the very founding of this country.

5) We are the majority!

- The Bill of Rights protects the minority as well as the majority, it applies to everyone.

6) This is a Christian Nation!

- No, one's status as belonging to this nation is in no way determined or affected by that person's religion or lack thereof - so no, this is not a Christian nation.

7) The false analogy - "XYZ offends me, but I'm not trying to...."

- If XYZ is not mentioned or implied in the Contitution, it's not relevant.

8) It's not a prayer! It's secular!

- Actually, it says "Our School Prayer" at the top, as well as "Our Heavenly Father" and "Amen" - language which refers to a specfic group of religions (Judeo-Christian) which not only excludes other non-Judeo-Christian beliefs, but non-believers as well.

9) It's about the 'spirit and principles"

- If it's about the spirit and principles, then change the religious language to secular language. Something tells me that wouldn't fly with the religionists though, because it's not truly about the spirit and principles.... is it now?

10) In God we Trust is on money!!!

- Just because one thing violates the Constitution doesn't mean every other violation should be accepted. "Impeccable logic" my rear end. Not only that, but "In God We Trust" was added during the Red Scare at a time that legislators weilded Christianity as a tool to root out the big bad evil communists during their hysteria and fear mongering campaign of McCarthyism. Anyone who was against that blatant violation of the US Constitution would have been blacklisted by the McCarthy fanatics.

--- I MISS ANYTHING? ----- Please, refer people to this post instead of retyping the same rebuttles lol.

Death threats to a 16 year old... THAT is how the Christians are responding?

DEATH THREATS!!!!

This is what Christianity has come to? Threatening to KILL someone if they do not follow YOUR belief.

I could care less about the phrase on the wall, because I follow the "mind your own f***ing business mentality"... but to have Christians send her death threats makes you NO DIFFERENT than the Taliban. I have long believed that Christianity is following in the footsteps of religious terrorists, and this is proof.

You so-called "Christians" make me sick... absolutely disgusting... EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU.

At least I find solace in the fact that according to YOUR OWN BIBLE, every last one of you will burn in hell. You deserve no less.

Hmmm. Churches on almost every street in America. Government-backed Christian holidays. Republican candidates using Christianity as a reason to vote for them.

Poor Christians. Christianity is so under fire in this country. It's a wonder they're hanging on.

Toasty, I suggest you READ the constitution, it says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

As a side note... if the school and the community really have a big problem with this, stop taking tax dollars and let the religious terrorists (sending death threats to a 16 year old) fund the school.

Simple as that. You don't want to remove it, STOP taking OUR tax money, and fund the school yourself. Turn it into a private "Christian" (terrorist) school where you can teach all the children how to use proper spelling and grammar in written death threats.

Come on, put your money where your mouth is. Show us how deep your convictions go and fund the school yourself. What's that? You don't want to? I guess that shows how shallow your beliefs truly are.

Also... if you want to support religious text on school walls, that means ALL religions get to add their text, INCLUDING those Muslims you are all so afraid of. You sure you want to go down that route?

WOW, what good "Christians" we have on the Vine today, ATTACKING a 16year old girl for wanting the CONSTITUTION of The USA upheld!

Shameless, the christian right in the country has become nothing more than an American TALIBAN!!!!!

BRAVO to this young girl and her Parents for standing behind in this endeavor!

This is the great hypocrisy of atheism. By demanding the removal of religious expression from society, these fanatics are actually forcing all others follow their beliefs; the religion of non-religion.

Separation of church and state mantra appears no where in the Constitution, yet it is our ideology. The Constitution actually states that the government cannot endorse any one religion over the other, BUT nor can it prohibit expression.

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

Displaying a banner in any public or place is in no way equivalent to passing a law, but the removal of it sure seems like a prohibition. True atheists aren't bothered by religious expression, it had no effect on them. Ultimately, this is about one individual forcing others to be smothered by her beliefs. The real solution would of been to allow her a place/opportunity to display her own banner - even if she chose to express nothing. Freedom of religion, is not freedom FROM religion.

A+ response Shuklack. You fully understand how to refute the arguments that defend the unconstitutional endorsement of religion in our government schools.

This is the great hypocrisy of atheism. By demanding the removal of religious expression from society, these fanatics are actually forcing all others follow their beliefs; the religion of non-religion.

Atheists didn't replace the banner with a banner that promotes atheist understanding that says "there is no god" or a similar phrase. People like you simply don't see the unconstitutional nature of hanging a religious message on the walls of a government school.

Your "courageous young woman" finds the pray to be a violation of her constitutional rights yet she will be using 13,000 "IN GOD WE TRUST" to further her education...........

She has no impact on the words listed on that money. And it isn't even government money. It is federal reserve money. A private organization created it.

Toasty, I suggest you READ the constitution, it says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Fedup: Please see post 1.99 ... argument #1

Toasty......Your "courageous young woman" finds the pray to be a violation of her constitutional rights yet she will be using 13,000 "IN GOD WE TRUST" to further her education.................

Ranger: Please see same post (1.99) ... refer to argument #10

Pray tell Fed, how can you have a freedom of religion without a freedom from it? Go on, do elucidate this for us less learned plebs.

Perhaps you should take a look at the constitution you apparently hate:

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

- "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

these fanatics are actually forcing all others follow their beliefs; the religion of non-religion

So the absence of religious text on in-adamant objects is FORCING non-religion on you. Are you serious?

So when you walk down the street and the sidewalk is clean, that is FORCING non-religion on you? When you buy bread at the store, and no religious text is on the bread, that is FORCING non-religion on you? When you look at the clouds and they do not form religious words, that is nature FORCING non-religion on you?

Are you f***ing serious?

Congratulations... you have earned the award for the least intellectual comment of the day.

"A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read." - Mark Twain

Not believing in deities is a religion in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

yet she will be using 13,000 "IN GOD WE TRUST" to further her education.................

Ignoring the historical FACT that "in God we trust" was added in the 1950's during the Red Scare... I'd like to point out that credit cards, loans, and electronic payments DO NOT state those words.

Unless your career is either illegal (drug dealing) or stripping, people generally do not pay for college with cash.

No, Indie...she means the REMOVAL of something apparently religious is akin to propagating atheism. (Post 1.111)

This one sign might not have really hurt anyone, but what about the next one? How many places should a public school be allowed to announce to its non-Christian students that “YOU are not one of US”?

Here is a little history lesson for the pledge of allegiance, it has been changed 4 times since its inception in 1892. It was written by Francis Bellamy who was a Baptist minister and a Christian socialist. The original pledge was as this "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It was not adopted by congress until 1942, in which more changes were made. The most recent change being in 1954 in which "under god" was added. Which started with Louis A. Bowman who was the Chaplain of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. In 1951 the Knights of Columbus, the world's largest Catholic fraternal service began using "under god" in the pledge of Allegiance, who urged the President and congress to adopt it, prior to 1954 no endeavor to get the Pledge officially amended succeeded.

Now for money and "In God We Trust". "In God We Trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956, with E pluribus unum being the unofficial motto. "In God We Trust" was first used in coins in 1864 and on paper currency since 1957. On a side not President Theodore Roosevelt took issue with placing the motto on coinage as he considered it sacrilegious to put the name of God on money.


The Constitution actually states that the government cannot endorse any one religion over the other, BUT nor can it prohibit expression.

And what if it's the government doing the expressing, as in this case?

Yeah, that's right - it violates the Constitution. Kind of the whole point of the clause.

I guess #11 of post 1.99 could be "Fundamental misunderstanding and lack of comprehension for the basics of Constiutional law."

Not believing in deities is a religion in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby

Very true, and especially pertinent in philosophical/belief type debates.

But in this case, when it comes to US Government policy in regard to religious freedom... "non-religious" is treated and considered the same as religious.

Obviously they don't share the same meaning, just the same treatment.... but telling by some people in this thread it might be important to make that distinction very clear because I can see this argument popping up:

#12) Derp! See, yer not religion so non religion is no freedom for it in the Consturtuion! It only freedom of religions, not derrr NON religions!

easiest way to solve the issue, is remove the 1st line, heavenly father, and the last, amen, then it doesnt resemble a prayer, the text just reads as a good way to live, and the christians retain their "prayer" in their hearts (where it belongs anyway) and the atheists have the god references removed.

Well, it's an ontological debate, but in the end it doesn't matter. The constitution is very clear, even if the christian arguments are far from.

Indie,

Well Put!!!!

Besmart,

How is it that you believe intollerance of someone else's beliefs is bravery?

Bleeding hearts of the world unite!!!! Can anyone please just go through a day without looking for a reason to be offended!!!! The sign wasn't put there for the purpose to offend, alienate or "push" religion onto another persons beliefs. This doesn't seem like a battle worth fighting. If Jessica wants to promote atheism then she can, but not in school because that would be just as "bad".

No, Indie...she means the REMOVAL of something apparently religious is akin to propagating atheism

Oh... so when someone writes a Bible verse on the sidewalk in chalk, and the rain washes it away, that is nature "propagating atheism"?

Or if someone sprays a Bible verse, or the image of Jesus, in graffiti on a wall... and the city sandblasts the graffiti to remove it, that is the city "propagating atheism"?

What if a Muslim was to remove it, and replace it with nothing... would that be "propagating atheism" or Islam?

So according to your logic, the "removal" of something AUTOMATICALLY indicates support of a competing ideology. The concept of nothing, indicates support of something that was the opposite of what existed before nothing.

Thank you for letting us all know that the concept of ambivalence no longer exists. Everything is black and white, there is no longer a grey area. If you remove your love of something, you automatically hate it. Removal of one idea automatically means support of the opposite. The concept of "I have no opinion on the subject" is gone.

Question to BESMART:: You said "We salute you". Who is this WE of which you speak? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

You certainly don't speak for me, so just either be quiet or state for certain just who this unnamed "we" is.

@ Indie - is writing the word "God" on the sidewalk forcing religion onto you? Of course not.

How is it that you believe intollerance of someone else's beliefs is bravery?

How is upholding the Contitution intolerance? How is 'not having a sign' intolerance?

Oh, and please review post 1.99 before responding. Save us some time, thanks.

Not believing in deities is a religion in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

Merriam Webster has a few definitions for religion. One is a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. If you think that secular humanism and atheism is not a religion you are sadly mistaken.

If it takes posters or plaques to believe in God - I seriously question your belief, your commitment, your understanding of what religion represents. Love of God is from your heart - not the paper on a wall, billboards, commercials on TV, not the need to verbalize it at every turn as if you can convert others.

When someone stands up for their rights and they have to have security because of threats -- those threatening do not have God in their heart. Sounds like the 'Born Agains' are involved as the majority have to verbalize, have posters like promoting their religion as if to justify it to themselves as many truly do not have a clue and get it wrong more times then right while they verbalize and truly would rather belong to a 'clique' of what they believe as the popular kids like in high school when in reality you're embarrassing yourself but can't see it.

When I hear the words 'Born Again' - the more it equals a Pimp -- the verbalization as if to convert others as if selling religion. A true love and respect of God does not have to be rammed down the throats of those that have different beliefs. Like Jehovah Witnesses -- canvassing communities pimping their's.

No wonder a huge number of youth of this country are turning away from religion. I can't blame them at all as the true meaning of religion and the love of God is not on display in this country.

It's also on full display that those who constantly verbalize that the Constitution is being destroyed and their rights stepped on -- the more times they quote the Constitition, the more it is exposed they quote it wrong.

The ad nauseam need to 'project' on to everyone else your belief is the only way -- is someone who truly does not 'get' who God is or what religion is or what the Constitition is.

And now I fully anticipate the rant from many that it's about your freedom of speech which will expose once again -- you've no clue.

You certainly don't speak for me, so just either be quiet or state for certain just who this unnamed "we" is.

He was speaking of me as well... so there ya go. Nice try at the petty attack, though, I appreciate it.

Oh, yeah, and how dare this girl seek to ensure the Constitution is upheld. For a group of people who thump the Constitution nearly as much as the Bible, it appears ya'll sure as heck don't seem like you've ever read or understood a word of EITHER.

Merriam Webster has a few definitions for religion. One is a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. If you think that secular humanism and atheism is not a religion you are sadly mistaken.

And Mirriam Webster is not the end-all for all words and their meanings... especially ones like "religion" - something which philosophers and theologians have tried defining since pre-history. Your semantic argument is rather weak, as well, because his argument posed a logical thought - where yours depends on the rigid definition from a mediocre Dictionary of a rather fluid concept which remains elusive to some of the greatest minds. Your attempts at oversimplification are quaint, but not legitimate I'm afraid.

Not collecting stamps is indeed as much of a hobby as not being religious is a religion.

Oh... so when someone writes a Bible verse on the sidewalk in chalk, and the rain washes it away, that is nature "propagating atheism"?
Or if someone sprays a Bible verse, or the image of Jesus, in graffiti on a wall... and the city sandblasts the graffiti to remove it, that is the city "propagating atheism"?
What if a Muslim was to remove it, and replace it with nothing... would that be "propagating atheism" or Islam?

No... no, and no.

Thank you for letting us all know that the concept of ambivalence no longer exists. Everything is black and white, there is no longer a grey area. If you remove your love of something, you automatically hate it. Removal of one idea automatically means support of the opposite. The concept of "I have no opinion on the subject" is gone.

I just wanted to clarify what she meant. This is in reference of an atheist removing something that s/he deems religious, which can be interpreted as pushing his/her own agenda. You have to read her statement as she obviously meant it. If an action is purposefully taken, you should ask what most likely was it's intention. She's got a point, while your points seem rather arbitrary.

How do you people know its Christians threatening her?????

From one Atheist to another, if you don't like the prayer on the wall don'tread it. What right do you have to force your beliefs on others? I agree with the representative! Snotty little brat just looking to get media coverage. Well how you liking the attention now?

So shuklack,

We are supposed to refer to YOUR previous post before responding.

I put no credence in any post that tells others to "gtfo."

I have no idea what belief system you have tollerance for but clearly you don't have tollerance for anyone disagreeing with you.

What part of EQUALITY don't you guys understand? If you can't put a sign saying "White Power" on the wall then you can't put a Christian prayer on the wall either.

There is no such thing as majority rule in this country. That is illegal here. Voting does not imply or instate majority rulership. Everyone has the same rights and freedoms. If equality, freedom and justice are not suited to your religion and lifestyle then you are free to go elsewhere where they exalt bigotry and promote imperialism.

I think a lot of you just need some catnip and a long nap. Smarty Cat has spoken.

There really needs to be a statute of limitations on stuff like this. It has been up for 50 years and now it gets taken down because some little twit got her poor wittle feeling hurt.

I have to chuckle a little how both sides of the argument are looking at this. The atheists are complaining about how the religious right are trying to shove Christianity down their throats when this was written by a 7th grader that thought it was a good tenant to live by and the religious people are shouting about intolerance and ignoring how the bibles basic tenant is to love one another and embrace your enemy. There are way too many extremists on both sides. The only thing I can say is one day when we die will do either one of two things...find out the true answer or be a memory for others and nothing more. I personally believe we will find the answers but hey I am not going to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. Do I agree with what this young lady is doing? No. However I will not demonize her as many have done in their posts. I don't feel that anyone will be crushed at this school if it is removed but would be happy to see some compromise in it by editing it without the religious references where those that believe can still insert the terms to make it a prayer if they so believe.

This is not the SCHOOL'S posting; it is HISTORY of the school, a gift from a 7th grader after a monumental decision regarding prayer was reached. That 7th grader, exercising his or her freedom of speech, gave that gift to a group of kids who were so moved that they shared it with others. Nobody is forcing her to read it, to believe it, to repeat it, or to abide by it.

I do not believe the school has a right to force any religion on a child, but the school is just GEOGRAPHY here...the WHERE of the gift's display.

Jessica, go lay by your dish. Bad dog.

We are supposed to refer to YOUR previous post before responding.

Um yeah, because it includes the 10 most common fallacious arguments that I keep seeing trotted out... I then rebuke each one.

It was just in case you were about to cover the same ground I already covered, save us both some time.

Now, if you have a counterpoint - then lets hear it. I won't expect you to admit you're wrong, that never happens.... but if you insist on continuing an argument please refrain from those already covered and debunked.

I have no idea what belief system you have tollerance for but clearly you don't have tollerance for anyone disagreeing with you.

there is a difference between disagreement and being wrong, because you are indeed entitled to your own opinion - what you are NOT entitled to are your own facts.

This is not the SCHOOL'S posting; it is HISTORY of the school, a gift from a 7th grader after a monumental decision regarding prayer was reached. That 7th grader, exercising his or her freedom of speech, gave that gift to a group of kids who were so moved that they shared it with others.

Keep trying to spin there, it's pretty funny.

That ''monumental decision' was a Supreme Court ruling upholding the Constitution - so are you admitting this was prayer was posted in purposeful violation of the Constitution?

That 'gift' was posted by the school and kept up by the school for 50 years, the school (see gov't insitituion) then fought to keep it up when challenged of its Constitutionality. I'm pretty sure that' s endorsement.

For example, if some kids gave you a Nazi Swastika banner as a 'gift' - and you put it up prominently on the front of your house for 50 years, then complained when someone asked you to take it down... are you seriously trying to convince me that is not an endorsement of the Nazi swastika? Seriously?

That "geography" is public property, where it is prohibited to affirm or promote the primacy of any religious perspective.

Susie,

"We" would refer to anyone who abides by the 1st Amendment. Love or hate what this girl believes, it is inarguable, that public institutions, funded by tax dollars, are not to promote any specific religious belief, or lack thereof.

No one has told any Christian that they can't be Christian or pray in school. Pray all you want, talk about God all you want. What they tell Christians is, you can't use the tax funded buildings and school staff, who are paid with tax money, can't lead religious activities.

The term "Separation of Church and State" was coined in order to explain the purpose of the Establishment Clause. Since than, that clause has held the same meaning as that quote. You're argument is the same as debating whether we should say we have six of something, or half a dozen of something.

But to make it even clearer...

James Madison...

"Strongly guarded is the separation of religion and government in the Consitution."

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Ben Franklin...

"I have found Christian dogma to be unintelligible."

Thomas Jefferson...

"I contemplate with solemn reverance the act of the American people which declared that their legislature 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

And, my personal favorite, from the Treaty of Tripoli, written by John Adams, and ratified by congress...

"The United States was, in no sense, founded on the Christian religion."

It's like this... Banning a Nativity scene outside a court house, in NO WAY, infringes on your free practice thereof. You're more than welcome to post Nativity scenes all over your private property, be it residential or business. However, since the court is government property, ran by the government, owned by the government, paid for by the government, and cared for by the government...

And don't even give me that 10th Amendment, Mike Huckabee, crap. The 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Ergo, the 1st amendment to the states. Argument that the 10th gives the states the right to name a religion would of been valid in, oh 1860 or earlier. In fact, the 14th basically makes the 10th almost null and void. An issue regarding the 10th hasn't even come before SCOTUS since the '60's when they tried to use it to stop desegregation.

I put no credence in any post that tells others to "gtfo."

Yeah, seemingly this is most true in cases where "gtfo" is preceeded by : MAKE A COUNTERPOINT OR gtfo.

I just wanted to clarify what she meant. This is in reference of an atheist removing something that s/he deems religious, which can be interpreted as pushing his/her own agenda. You have to read her statement as she obviously meant it. If an action is purposefully taken, you should ask what most likely was it's intention. She's got a point, while your points seem rather arbitrary.

WRONG

Her point is that the removal of something AUTOMATICALLY means FORCING the opposite ideology. This is blatantly false.

FORCE would indicate an idea, action, belief, or thought being pushed upon you. The concept of NOTHING does not indicate an idea, action, belief, or thought being FORCED upon you, because NOTHING is there to push. Removal does not equal the force of opposition. Nothing does not equal something.

You are grasping at straws and trying to make an argument for something that does not exist.

There is no idea being forced on you by removing an idea, there is literally nothing there. If they were to replace the words with atheist writings, that would be forcing atheism. If they were to replace them with Islamic text, that would be forcing another religion. NOTHING does not equal SOMETHING.

No one... and I mean not ONE SINGLE PERSON... will walk by a blank wall and think, "Wow, look at all that atheism". Nothing is there, nothing exists.

The fact that YOU can not FORCE your views on people does not mean that the absence of your FORCE means the FORCE of opposition.

If someone is pushing you, physically FORCING your body to move, and they stop... does that mean you are now FORCING them? NO, nothing is happening, thus no FORCE is being applied.

If you are pulling on a rope, FORCING the person at the other end to physically move towards your direction, and you stop... does that mean the other person is now FORCING you to their direction? NO, neither of you are moving.

If someone is preaching Islam on a street corner, FORCING their belief on people, and they stop (whether by police or personal decision)... does the absence of the speech which was once being FORCED now indicate that opposing religion (or atheism) is being FORCED? No, there is simply no speech being forced on your ears... there is NOTHING!

NOTHING is just that... the absence of anything. NOTHING does NOT equal something. NOTHING does NOT equal the opposing view of the previous something.

Gneisenau,

If it is the Government writing GOD on the sidewalks, then yes, it can be seen as forcing a religion on people, or at least supporting on Religion over others!

Indie, I feel your frustration man...

awesome post.

If he still doesn't comprehend something so simple after that, it just won't happen.... it would be like trying to teach hamsters how to row.

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever maybe conceded to the influence of refined education on minds reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." - George Washington's Farewell Address

History is about to repeat itself in the most gruesome way. Everyone thinks America is too smart and powerful to be over thrown by dictators. Thomas Jefferson's famous quote "wall of seperation between church and state" IT IS NOT to kick out religion, but to keep one group of people from dominating or stopping the other from practicing their beliefs.

Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson - November 7, 1801

Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Association - January 1, 1802

Please, look it up and read it for yourselves. Arm yourself with truth and not someone elses spin or sound bites.

It is to protect people (all people Atheist, Muslim, Christians, etc....), to keep one group from dominating the other.

So in 1977 the courts ruled to change the meaning to remove all religion from government. So that group called the atheist are now dominating the rest. Only they are allowed to practice their beliefs in government places. And we are now well on our way to an unrelenting march to an Atheist Scientific Dictatorship.

"of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. Invain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." George Washington's Farewell Address

@ spg - If that's all it takes to force religion on you then you have bigger problems then the government writing God on the sidewalk.

Her point is that the removal of something AUTOMATICALLY means FORCING the opposite ideology. This is blatantly false.

Is it so hard to understand that this is meant in reference to who's doing the removing of something that has been known to be there? Let me put it another way: The ones tearing down the Berlin Wall were obviously against communism and the imprisonment of the people in Eastern Germany at the time. Same thing, different cause, and because the Berlin Wall doesn't exist anymore, doesn't mean that nothing, no ideology, no agenda, no intention has been there that took place.

You said exactly what I wanted to say. Everyone needs to stop forceing their beliefs on others. This goes for Aetheists also.

Burden of Destiny,

If the absence of religion in government is FORCING atheism on you, then the strength of your personal faith is questionable.

Personal faith is believing in something despite what anyone around you does or says. If YOUR faith is threatened by the absence of faith... if YOUR faith is threatened by NOTHINGNESS... literally, nothing. Then you are an EXTREMELY weak individual.

Doing nothing is NOT practicing atheism. Again, doing nothing is not something. Doing nothing is not practicing something. It is nothing. Stop trying to villainize the concept of nothing. It is just that, nothing. The absence of religion in government is NOT the presence of atheism, it is simply the absence.

I should also note that allowing the current religion of the majority of citizens to run our government is very dangerous. What will you say if the majority shifts to another religion? What happens if Muslims become the majority? Will you share your belief? Or will you champion the idea of separating their religion from government?

If he still doesn't comprehend something so simple after that, it just won't happen.... it would be like trying to teach hamsters how to row.

I think I explained myself logically. All it takes is to read posts carefully before making assumptions about someone else's mental capabilities.

Only they are allowed to practice their beliefs in government places

That's wrong - you are more than free to practice your beliefs in government places.

Having been a federal employee - they have very open policies to religious practice in the workplace. The only real limiting factors are safety and appearance of 'official' endorsement.

You can have religious articles, wear religious clothing, speak of religion (so long as you're not prosyletizing), pray, pray in a group, and celebrate religious holidays (Christmas parties and such).

In fact, Government employers are encouraged to facilitate the religious needs of their employees as much as possible (prayer time observances, holidays, special meals), so long as it does not interfere with duty or safety... and so long as it does not favor one above the other. (ie you must equally try to accomodate any religious need)

So... your whole basis is wrong.

Doing nothing is NOT practicing atheism. Again, doing nothing is not something

I think I explained myself logically.

When your logic is shown, quite clearly and plainly, to be flawed.... and then you don't except it... well, that usually indicates something doesn't it?

--

Not teaching sex ed is teaching homosexuality! Not eating a hamburger is promoting chicken! Not advocating cancer research is promoting aids!

Love me some false dichotomies.

Burden,

No one said that the Founding Father's weren't religious, or didn't want religion, they were fine with that. They just didn't want it in our government.

The quotes you posted had nothing to do with state sanctioning of religion, and that's what this is about, not religion in general.

I'll go study up if you take a Logic 101 class and see somebody about that paranoia.

Just because a PUBLIC FUNDED school cannot use public space to endorse a religious ideology does not mean students cannot wear shirts, write the script on their own cars, etc.

The very idea that removing a religious script from a public space some how endorses Atheism is absolutely ludicrous!

If some disagrees I would love to have just one of these right wingers to explain to us just how, banning the use of Tax Payer funded support for Christianity is an "Endorsement" of Atheism!

Gniesenau,

@ spg - If that's all it takes to force religion on you then you have bigger problems then the government writing God on the sidewalk.

Now see I am thinking the complete opposite, just how WEAK is the faith of these people that they NEED to have it printed on a PUBLIC WALL. How WEAK is someones faith if removing a religious script from a PUBLIC space going to turn them into an Atheist!!!!

Now if Proselytizing is the goal then I understand the need to write scripts in public spaces!

Is it so hard to understand that this is meant in reference to who's doing the removing of something that has been known to be there? Let me put it another way: The ones tearing down the Berlin Wall were obviously against communism and the imprisonment of the people in Eastern Germany at the time. Same thing, different cause, and because the Berlin Wall doesn't exist anymore, doesn't mean that nothing, no ideology, no agenda, no intention has been there that took place.

Thank you for proving my point.

The removal of the Berlin wall was an action representing the REMOVAL of a concept. However, removing the wall did not automatically mean a new ideology took it's place. People then had to come in and implement the new ideology. Bringing down the wall REMOVED one concept, but people then took ACTION to replace that concept with a new one.

Simply removing something DOES NOT equal the replacement or force of a new idea, separate action must be taken to then implement this new idea.

The removal of words on a wall indicates the removal of an idea, action would then be required to replace that idea with a new concept. No action has been taken, thus far. It was removed, and that was it... she did not replace it with a new concept, it is empty.

You are ASSUMING her intention was to push her ideology... yet that is a mere assumption. To prove you correct, action must be taken to PUSH that new ideology. As of now, there has been no action taken to replace the writing on the wall. Thus, one can infer that her intention was simply to remove it and stop there. Until action is taken to replace the previous concept, the wall simply exists in a void of nothing... actually it exists to perform it's original purpose, as a structure, nothing more.

You are attempting to equate the idea of nothing, the removal of something, as a representation of force from an opposing view. Again, nothing does not equal something. Removing a force does not equal an opposing force, it is just the removal. Action must be taken to create an opposing force. The absence of force does not indicate the presence of opposing forces.

Doing nothing is NOT practicing atheism. Again, doing nothing is not something. Doing nothing is not practicing something. It is nothing. Stop trying to villainize the concept of nothing. It is just that, nothing. The absence of religion in government is NOT the presence of atheism, it is simply the absence.

How is having that silly banner because of a clash of beliefs removed 'doing nothing'? I get nauseous repeating myself, but it's not that after the removal of the banner 'nothing is there', but the action that led to it is diametrically opposed to what that banner apparently for the person represented, in this case, counteracting Christianity, or religion in general. Moreover, since the girl is atheist, as she admitted, this action caters to her interest of promoting HER OWN beliefs (or so it can be interpreted).

I dare say that most Christian students and parents will be offended if Muslim, or Hindu, or even Wiccan prayers are posted in public schools. But, you can't have it both ways!!

I think saying "most" would be a bit much. There are lovely Muslim and Hindu and Jewish prayers. (I don't happen to know any Wiccan prayers.) I may be naive, but I think few Christians would object to prayers of other faiths unless they are of the "kill the infidel" variety. You ARE aware that the Psalms are Jewish, right? Also, that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), Qu'ran, Vedas, etc., are also considered great works of literature, even for atheists?

Religion has been so important to the world's culture and history that I think you aren't really educated if you know nothing about it. So trying to keep it entirely out of school is a mistake.

Not eating a hamburger is promoting chicken!

If you do it because you are a vegetarian and people know your preference, then you could say you're not eating a hamburger because you despise meat and as such promote vegetarianism.

I grew up in a little mormon town in Utah. I was force fed god every single day. I can absolutely understand how someone would get to be resentful of the whole idea.

But when you force feed y our atheism to people. You're no better than the people that shoved it on you. Grow the hell up.

Let me put it another way: The ones tearing down the Berlin Wall were obviously against communism and the imprisonment of the people in Eastern Germany at the time. Same thing, different cause, and because the Berlin Wall doesn't exist anymore, doesn't mean that nothing, no ideology, no agenda, no intention has been there that took place.

I like how you compare this prayer to the Berlin Wall, not a great analogy with some fundamental and crucial difference, but I will work with it.

Did the absence of an imprisoning wall promote freedom? I sure hope so. But you see, the wall was an active object by 'forcing' people to stay inside East Berlin - and freedom is the absence of such restrictions.

So, are you admitting that prayer was forcing something now? If it wasn't forcing anything, then it's absence couldn't force anything either. If the prayer was actively promoting religion, you are saying its absence is promoting atheism?

A crucial difference here, as I mentioned before - the negative of a wall is a ditch (both impede and restrict movement), and the neutral is no wall (freedom), because a wall only does 1 thing (its a barrier).... the opposite of a barrier is (no barrier).

The prayer's negating factor would need to be another prayer, an opposite prayer or statement of some sort - possibly an atheist poster. For posters promoting a specific thing can only be negated by the opposite thing, the absence of a poster is neutral.... much like the absence of the wall.

Indie & Shuk,

Lol, well done, my friends. I thank you, I've been having trouble articulating the "Nothing Doesn't Equal Something" explanation for a while. Truly, I applaud you.

Moreover, since the girl is atheist, as she admitted, this action caters to her interest of promoting HER OWN beliefs

It would only be promotional if it were replaced with atheist text. As of now it is not. So, the blank wall itself it NOT promotional, as it is just a wall. You may claim the action of removing it was making a statement, but unless you were privy to that information, you would not know it.

As it stands, two years from now, when this is forgotten and new students walk by a blank wall, they will NOT interpret a wall as promoting atheism. It is simply a wall.

She said that every time she saw the prayer, it said "You don't belong here". In that respect, she is right. A federal judge's ruling that the presence of this prayer was unconstitutional and that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion in reality was banning religion and thus violating the second part of the clause in the 1^st amendment that states "nor prevent the free exercise thereof".

This prayer on the wall for so long obviously caused her no harm but her actions caused great harm to many. She will no doubt next claim that no one likes her. In that regard, she may very well be correct.

Indie did a far better job than me, I was having similar problems - but yeah... you need an opposing force.

then you could say you're not eating a hamburger because you despise meat and as such promote vegetarianism.

So now a personal decision to act a certain way, alone and not pushing or telling others to follow suit, is "promoting"?

F*** it... I'm done. You are too far gone to be reasoned with. I am going to go "promote" eating meat by making a personal decision devoid of propaganda.

Lol, well done, my friends. I thank you, I've been having trouble articulating the "Nothing Doesn't Equal Something" explanation for a while. Truly, I applaud you.

Thanks Sarah,

I always enjoy reading your posts. They are very informative and always backed with facts. You are one of the more intelligent people on the vine.

And you're right, I was assuming, but that doesn't make my logic faulty. Since atheism is the belief in non-existence of a god, taking actions to remove something religious in the atheist's view, can easily interpreted as an action that promotes atheism, if an atheist is doing the removal. But I agree to disagree with others' opinions, however, I wouldn't go so far as to question someone else's mental capabilities because s/he doesn't agree with me.

Peace.

In that respect, she is right. A federal judge's ruling that the presence of this prayer was unconstitutional and that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion in reality was banning religion and thus violating the second part of the clause in the 1st amendment that states "nor prevent the free exercise thereof".

This nonsense argument AGAIN? Lol.

Ok - please make a counterpoint... DON'T move the goalposts or deflect.

--- Since it was the government endorsing religion by having this poster on the wall of a government facility -

Your argument is essentially saying that if the government is not endorsing your religion, that it is then prohibiting the free exercise of your religion.

Is this true? Why or why not?

can easily interpreted as an action that promotes atheism

Only by someone deluded enough to think that the absence of their particular flavor of religion on a wall equates to the endorsement of some other brand of life philosophy. Pure nonsense. Absence equates to nothing.

Trilly, "...tax the churches": Hmmm...how about using this same logic to make a case for taxing the ACLU, seems like they get involved in politics...and religious issues...and they are always on the side of the atheist...yet donations to them are tax deductible!

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing”....what...a Democrat said this?...better watch out Palumbo, this could be called hate speech! Watch your mail for a letter from the ACLU!

Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights. “I was amazed,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, which is based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 from support and scholarship funds.

And they gave her $13,000 because …….maybe the ACLU is charging her???

Raymond Santilli, whose family owns one of the flower shops that refused to deliver to Jessica, said he declined for safety reasons, knowing the controversy around the case. People from around the world have called to support or attack his decision, which he said he stood by.

Ray...your safety is not a consideration here...you're getting sued as well...watch your mail! And deliver those flowers...if necessary have Brinks deliver them for you…and, if you wish, you can of course pass on the charge! And turn over those attack letters to the ACLU…they…ummm….will look at them!

Last March, at a rancorous meeting that Judge Ronald R. Lagueux of United States District Court in Providence described in his ruling as resembling “a religious revival,”

Oh well, at least he is not showing any bias! Judge Lagueux, attend a religious revival…one of your choice…that will prove to everyone you know what you’re talking about! You might even get revived!

Pat McAssey, a senior who is president of the student council, said the threats were “completely inexcusable” but added that Jessica had upset some of her classmates by mocking religion online. “Their frustration kind of came from that,” he said.

Look Pat, Jessica was just exercising her right to free speech...so she mocked your dearly held beliefs that's her God...oops strike that...State given right! Of course it raises the question…was that mocking "hate" speech, or just mean speech?

Does she empathize in any way with members of her community who want the prayer to stay? “I’ve never been asked this before,” she said. A pause, and then: “It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to. It’s for their own good. I feel like they might see it as a very negative thing right now, but I’m defending their Constitution, too.”

And making $13,000….

The above is mostly tongue-in-cheek…a Steven Colbert type of spin on this story…well maybe more of a Keith Olberman spin but with no intention to hurt anyone feelings or mock their beliefs (unlike Keith). The answer to this problem is actually very simple. The state owes everyone an education…some students are inspired by prayer to higher levels of achievement, while others are simply offended at the thought that a higher power than themselves might exist and is acknowledged by others. Answer: The state will pay for everyone’s education wherever they choose to go…public…or private…end of problem!

Note to the ACLU: I am just exercising MY right to free speech…don’t send me any mail!

...to answer Shuklack's question whether "not eating a hamburger is promoting chicken", my answer was:

[If you are a vegetarian] ...then you could say you're not eating a hamburger because you despise meat and as such promote vegetarianism.

So now a personal decision to act a certain way, alone and not pushing or telling others to follow suit, is "promoting"?

Well, there would be several fast food places and restaurants out there, that promote it (vegetarism), and some people who follow it; besides, promoting doesn't necessarily mean forcing someone to act a certain way. People can always ignore it.

I get it though sotired... and your logic would apply, but not in this case.

It would apply if this were a church, or someone's home. The removal of those religious objects would indeed mean a disapproval of those religious objects (now not necessarily promoting atheism, because there are religions out there against iconography of all sorts).

But this is a school - and it's supposed to be secular.... so there your logic does not apply in returning it to its proper Constitutionally mandated neutral-on-religion state.

Indie and Shulack and hilarious etc,

Taking down / prohibiting display of a christian sign is an oppressive action to religious expression and freedoms. Just like taking down an atheist sign would be, yeah imagine that for a second that this had been about a student being forced to take down an atheist sign. Equally oppressive act, and the uproar would be coming from the other side.

You really found a deep rabbit hole which was super entertaining, but the point is; if atheist fanatics like this girl continue get their way - no one gets to express religious freedoms and hence we all become atheists in our religious expression. Sorry, we're so on to you even if you haven't yet achieved that level of self awareness. Like I said, true atheists really don't care if someone puts up a sign as evident from the rational postings on this thread by them. The rest of you pseudo atheists need to figure out why you're so upset by religious expression.

Finally, Constitutional rights are not restricted to the just the within home or church - they are protected all over this country. Freedom of speech doesn't just apply within the home, and neither do religious freedoms.

The irony of a death threat against someone for having a Christian prayer removed...how does that not get noticed by the person making the threat?

"GOD HATES SCALLOPS!"

Thanks, Sarah, still laughing at that.

I really considered this banner more a piece of the school's history than a religious expression, since it's been made by a student 50 years ago, and most likely it hasn't offended anyone, until Jessica got the courts to remove it (it obviously offended her). Her action may have been backed by the constitution, but a little tolerance would have gone a long way as to not make this thing a public affair that infuriated many people. Don't get me wrong, I don't despise her beliefs (I don't conform to any mainstream religion either), but I do despise her action(s).

Just another marvelous example of intolerance and blatant stupidity all the way around.

So, because one stuck up little girl is offended by a prayer that was DONATED to the school by a former student, the prayer must be taken down. Brilliant.

Do I think she should be receiving death threats? No, that's absurd. Do I think she's a clueless, intolerant little cow? You betcha.

Oh, and Shuklack? The Constitution does not apply to this case. The prayer was a gift to the school from a former student. Therefore, the school is not attempting to promote religion.

Sorry pal, but the Constitution does not apply to this case. The judge that said it does is just another moron with no critical thinking skills...just like most of the human race.

Just another sad commentary on the stupidity of humanity in the 21st century.

while we at it...we are the people of earth... remove all the flags at schools of all nations...put up a corporate logo...

Separation of state and church is a good thing but some common sense can never hurt either.

The prayer talks about our heavenly father. I think it is a pretty generic prayer. It does not extol the virtue of one particular religion over others. It does not say it is only for Christians. Also there is the question of tradition. It has been there for 49 years. It is not hurting anyone.

This girl does not believe in god. Fine. But i don't understand why she has to be offended by the little prayer hanging on the wall.

Why can't the religious people as well as the atheists just live and let live without getting offended by each other ?

Same thing with Christmas decoration in city square or times square - It is tradition guys and as a non christian American i still like the old traditions of my country. I would be really pissed if some atheist group successfully campaigns to have our giant Christmas tree at Rockefeller center taken down.

This child cares nothing about the US Constitution. She is just using the Constitution to plead her case. She is just pissed off because she wants to be heard and promote atheism.

This girl is requesting removal of something based on her religion, which is atheism. Study her words closely. She first identifies herself as an atheist.

I don't need her to defend my Constitution. Also, she used a poor example of making her case. Vaccines? Really? Try something else child.

first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.) It seems to me that the author of that prayer has had their right to free exercise of their belief and their freedom of speech has been abridged.by the belief of another. Had she wanted to put a conflicting view next to the poem (written by another student in 1963) and the school refused she should have the right to ask to have it removed. If she just wants any conflicting views to her belief system removed, that is abridging the freedom of speech of the first student.

wow...I really don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. A tax payer funded public building, which is constitutionally prohibited from endorsing a religion, has been doing so for 50 years and has been called out. Now, it is no longer doing so. Job well done.

Just like taking down an atheist sign would be, yeah imagine that for a second that this had been about a student being forced to take down an atheist sign.

Actually I did think of that (usually, I try to think of multiple avenues and yaknow... apply critical thinking)

It wouldn't bother me because a school as an institution should not endorse a religion or lack thereof. It is a secular institution.

Due to the establishment clause limiting the government and not allowing it to endorse a religion - a government institution like a school only has 2 options: Endorse all religions equally, or endorse none....

Obviously one is by far the more realistic approach, and the "stay out of it" policy has remained the standard way of ensuring compliance to the Constitution.

If you want an explanation for why there is an establishment clause (since yall seem to have such a huge problem with it and think because the government won't endorse your religion that it is somehow prohibiting your exercise of religion lol) ... I suggest doing some research and reading the numerous essays on the topic... from Jefferson to the Supreme Court rulings to Voltaire to... whomever. It might teach you WHY it's so important in order to maintain freedom and liberty for all religions.

This child cares nothing about the US Constitution. She is just using the Constitution to plead her case.

Even if that happens to be the case, she's right in line with the Constitution - so what's your point? Have a problem with the Constitution... then explain why, don't go attacking the girl because that's just pretty darn pathetic.

She is just a 16 year old publicity seeker who wants her 15 minutes of fame and to be able to put this on facebook.When I started to read the article I knew the ACLU had to be mixed up in this somehow and was not surprised.

The prayer talks about our heavenly father.

I think I went over this like... 8 or 9 times now.

Our Heavenly Father....

Heavenly indicates a religion that has a deity in Heaven

Father indicates a single god (monotheism) and patriarchal system.

So generic? No... it's pretty specific to monotheistic beliefs in a single male entity which resides in Heaven, and it also indicates that this particular deity is EVERYONE's deity (I guess they never bothered to ask if he was?)

It clearly excludes numerous religions as well as non-religious people.

It's hardly non-denominational or universal.

So, because one stuck up little girl is offended by a prayer that was DONATED to the school by a former student, the prayer must be taken down. Brilliant.

Why does the manner they received it matter in the least bit? How is that even relevant? If someone DONATED a swastika banner to you, does that mean you do not endorse it after you display it on the side of your house for 50 years? Seriously, who are you trying to fool?

Oh, and Shuklack? The Constitution does not apply to this case. The prayer was a gift to the school from a former student. Therefore, the school is not attempting to promote religion.

Read above, seriously that has got to be the dumbest argument I've heard all day (and I've heard it several times).

She is just a 16 year old publicity seeker who wants her 15 minutes of fame and to be able to put this on facebook.When I started to read the article I knew the ACLU had to be mixed up in this somehow and was not surprised.

An ad hominem attack to a baseless dig at the ACLU. Nice post, lots of substance /s/

If you "choose" to not adhere or believe in religious aspects fine have it your way. Religion allows those who believe to understand that their is a greater purpose for their life and that their are aspects of life that are greater than just them. Go ahead put your trust in a 16 year old who loves Harry Potter movies, mysticism,and spends all her time on facebook. How infinitely wise she must truly be. Or those who believe as such for that matter. I'll continue to believe in something greater than myself and you need only look up in the sky and beyond to the universe to understand that there are mysteries to our lives , some that exist here on this very planet and others that don't, that we will never understand in totality. I "choose" to put my trust in my lord and not in the hands of men/women who would do anything to keep their control within grasp. The only reason they have this "power" is that we give it willfully because we're naive and believe that they will do what's best for us all. What was the universe before man saw it as such? It was something intrinsically different. It was unknown. The more man "discovers" the less he/she believes in things that are greater than themselves? Knowledge is power but the belief that one knows all will lead to their own destruction and that of others. If man is the all knowing, all seeing then we only need to look at ourselves, those with the "power" that is, to see that this worlds ills are not gods fault but our own. How convenient for atheists, non-believers. You want to speak of false deities and demigods? Keep idolizing those who would rather retract,decieve. and destroy the very spirit that those long before have given their very lives in order to protect. Speak ill towards the religions of this world. I won't do the same. I will pray for you all, atheist or not that one day we will all sit at the same table and share in our humble nature. God wishes this, man/woman does not. In gods view there is always enough to go around. In mans/womans world there is never enough to go around. Guess it depends on how you "perceive" things to be. It is true that man/woman are indeed capable of great and wonderous things but to say that if man didn't create it then it must not be good, pure or just is shows ignorance to a universe that holds the key to our very existence to which no one has "discovered" and never will. Some experience gifts from god and others were given the natural ability to achieve in their profession with hard work and diligence. We are all capable of this. You did do it but you didn't do it on your own. You were given a gift and now is your time to shine and aid those who need your prowess. You will never catch up nor will you be able to go to the beginning. Life passes you by and with each passing day as "intelligence" swells within our planet we can't even grasp simple things such as love, respect and good will. Its the little things that truly matter. So much for intelligence and humility. Good day and god bless.

Calculated - some of us are ok with not knowing, in fact - it's that curiosity that drives us.... we want the real answers for amazing reality, not something made up and impossible to prove or substantiate.

"Prophets have existed in all countries and at all times; but the gift becomes rare in the same proportion as people learn to read and write." - Winwood Reade.

please anyone!!!! can anyone show me where it says "separation of church and state" anywhere in the US constitution!!!?!!!? anywhere!!!!!!!!!! what? cant find it? im sure you know its there right? you actually have read the US constitution right? if you can find that phrase then you have a point but guess what? its not in there!!!!!!! so all you people using that phrase to make your argument are LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu+.htm go read the US constitution for yourself instead of letting others tell you whats not in it. hey for extra credit can anyone tell us where that phrase came from and why it has no legal standing in any case?

this little heathen has no legal standing and should be sued by any citizen for fraud against the tax-payer. most of you people know jack-squat about history, this country or the constitution that governs our federal government, not our lives. we have freedom OF religion , it does not say "from". the constitution is what prevents the GOVERNMENT from doing things its not designed for, not private citizens.

please anyone!!!! can anyone show me where it says "separation of church and state" anywhere in the US constitution!!!?!!!? anywhere!!!!!!!!!!

I'd suggest starting with the wiki

Hopefully it will lead you into further research.

The "separation of church and state" has been the accepted understanding of the establishment clause of the Constitution by the Supreme Court since the 19th Century. The phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson when he was referring to the establishment clause.

Seriously, why do people ask questions which the answers are a short google search away and happens to be one of the most well-documented and understood clauses in the US Constitution?

I read that prayer...it was just the most offensive thing I've ever read. And dangerous, too! How dare people try to live the way the author proposed! (sarcasm). I really hope this girl and her family (and all other athiests) didn't celebrate Christmas. That would be hypocritical

omg!!! really guy, wiki!!!!!! why dont you go ahead and READ!!!!! the freaking US constitution and come back and tell us all where its at!!!!! "separation of church and state" is no where in any legal founding documents. its in a fking letter written by jefferson to danbury regarding the catholic church and the township and has nothing to do with anything related to what its being used for.

ITS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!ANYWHERE!!!!!!!!

I read that prayer...it was just the most offensive thing I've ever read. And dangerous, too! How dare people try to live the way the author proposed! (sarcasm). I really hope this girl and her family (and all other athiests) didn't celebrate Christmas. That would be hypocritical

I read that prayer...it was just the most offensive thing I've ever read. And dangerous, too! How dare people try to live the way the author proposed! (sarcasm). I really hope this girl and her family (and all other athiests) didn't celebrate Christmas. That would be hypocritical

omg!!! really guy, wiki!!!!!! why dont you go ahead and READ!!!!!

As I said "START" with the wiki - it provides links to other sources detailing the precedents for the phrase, the supreme court cases, and the letters and references made to it and similar interpretations from people like Thomas Jefferson and Adams.

So, please... telling by the inordinate amount of exclamation points you use - and horrendous grammar... I assume you might be rather young and inexperienced in how to properly do research.

I was trying simply to give you an easy starting point to a question you had.... but apparently it wasn't a question and you already have your mind made up regardless of the facts surrounding it.

I "choose" to put my trust in my lord and not in the hands of men/women who would do anything to keep their control within grasp

Calcula7ed,

Of course you put your trust in your lord.

According to your Bible, the ONLY way to get into heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior. You were born in a time (present day) and place (America) where the word of Jesus has spread. According to your belief, God put you in this place... his plan for you was to be born here. You were lucky.

Imagine if you were born in this same place thousands of years ago, when tribes ruled the land. Christianity had not crossed the ocean, the word and knowledge of Jesus had not reached this land. Thus, according to your Bible, every single one of those souls was doomed to hell. They never even had a chance, since they would never learn of Jesus in their lifetime. And if they would never learn of Jesus, it would be impossible to "accept" him and earn entrance into heaven. So according to your beliefs, they are burning now. They were unlucky.

Naturally you trust in your lord, because you were one of the lucky ones. According to your belief, he placed you in a time and place that allowed you to find salvation. But think of the millions upon millions of people burning in hell, all because they were unlucky and born in a time or place that Christianity had not reached. I bet they have very little trust in your God. Ever wonder why he chooses to allow some souls to have the opportunity to find salvation, while others have no chance and are destined to an eternity of torment and agony?

But I digress, the lucky ones will always trust in that which brought their luck.

Oh, and...

Life passes you by and with each passing day as "intelligence" swells within our planet we can't even grasp simple things such as love, respect and good will

Tell me, Calcula7ed, where is this love, respect and good will? Is it in the Christians sending death threats to this girl? Or the Christians lashing out at atheists? Maybe it lies in the Christians who promote hatred towards gays? Or the Christians who hate Muslims? Is it "intelligence" that drives their pure hatred, or their religious beliefs? Ahh... but I am guessing you won't answer, because the truth is too painful. But you are correct, you should pray for all... especially the so-called Christians of today.

JPM77 wrote this post which is PERFECT in length, point, legal Constitutional relevance and support and I can only suggest: Jessica did NOT force the school to take down the prayer, The Constitution did. She only spoke up.

Bravo, JPM77:

"It's amazing the amount of hate that will come out of those who are offended by our Constitutional individual rights because they somehow feel they are special and different and have the authority to override those rights if you are a minority simply because they are in the majority.

Brave young woman, I wish her well.

That school was public and had no business having a prayer banner in it. As a public institution it is a representative of the government and the government may not establish any religion, or any religion as superior to any others or over no religion at all. It must remain strictly neutral in order to remain constitutional, and this prayer banner was a clear violation of this young woman's Constitutional rights to be free of her government establishing religion over her.

Now, those of you who like the prayer banner, you are still free and have the liberty to pray, believe, and think what you want with regards to religion, you are also free to exercise your religion as you wish so long as you violate no one elses rights in the process. If you want to send your children to schools with prayer banners you have the freedom to send them to private religious institutions, or home school them, and no one may rightfully prevent you from doing so.

But that freedom to exercise your religion ends at having the government establish it over others for you. This decision was correct, and upholds one of our most sacred founding freedoms - religious liberty."

ITS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!ANYWHERE!!!!!!!!

The "separation of church and state" has been the accepted understanding of the establishment clause of the Constitution by the Supreme Court since the 19th Century. The phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson when he was referring to the establishment clause.

Seriously, why do people ask questions which the answers are a short google search away and happens to be one of the most well-documented and understood clauses in the US Constitution?

But I digress, the lucky ones will always trust in that which brought their luck.

I remember when I was a kid in Catholic school being told that those that never were given the chance were exempt.... yet if that meant 'entrance into heaven' or not was left conspicuously .... lacking in its explanation. And of course don't forget all those who were killed and tortured for the religion, not sure if they are exempt or not.... pretty sure the clergy of the time condemned them for wanting to worship what they grew up worshipping and believing.

1. If you followed a true Christian Christmas, all you would have is going to church. Gift giving was considered a pagan tradition.

2. Who the hell do you think you are to tell people how to celebrate a holiday? What's next? Banning Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. from attending any Christmas parties/traditions?

3. Heavenly father does NOT represent what a buddhist, muslim, wiccan, etc. worship. Therefore, it doesn't represent all religions, making it unconstitutional as it only refers to those that do worship a Heavenly father.

4. Here's an idea: let's change it to Allah and see the people b****. Same idea as Heavenly Father.

Let me see now. that poster has been hanging there for how long? How many children have walked through those same halls? And this is the first one to have a hissy-fit over it? Girl, don't look at it. It was NOT written for YOU and it is NOT meant for YOU.

Basically, I'm telling you to believe what you want cause theirs nothing I could ever say or do to change the minds of those who are already set in their ways. It does worry me when those, some young others old, hold to a belief not that of the spirit but of the flesh. The spirit knows what is right for the collective, not the flesh. I believe in something greater than myself and I found that through religion. Not man/woman. It's funny though cause for one to believe that religion has never been touched by the hands of the corrupted or influential gives me pause for concern. Someone wrote it and it's been passed on through our existence. So to say that it's interpretation has never been tarnished, misinterpreted or muddled would be a statement that I would never make. I'm not overly religious but it's something that calms me. All I'm saying is that when others have failed me I've always been able to find some comfort in the teachings of my religion. In times like these people need to find trust and understanding in whatever they find that cools their heads. I'm not any different than the next but one thing that truly separates me is my belief in a religion. I chose it to be but from being judged by others. It is my choice and I accept that. I have broad shoulders its fine. I don't judge or segregate. That's not for me to decide singularly but I will not stand idly by while my beliefs are being trampled on by those who "choose" to believe in alternate devices. I can truly say that if it wasn't for my beliefs my spirit would be crushed and my existence would have ceased years ago. All I can do is continue to pray for myself and others for the grace of God to be restored and that is what I will do. Good day and GOD bless.

omg shuklack, aren't you the ignorant one here. i asked anyone to show me where in the US constitution the phrase "separation of church and state" is and you come back with wiki and more wiki and spouting about something that had no relevance to my question, you then go on to talk about my grammar like it really makes a difference to anything, you obviously cant read or comprehend the US constitution so i would consider you a danger to yourself and others around you. i know more about the US constitution than you will ever know, or for that matter more than the average citizen.

just because our judicial branch long ago threw away the US constitution and instead wrote law from the bench does not mean what they say is true or legal. the government does not rule over us and the courts have no power over us, the judicial branch has a strict role per US constitution and they have violated their oath many times over. you do know that the US constitution is a legal contract and the D.o.I. is the basis for that contract, all other papers not part of either 2 documents are not considered in constitutional judgments and the courts illegally used them to judge and pass law.

again, please show us where in the US constitution the phrase "separation of church and state" is? i know wiki must be the best thing since sliced cheese for you indoctrinated people but try actually reading something that has some truth to it, here is the link again please for the sake of your metal health read it; http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu+.htm (note that its not wiki, its the US constitution)

and you know what? im old enough to have seen this country fall apart from people like you, who know nothing bout this country or history in general. i served my country, i paid my taxes and now im through with this BS politically correct, government, selfish people who always want to tell others how to live crap. i am a free man with free-will and i will do what our founding fathers would want us to do.

Nearly all aspects of Christmas observance have their roots in Roman custom and religion. Consider the following admission from a large American newspaper (The Buffalo News, Nov. 22, 1984): “The earliest reference to Christmas being marked on Dec. 25 comes from the second century after Jesus’ birth. It is considered likely the first Christmas celebrations were in reaction to the Roman Saturnalia, a harvest festival that marked the winter solstice—the return of the sun—and honored Saturn, the god of sowing. Saturnalia was a rowdy time, much opposed by the more austere leaders among the still-minority Christian sect. Christmas developed, one scholar says, as a means of replacing worship of the sun with worship of the Son. By 529 A.D., after Christianity had become the official state religion of the Roman Empire, Emperor Justinian made Christmas a civic holiday. The celebration of Christmas reached its peak—some would say its worst moments—in the medieval period when it became a time for conspicuous consumption and unequaled revelry.”

Consider these quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, under “Christmas”: “Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church…The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt.” Further, “Pagan customs centring round the January calends gravitated to Christmas.” Under “Natal Day,” Origen, an early Catholic writer, admitted, “…In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day on which they were born into this world” (emphasis mine).

The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956 edition, adds, “Christmas…was not observed in the first centuries of the Christian church, since the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth…a feast was established in memory of this event [Christ’s birth] in the 4th century. In the 5th century the Western church ordered the feast to be celebrated on the day of the Mithraic rites of the birth of the sun and at the close of the Saturnalia, as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ’s birth existed.”

There is no mistaking the origin of the modern Christmas celebration. Many additional sources could be cited and we will return to this later. Let’s begin to tie some other facts together.

It was 300 years after Christ before the Roman church kept Christmas, and not until the fifth century that it was mandated to be kept throughout the empire as an official festival honoring “Christ.”

Dave: Good for you. I am fully accepting of your belief in Allah, or God, or Diana, Or Krom or whatever you like, but the United States Government was formed on a basic principal of freedom of AND FROM religion. The public school system is a representative of the government and therefore shall not endorse any religion over another (by using the term "Heavenly Father" it refers to either christian or muslim beliefs, by being stated as the "School Prayer" it establishes religiosity over scientific secularism, this is clear and empirical) or endorse any religion over the practice of none. This was not only framed in the original Constitution but clarified in it's many forms through years and years of legal precedent (which builds on and clarifies the exact meaning of each principal). There have been many court cases through the nearly two and a half centuries of the existence of this country that have decided and clarified these tenets in our country of laws. We are a country of laws.

Instead of trying to bait non religious people by asking US "why do you have such a problem with our beliefs" as you did earlier, ask yourself "What if I decide I no longer believe in god, will I be protected in the same way by my government's institutions, or will I be nudged back towards religiosity by them?" "If I choose to speak out against the religious establishment will they be underwritten by my government or will I have the right to speak with protection (from my government) against religious reprisal, even reprisal from my former religion?" These are some of the question you should ask.

It's not about whether something bothers me, or bothers you being up on a wall (the prayer): it's whether the government or it's schools are acting lawfully in being involved in either side of the question AT ALL.

The morals in the prayer are my own, your right to be a believer is unaffected and totally fine with me as an atheist. The problem I have is the forum and the implication that these morals are non secular. They are morals upon which all successful societies are based and they are without established religion, as am I, as is justice, as is The United States of America and all representatives thereof.

Swagganaut wrote:

"i paid my taxes and now im through with this BS politically correct, government, selfish people who always want to tell others how to live crap. i am a free man with free-will and i will do what our founding fathers would want us to do."

Your Founding Fathers wanted to establish a country of laws, laws which should be universally accepted and adhered to or rejected and changed by The People. If you cannot get the laws thrown out or replaced, you will be adhering to them? Or will you go against the Founders you mentioned by your actions? I'm just curious to know what you mean and I'm not asking for specifics....

Actually, he's right that the sentence 'separation of state church' does not literally appear in the constitution, but it's rather implied by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of (or from) religion. A union of church and state and religious liberty are mutually exclusive.

My beef is how that matter was resolved. For 50 years, no one was offended by the banner, and then someone suddenly decides to sue over what could've been resolved in a civil manner of politely asking to take the banner down or edit out the violating part, pointing out the constitutional violation.

read the US constitution people!!! http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu+.htm

nowhere does it say "from religion" it says "of religion" stop adding words that are not in there. atheists say they are being forced but in reality they are the ones doing the forcing, your beliefs do not trump my beliefs and vice-verse. if you dont like something you have the freedom to look at something else not destroy it. i have the freedom to display my beliefs as-well you have the freedom to not accept my beliefs, but thats where it ends.

100% fact: morality comes from religion. why would someone develop morality if they believe in nothing higher than themselves? no other known life-form has displayed morality, only us homo-homo(no homo, lol)-sapiens and it came from the fear of GOD(s).

I remember when I was a kid in Catholic school being told that those that never were given the chance were exempt.... yet if that meant 'entrance into heaven' or not was left conspicuously .... lacking in its explanation

Ahhh, see I was a protestant school kid, and they had no such explanation. I was simple told that is was "part of God's plan". Obviously leading me to question a God that would banish souls who were given no chance at salvation; while also creating an odd sense of survivors guilt within me at a very young age.

Of course, the Catholic explanation is no less confusing. So the chosen people need to work harder at salvation, while the rest get a free pass. That's seems counter-intuitive. If true, then missionaries are doing an incredible disservice to the world. If not knowing makes you "exempt", and the goal is to save as many souls as possible, then NOT spreading the word to new societies would save many more souls. By that logic, purging Christianity from all future generations would ensure the salvation of all, as none would know and thus all would be "exempt".

Funny how things work out that way.

@ Sam Adams:

<<<You must be joking. America is very intolerant of non-Christian religions. Don't believe me - travel abroad and see for yourself. Citizens of most countries in Europe and Asia embrace ALL religions - not just "theirs".>>>

Oh, really? So, is that why little Jewish schoolchildren get rocks thrown at them in rural France? Or why little Muslim schoolgirls aren't allowed to wear hijabs? Or why Christians can be persecuted and killed in Egypt without legal recourse for their persecutors? Or why religious expression in China is illegal?

I mean, I'm with you: a prayer hanging on the wall in a taxpayer funded institution is unconstitutional and wrong. But to call the USA religiously intolerant when compared to other countries is INCREDIBLY ill-informed....

you cant imply something if its not there!!!! separation of church and state came from a letter jefferson wrote (while not the president and studying overseas) to danbury, it was an opinion piece only but the courts illegally used it to make law. "from" and "of" are 2 different words with 2 different meanings and the correct word is "of" religion, not "from" religion. this is the problem we have, the constitution is being re-written by the courts and thats been the case for over 200 years.

our founding fathers would revolt just as they did with england, they would see the corrupt government and lazy citizens and use the D.o.I. to overthrow this useless bureaucratic garbage. our founding fathers would not even recognize the country they founded as it has gotten too out of control and far from the constraints of the US constitution.

if you dont like something you have the freedom to look at something else not destroy it. i have the freedom to display my beliefs as-well you have the freedom to not accept my beliefs, but thats where it ends.

Swagganaut,

Where have I heard this before? Oh, that's right... this is the EXACT same rationale used to support homosexuality. You have the freedom to look away, and not accept it, but "that's where it ends."

So you believe this when it refers to atheists not accepting Christianity... but you completely flip-flop and change your stance when it refers to Christians not accepting gays.

How delightfully hypocritical.

you cant imply something if its not there!!!!

Yes, you can. The 'right to privacy' or the 'right to a fair trial' aren't in the constitution either, but that doesn't mean you can't be prosecuted if you violate either one.

@ Sam Adams:

<<<You must be joking. America is very intolerant of non-Christian religions. Don't believe me - travel abroad and see for yourself. Citizens of most countries in Europe and Asia embrace ALL religions - not just "theirs".>>>

Oh, really? Is that why little Jewish schoolchildren have rocks thrown at them in rural France? Or why little Muslim schoolgirls aren't allowed to wear their hijabs in that country? Or why Christians can be persecuted and killed in Egypt without any legal recourse for their persecutors? Or why religious expression is illegal in China?

I'm with you: a prayer hanging on the wall of a taxpayer-funded, public institution is unconstitutional and wrong. But to suggest that the USA is religiously intolerant compared to other countries is ludicrous, and TOTALLY ill-informed...

where did i ever say anything like that? you are putting words in my mouth that were never there. you want to know what i think about gays? they can do w/e they want within their private lives, they can display all the affection they want in public and i wouldnt care the least. now where it stops is when they try to force others to accept their lifestyle and pass laws forcing others to accept it, no one has to accept anyone, we are individuals. religion says gays are an abomination because they offer nothing to the advancement of humanity and live in perpetual sin, i dont subscribe to that thought as its not my duty to judge. we have no right to control what others do, as long as what others do, does no harm.

My beef is how that matter was resolved. For 50 years, no one was offended by the banner, and then someone suddenly decides to sue over what could've been resolved in a civil manner of politely asking to take the banner down or edit out the violating part, pointing out the constitutional violation.

1. The banner was put up around the time of McCarthyism (you know, if you don't worship God, you must be a communist). Who was going to change that when 'fear' was running rampant.

2. She tried in a civil manner. She went to the school, twice regarding the matter of how it was unconstitutional and just wanted heavenly father and amen out. Both times, the school said nope, doesn't violate the constitution. She ended up contacting the ACLU about it. The ACLU has to look at it through a number of 'points' (basically there are given reasons when the ACLU can get involved when they look over the case; if they see a certain number of points that shows discrimination, then they will take the case). She, herself, had no problem with the message, just heavenly father and amen. I do not know who decided to take the entire thing down.

3. Schools don't teach history to kids anymore. Politics, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. They don't know. I went to a trivia game at college to and watched in total surprised where college students could not name all 3 branches of the government, did not know what the 14th Amendment was (ironically, there was a team comprised of black students who could not answer this), what was the woman suffrage (hope I spelled that right) movement, or the 3 things that the First Amendment protects (everyone got the freedom of speech/press part, no one else knew what the other 2 parts were), etc. They didn't know and the majority of the audience didn't know as well (when the teams couldn't answer, the announcer then asked the audience who raised their hands; no one got points when it reached the audience). They either never learned it (which, I never learned anything past the first and second amendments in my schools or the Bills of Rights in general and I had to slowly teach myself the Amendments on my own) or they ignored it when it was taught. Since January 22 of this year, Cranston high school is NOT going over this historical moment of the school with their students. Students are talking about it. They want to talk about it in history class, but the teacher said he won't do it. It was in the state paper. The guy wouldn't even try to link the First Amendment to the discussion.

Swagganaut,

Thank you for proving my point.

You tell atheists they have the right to not accept your beliefs, but "that's where it ends." Meaning that, according to you, they do not have the right to make laws that infringe on your beliefs... they do not have the right to make laws which limits the freedoms of your beliefs... they can only "not accept" it, and that's "where is ends".

Then you turn around, do not accept homosexuality (your right), but it DOES NOT end there... you make laws limiting their freedom... you make laws infringing on their rights... you DO NOT END at "not accepting", you push your laws to oppress.

Thus, you are a hypocrite, and my point is proven.

(BTW... there are absolutely NO LAWS that force you to accept anything. Acceptance is a personal decision, and no law can force that. Laws simply ensure people certain rights, not acceptance. For instance: the law says you must give equal rights to African Americans, yet many racists do not "accept" them... nor are they required to. There is literally NOTHING that says you have to "accept" ANYTHING.)

She tried in a civil manner. She went to the school, twice regarding the matter of how it was unconstitutional and just wanted heavenly father and amen out. Both times, the school said nope, doesn't violate the constitution. She ended up contacting the ACLU about it.

I stand corrected. Either I overlooked that part in the article, or it wasn't there at the time I read it, which was several hours ago. I probably would be pi$$ed too if I got treated like a pushover when all I wanted is exercising my rights in a peaceful manner. Emphasize on 'peaceful', isn't that what most religions preach?

you cant imply something if its not there!!!!

"Yes, you can. The 'right to privacy' or the 'right to a fair trial' aren't in the constitution either, but that doesn't mean you can't be prosecuted if you violate either one."

maybe read the US constitution again? right to privacy is in the constitution is called the 4th amendment; "Article the sixth [Amendment IV] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." being secure means privacy from the government, while yes the exact word is not there, there also is no implication, its just terminology. privacy is highly subjective so that why its not used.

right to a fair trial is also in the US constitution, its called the 6th amendment; "Article the eighth [Amendment VI] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence". the word impartial refers to fair, again its just terminology. the 5th amendment also covers it; "Article the seventh [Amendment V] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". again its does not implicate "fair" its just the words they used are not as simple as "fair", again terminology. the word "fair" is highly subjective so that why its not used

nowhere in that document are the words or words related to "separation of church and state" there is nothing that even remotely resembles that.

"Article the third [Amendment I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

where is the law congress passed that allowed this banner to go up?

... there are absolutely NO LAWS that force you to accept anything.

Actually, there is...it's the legislation of the nation that you reside in.

Swagganaut, I meant literally, just the same as 'separation of church and state' doesn't appear in this exact phrasing. Those two terms are implied by wording that is different, but with the same meaning.

please show me any law that does what your stating?

"Then you turn around, do not accept homosexuality (your right), but it DOES NOT end there... you make laws limiting their freedom... you make laws infringing on their rights... you DO NOT END at "not accepting", you push your laws to oppress."

whats laws? you talking bout marriage? you know marriage is a religious thing right (not law)? the tax laws maybe punitive to gays (not just gays mind you) but then again most tax-laws are unconstitutional anyways. what laws specifically prevent homosexuals from doing the same things the rest of us can do? as far as i know, i passed no such laws and do not endorse any law that violates the confines of the US constitution. no one has to accept anyone else and no law should be passed forcing one group to accept another group. the US constitution is a restriction on what the central federal government can and cant do, not what the private citizen can and cant do.

I stand corrected. Either I overlooked that part in the article, or it wasn't there at the time I read it, which was several hours ago. I probably would be pi$$ed too if I got treated like a pushover when all I wanted is exercising my rights in a peaceful manner. Emphasize on 'peaceful', isn't that what most religions preach?

A lot of articles don't mention that part. Out the 10+ on the whole situation, maybe I read 3 that mentioned that part so it wouldn't surprise me if people didn't know that part. Or this: On youtube, someone video taped her explaining why she did it to a group of people; it was unconstitutional. She even admitted that there was nothing wrong with the message of the banner, BUT heavenly father and amen were the only problems with it. Adults booed her and anyone who even pointed out that it offends those who are not Christian/Catholic. Someone, superintendent of principal of the school, basically snapped at the audience who booed saying that there is no reason to boo at her and others who bring up opposing thoughts; I think the line was "you're adults and should be setting an example."

again, "separation of church and state" is not implied anywhere. its was a opinion letter written by a citizen (jefferson) while he was overseas studying. the only thing in the US constitution that prevents the government from passing laws that favors or restricts one religion over others is this; Article the third [Amendment I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

now show me the law congress passed that allowed this banner to be displayed or admit defeat.

whats laws? you talking bout marriage? you know marriage is a religious thing right (not law)?

WRONG

Marriage is NOT a religious thing. The first recorded case of marriage appeared on the Code of Hammurabi, from ancient Babylon, which predates Christianity. Marriage was created to maintain a set of societal laws. Many of the laws found on this Code were later adopted (read: stolen) by Christianity when they came to Babylon.

Bonds between people, similar to marriage, predate even the Code of Hammurabi. Every society and culture, going back before Christianity ever existed, had different traditions of bonding couples.

Religion, especially Christianity, does not hold a monopoly on the concept of marriage. Marriage laws existed far before your religion. The fact that religion stole the concept and attempts to claim ownership does not change the historical fact that marriage was not created as a religious institution. It would behoove you to educate yourself.

there are absolutely NO LAWS that force you to accept anything.

Actually, there is...it's the legislation of the nation that you reside in.

WRONG... again.

There is no law that forces you to ACCEPT anything.

Let me give you an example... The law says you are a human being, and thus have the rights of a person. I, personally, do not accept that you are a human being. Your failure to comprehend rationale thought leads me to infer an extreme lack of intelligence. Couple that with your inherently hateful nature, and it suggests a destructive organism. Thus, I categorize you as something little more than a virus. Now, the LAW says that you are human and deserving of equal right. I, however, do not ACCEPT that you are human, as you actions and behavior lead me to believe you are a virus. I concede that the law gives you the same rights as a person, but the law does not require me to accept you as one.

As you can see in my example, acceptance is NOT required by law. Conceding that you have rights, however, is required. So although you have rights, I still do not accept that something of your nature can be human.

Understand, cupcake?

There is no law that forces you to ACCEPT anything.

Yeah, but that's really splitting hairs. Acceptance is a person's assent to the reality of a situation, recognizing a process or condition (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it, protest, or exit. You don't HAVE to accept or even abide by the laws if you don't mind getting prosecuted every time when you break them. This argument is rather childish. Why would anyone live in a country s/he doesn't accept the laws of and expose him/herself to a world of grief and pain?

yea 2 people engaging in a union has been around along time duh but the word marriage itself and the ceremony we have come from religion ( i didnt say anything bout christianity, really shows your bias). even before christ people worshiped other gods and that is also religion. there is no law in this land that you must get married or not, its just tax laws that favor hetro marriage over homo and if you want those changed then go for it, i support that.

i did ask what specific laws passed by congress oppress gays but you instead go on bout the marriage thing and ignore my question.

swagganaut- If you're looking for the intent of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...") I would strongly suggest you Google James Madison (you know, the guy who wrote the Constitution) and freedom of religion.

Madison was a very pious man and he believed fervently that religion and governance must at all cost be kept separate for the mutual benefit of both.

I wonder if every one arguing that the sign wasn't hurting anyone would be just as happy if instead it had said Allah Akbar?

...and besides, no one really cares what one accepts or not, as long as others aren't actively bothered by your philosophy, like in your cited example above. Thoughts and beliefs are free, actions taken based on these that limit others' freedom are subject to prosecution. Simple as that.

so madison is alive now and his papers are legal documents? how bout we look at the OTHER founding fathers and what they wrote, not just one. again i will post it; "Article the third [Amendment I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." i have all founding documents known, on my comp and i have read all of em, even the ones who were against the US constitution.

show me the law that congress passed to allow this banner to be displayed? it specifically says in that amendment that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW!! if it had said allah akbar (of course this girl wouldt care)) then whats the deal? i would not look at it and i wouldnt be offended even though we are at war with islam. god is great and i dont need another language to tell me. how could a sign hurt anyone? are people that sensitive to be offended by words not directed at them? no one forces you to look at it or even acknowledge its existence and for damn sure no one forces you to convert (unlike islam lol).

Let this article be a lesson to all of you.

Don't ever donate anything to a school or other public institution. It might offend somebody to the point where they feel the need to file a lawsuit. It won't matter if only this one person is offended by it. All that matters is that they can find some legalistic bs to back them up and that's all that counts.

This is not a debate about right vs. wrong, or even what is legal and what is not. It is about one snot nosed brat deciding that a prayer DONATED to the school by a former student is offensive to her and that is simply unacceptable. It doesn't matter that removing the prayer offends a great many more people. It doesn't matter if THEIR rights are violated or ignored.

Nope. All that matters is this teenager couldn't handle something as simple as a prayer on a wall. What a pathetic freakin joke.

Just further proof that the human race is too stupid to ever grow up.

And please...spare me the idiotic argument about the separation of church and state. It's a mindless argument that doesn't hold up to even the most basic logical scrutiny.

No Wizard, what matters is that we are a nation of LAWS.

Wow Toasty, what a total copout of a rebuttal.

Fact: There is no LAW that specifically forbids a public institution, like a school, from displaying a donation. The fact that this donation happens to be a prayer is irrelevant. It was a gift given to the school by a former student. Nothing more, nothing less.

I love all you mindless drones that bleat on and on about the "separation of church and state" and continually show that you know NOTHING about what that is really supposed to mean. People like you aren't interested in the "separation of church and state".

You're just interested in the REMOVAL of religion from public life. Period.

I just wish most of you would be honest about it. I could respect that. Attempting to use the law to cover what your real motives are is simply the act of a bunch of cowards.

I have NO respect for that.

@ Shuklack post 1.189

1. Wiki is not a go to source for Constitutional law and interpretation. Wiki can't even be used as a source in school papers because it is created by individuals, some, (though not all) with an agenda.

2. "Separation of Church and State" is not an accepted interpretation of the Constitution, except by those with an agenda to make all religion go away. It is wholly inaccurate when compared to the original text.

Much has been done to dilute or change the original text of the Constitution. In this case, it has been to the detriment of the US society in general and been a source of many needless court cases. This child is being used as a pawn by the ACLU. Had they not been involved, it would have been much ado about nothing. At no time has she been forced to recite, or even memorize this paragraph. Is she also against the content of the prayer, which models behavior required in schools even today? We shouldn't change this for a pawn for the ACLU. There are tons of schools in this nation that would post this. (And may well do just that, in response to this poor decision. Because in their districts, tolerance is taught, not Religion bashing.)

Willowbrook, I'd agree with you that the girl may have acted on behalf of a manipulative adult party with an agenda. In fact, I even doubt her true conviction of being an atheist, because she does come across as very naive. Not believing in god because he didn't heal her mother right away? True atheists are more considerate, after pondering whether there is evidence that a god exists (usually scientists, or philosophers).

Even though the constitution nowhere literally mentions 'separation of church and state', a case could be made that it's implied by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of (or from) religion. A union of church and state and religious liberty are mutually exclusive.

Wizard, just what exactly do you think the Establishment Clause is?

Swagg , these people havent a clue. They have been listening to so many other peoples liberal views, and people who want to change and add things to the constitution, or try to make a meaning of a law into something else. .

People are going to believe what ever they want, and not even care for truth any more.

Much has been done to dilute or change the original text of the Constitution. In this case, it has been to the detriment of the US society in general and been a source of many needless court cases. This child is being used as a pawn by the ACLU. Had they not been involved, it would have been much ado about nothing. At no time has she been forced to recite, or even memorize this paragraph. Is she also against the content of the prayer, which models behavior required in schools even today? We shouldn't change this for a pawn for the ACLU. There are tons of schools in this nation that would post this. (And may well do just that, in response to this poor decision. Because in their districts, tolerance is taught, not Religion bashing.)

Im surprised Jay Sekulow at the ACLJ didnt jump on this . He could have given them a battle.

@ Crossfit: If people are going to believe whatever they want, then the removal of a prayer from a school, should impact no one.

That having been said, the separation of Church and State, has nothing to do with beliefs, and everything to do with laws. The School system should have taken that prayer down long ago, it's too bad a teenager had to face public ostracizing in order to see the laws of the land upheld.

What law B murphy ? What law ? Please dont say seperation of church and state. If you can show me where that is law, I promise you I will give you every thing I own in life. Show me please

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

So, it's not necessarily a law, as much as it is a declaration that nothing coming from the Government can support any single religion, nor can they prohibit the free practice of any single religion. May sound like they're prohibiting free exercise, however, it's double-edged. That they posted a 'prayer' which is clearly religiously motivated, it had already breached part of the First Amendment. And whether you agree with me or not, I don't want what you have. That was never the intent of any of my responses.

right, so this school has the right to have it up if they want. No one is forcing anyone to accept a religion.

No....the school is publicly funded, and therefore they can't show it, otherwise it's respecting an establishment or religion, should be pretty clear actually.

If its publicly funded then the people should choose if it wants the words up there, Not some judge who tries to control what people want or not want. Im sure the majority that go there would not care if that sign is there. Like it is really being detrimental to anyone. Im sure if the Town/ city were to take a vote if they wanted the sign there, the majority would be all for it. If my funds are going to a school I want to have the right to decide what is on display or not. If this school is a government school , then sure . This girl was being used as a puppet by the ACLU

Tyranny of the majority is un-Constitutional and thereby un-American.

Denying the damage callous disregard for the rights of minorities doesn't obviate the damage.

The school board, in this case, was "being used as a puppet" by self-righteous, religious prigs, who refused to make minor modifications to the sign to bring it into compliance with the law.

So the Majority have to suffer because the minority want to whine about harmless words.

Can you even give me one good reason how words can be detrimental ? People always want to have the chance to take a shoot at christians, thats ok. Lets poke fun at them, but if its gays, muslims, any other ethnic race other then white people, its always crying bloody murder if we offend them.

I could understand if the school said, ok you have to recite these words out loud every day before you walk through the door, or you need to bow to the words and pray to them.. That would then be forcing something, but to have harmless words like these its really over reacting and people wanting attention. I hope it gets overturned.

So the Majority have to suffer because the minority want to whine about harmless words.

1) The majority do not "suffer". You cannot lose something you never actually had, and lose of unjust benefits is not "suffering".

2) The minority aren't "whining" - they're asserting their constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

3) The words aren't "harmless".

Can you even give me one good reason how words can be detrimental ?

With respect, I don't trust that you'd accept anything I have to say about that, because from the tone of your objection you seem disinclined to correction or edification. So I'll let the Supreme Court speak to you directly:

School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.”
530 U.S. 290, 309-10, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 2279

What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.
505 U.S. 592, 112 S.Ct. at 2658.

People always want to have the chance to take a shoot at christians

This isn't taking a shot at Christians. This is remedying a decades-old injustice. Our nation was established with very high ideals, and two hundred and thirty five years later we are still trying to achieve them.

Lets poke fun at them, but if its gays, muslims, any other ethnic race other then white people, its always crying bloody murder if we offend them.

A lot of Christians have a hard time differentiating between "offense" and "refusal to grant primacy". Minority religions generally don't insist on primacy. Christians sometimes do. They aren't entitled to it, and our nation guarantees not to allow it.

I could understand if ...

That's just outlining the parameters of the limitations of your understanding. The law is based on the legal parameters, not those that fit within your personal perceptions.

I hope it gets overturned.

It might. There are many ongoing efforts to corrupt this country into a Christian theocracy. That wouldn't make it right; it would simply be further evidence of the lengths the religiously self-righteous will go to defecate on our Constitution and impose their own beliefs on this secular nation.

You know dag on well what our founding fathers intentions were when they made the constitution. Dont try to pull some false belief they didnt have God, an almighty creator, or someone of a higher power to be accountable to when they made the constitution.

In our delaration of independence..

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These guys were not new to religion.

You take your eyes off of God when trying to run a country , your asking for a total mess. Look at all the junk that goes on now in our society. Look at all the loopholes being created by people undermining the constitution, or having new laws made, or adding, taking away to our laws.

I dont push it on anyone, but I wont be oppressed from other people. I will speak out.

Cross, please define EVERYONE'S creator.

Our founding fathers. I wont say they all were believers, but most were. In creator, this is the Holy Bible. They were not referring to some other religion or God. Im saying the majority , not all.

Nope. If they weren't believers they wouldn't have signed it. Creator is found in other religions. We can all agree in different ways were we somehow created. This can be taken as being vague, but at the same time being equal to all religions.

You know dag on well what our founding fathers intentions were when they made the constitution.

Yes, John Adams made it very clear in his "Defence(sic) of the Constitutions of the United States," (emphasis mine):

• It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize (sic) or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Dont try to pull some false belief they didnt have God, an almighty creator, or someone of a higher power to be accountable to when they made the constitution.

The church-state separation was not put in place because of God, it was put in place because of corrupt priests and corrupt churches.

• History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
  Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

If God comes down, she is welcome to go to any school and speak to the students.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

Yes. Crossfit, it says "their Creator." Not "the Creator," not "our Creator," and certainly not "Almighty God." It clearly leaves the concept and definition of "Creator" to "them," deferring to each individual's personal philosophy.

You take your eyes off of God when trying to run a country , your asking for a total mess.

Two World Wars, Korean, Vietnam, the Great Depression, The Long Depression, The Galveston Hurricane (over 6,000 casualties), San Francisco Earthquake (4,500 casualties), and many more, all happened AFTER the U.S. began putting "In God We Trust" on coins.

Are you sure you don't want to consider that putting God's name on filthy lucre didn't get God pissed off?

Regards

Not "the Creator," not "our Creator," and certainly not "Almighty God." It clearly leaves the concept and definition of "Creator" to "them," deferring to each individual's personal philosophy.

Thanks, Proud. You simplified what I was trying to say.

Thanks, Proud.

One is glad to be of service. :-)

Kind regards

Decent and very enjoyable post, Proud Pagan.

The founding fathers were deists, not Christians, but they left ample room in the constitution for all people to follow their own beliefs. Just, as mentioned, it's unconstitutional to promote any specific religion in a public school.

Having said that, this whole thing could have been resolved in a different way. I don't see it necessary to have a whole nation in outrage over some silly banner that has been collecting dust for the better part of 50 years and may have been ignored by the students.

no such thing as church and state in our law.

As if wars didnt take place with or with out a God, countries who were communist / atheist . Just dont put America out there because your attack is on God, try to think of the other wars that took place in history where God is not included.

Also you use quotes taken from a couple that were not in favor of God, but how many were in Favor or had a religious view. Or even those who didnt see eye to eye with God but still respected it. Or perhaps material where they may have talked down about God, but then later on was in favor of God.

Swagganaut wrote:

"i did ask what specific laws passed by congress oppress gays but you instead go on bout the marriage thing and ignore my question."

DOMA, DADT (since repealed), federal law allows married couples to not testify against one another but no married gay couple is protected equally as in Amedment XIV. Just three examples.

I know the reason Indie didn't continue arguing w/you: you ignore reality. These laws are real, they were made by representatives who you either voted for or didn't oppose, and they exist while you continue to say they don't. How can any intelligent person argue with you? You ignore facts and pretend that b/c you didn't directly vote for a law it must not exist, that's insanity, not debate. That is the reason you continue to discount the years of legal precedent that established our legal landscape since The Constitution.

I'm glad you edited Indie's 'cupcake' thing out of your post, because it was directed against me. I chose to ignore the diatribe comparing human beings to viri, and his arguing that because something isn't there, it doesn't represent anything. It's like saying if you remove evidence from a crime scene, it never happened, or if you stick your head in the sand, the world doesn't exist.

no such thing as church and state in our law.

130 years of Supreme Court precedent says otherwise. Or is, "@!$%# the courts, I want it done my way" your whole take on this?

As if wars didnt take place with or with out a God,

But Crossfit, didn't you just say,

You take your eyes off of God when trying to run a country , your asking for a total mess.

Which is it? Such contradictions cause you to appear disingenuous.

Just dont put America out there because your attack is on God

I didn't attack God. I supported the law.

...try to think of the other wars that took place in history where God is not included.

What ever you conceive her to be, God is never included in war.

Also you use quotes taken from a couple that were not in favor of God, but how many were in Favor or had a religious view.

Again (and again, and again) it was not a question of God. Almost all the Founding Fathers agreed that religious establishment needed to be kept out of government at all cost, because corruption would surely ensue.

• If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.
  -- George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
• What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies.
  -- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785

Read a reputable book on the subject. The results may startle you.

Regards

What ever you conceive her to be, God is never included in war.

Oh, but yes, almost every one. People love to justify their wars using religious motives. Crusades (obvious), WW2 (Holocaust), etc.

sotired-1320831

What ever you conceive her to be, God is never included in war.

Oh, but yes, almost every one. People love to justify their wars using religious motives. Crusades (obvious), WW2 (Holocaust), etc.

You can give that a rest, there has been more blood shed from communist countries persecuting Religious groups, Christian, Muslim, other religious groups. You make it sound like Christians are going out and doing the killing.

Crusades and Holocaust are bad examples if you try to use those. People in power who have twisted and distorted the Bible to suit their own selfish needs is what that was. If you know anything about how an "authentic christian " should be, it would not be someone who was in crusades, or Hitler.

@ Proud Pagan.

As i said before the founding fathers have wishy washie statements sometimes where it seems their against religion then turn around and seem for it.

Examples.

People like to use

John adams 2nd president, but they dont use the rest of what he said. they just rip it out of context.

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

However, here's the complete quotation in an April 19, 1817, letter to Thomas Jefferson:

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

Jesus is benevolence personified, an example for all men. . . . The Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and the heart (Letter to F.A. Van Der Kemp, December 27, 1816).

Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams organized the Boston Tea Party, and served as Governor of Massachusetts, a delegate to the Continental congress, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

In his 1772 work, The Rights of the Colonists, Adams wrote:

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.

The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty...The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

In his Last Will and Testament he wrote:

Principally, and first of all, I resign my soul to the Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins.

George Washington

The first President's faith is a bit harder to pin down.

Many Christian writers and commentators point to Washington's twenty-four page manuscript book, titled, Daily Sacrifice. It was found in April 1891 among a collection of Washington's papers in his confirmed handwriting when he was about the age of twenty. In it he prays:

Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God & guide this day and for ever for his sake, who lay down in the Grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

. . . in and for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me; for his sake, ease me of the burden of my sins, and give me grace that by the call of the Gospel I may rise from the slumber of sin into the newness of life.

Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in thy holy word; make me to know what is acceptable in thy holy word; make me to know what is acceptable in thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life, bless O Lord, all the people of this land, from the highest to the lowest, particularly those whom thou has appointed to rule over us in church & state. continue thy goodness to me this night. These weak petitions I humbly implore thee to hear accept and ans. for the sake of thy Dear Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

In his Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, Washington said:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.

However, during his presidency (1789-1797) and in his later life, Washington is not recorded referring to Jesus Christ and rarely to God. He preferred titles such as "the Divine Author of our blessed Religion," "Almighty Being," "Providence" and "Grand Designer" (all terms from Deist beliefs).

Washington also used the title "Supreme Architect" (a Freemasonary term of which he became a devout member, served as the head of the original Alexandria Lodge No. 22, and presided over the laying of the U.S. Capitol in a Mason apron).

According to Bishop White, Washington's pastor for nearly 25 years at the Protestant Episcopal Church of America, as well as Washington's adopted daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis, the President would leave the service before communion was served. (The Eucharist or Holy Communion is considered an essential part of salvation for Catholics and for many members of litergical churches.)

Lewis however defended her step-father's faith in a letter:

I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].

Thomas Jefferson was less charitable:

• I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.

  I am a Materialist.

  Among the sayings and discourses imputed to [Jesus] by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great . . . corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.

  Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus, And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

[Washington] had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572).

Thomas Jefferson

The writer of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States wrote to Charles Thomson in 1816:

Jefferson was a Deist who respected Christ's teachings, but rejected His divinity, His miracles, and His resurrection. In a letter to William Short dated April 13, 1820, he wrote:

In separating Jesus divine and human natures, Jefferson wrote to John Adams, January 24, 1814 that the divine aspects of Christ were "the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

And so he compiled The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels. Jefferson simply cut out anything of a supernatural or miraculous nature and so his Bible ends:

Benjamin Franklin

In his autobiography, Franklin describes himself as "a thorough Deist." "I began to be regarded, by pious souls, with horror, either as an apostate or an Atheist."

According to a Deist publication, a Deist is "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason." Deists reject the Judeo-Christian accounts of God as well as the Bible. They do believe that God is eternal and good, but flatly reject having a relationship with Him through Christ.

Franklin certainly believed in the providence of God. In his famous speech to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on June 28, 1787:

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth•that God governs in the affairs of men... If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground unseen by him, is it probable an empire could arise without his aid? I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building not better than the builders of Babel.

Just five months before his death, he wrote to Dr. Stiles, the President of Yale, who had questioned Franklin about his faith:

I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe; that he governs it by his Providence; that be ought to be worshipped; that the. most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children; that the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as be left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is like to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it.

You can give that a rest, there has been more blood shed from communist countries persecuting Religious groups, Christian, Muslim, other religious groups.

I'm sorry, that's simply not true. While I maintain my belief the God is not included in war, political leaders have used religious belief as a catalyst for organizing people against their enemies since before recorded history. You are more than welcome to present your evidence of "blood shed from Communist countries," etc., but you have a very daunting number to match.

You make it sound like Christians are going out and doing the killing.

Either Christians are in the majority, or they are not. You can't have it one way for legislation, then turn it around when it comes to war.

Crusades and Holocaust are bad examples if you try to use those. People in power who have twisted and distorted the Bible to suit their own selfish needs is what that was. If you know anything about how an "authentic christian " should be, it would not be someone who was in crusades, or Hitler.

See: No True Scotsman Fallacy

@ Proud Pagan.

As i said before the founding fathers have wishy washie statements sometimes where it seems their against religion then turn around and seem for it.

There is nothing "wishy-washy" about their statements at all. It's the people quoting them who create the ambiguity. The Founding Fathers wanted a secular government, that much is clear. Anyone who quotes any of the original Founders in a way that seems contrary, are supplying quotes where they are expressing a personal sentiment regarding personal piety or a personal opinion where religion is concerned. There is nothing inconsistent about wanting religion for themselves, and religious disinterest from the government.

Regards

John adams 2nd president, but they dont use the rest of what he said. they just rip it out of context.

The problem is that even in context it denounces trinitarian Christianity. Adams was a member of my religion, and I can assure you that you would not consider us Christians. A foundation of our faith is that Jesus was not deity - that he was just a great guy with some great ideas. So was Buddha. So was Muhammad. So was Gandhi. And so on. In that context, you must see how ludicrous it is to insinuate, as you have, that John Adams' vision for this nation affords any support for the kind of Christianity you imply it supports. In John Adams' church, where he is buried to this day, they typically don't even use the term "God" - they refer to the highest power as the "Spirit of Life" - surely not "Heavenly Father".

And so on.... your message outlined in several cases how our nation's founders would afford no support for usage of the term "Heavenly Father" in the context of God. It's simply not what they believed, and not what any non-Christians believe.

PS: Thanks for that Ben Franklin quote: "I believe in one God." I didn't realize that he was so definitively unitarian (with a lower-case 'u', though not Unitarian, with a capital 'u').

You make it sound like Christians are going out and doing the killing.

That wasn't my intention. Muslims are just as bad (even moreso today), heck, even the Buddhists have a violent record.

Proud Pagan

You can give that a rest, there has been more blood shed from communist countries persecuting Religious groups, Christian, Muslim, other religious groups.

I'm sorry, that's simply not true. While I maintain my belief the God is not included in war, political leaders have used religious belief as a catalyst for organizing people against their enemies since before recorded history. You are more than welcome to present your evidence of "blood shed from Communist countries," etc., but you have a very daunting number to match.

It certainly is true..

Although i hate quoting wiki atleast they have history on there of the persecution of Christians

China, russia, north korea. Japan

Even if you take Hitler, and try to say he was a believer in Christ or used the Bible. He altered the meaning of the bible, to make his own religion . He did persecute Christians and kill them. Or how about Stalin of Russia ?

How about Atheists who Kill ? Should we point them out ? or lets just talk about people who proclaim they are christians.

#Atheism_and_mass_murder

He altered the meaning of the bible, to make his own religion .

Which is no different from what Paul did when he founded Christianity in the first place, altered the meaning of Jesus' teachings to make his own religion.

Even if you take Hitler, and try to say he was a believer in Christ or used the Bible. He altered the meaning of the bible, to make his own religion .

In 'Hitler's Table Talk', he not only rejected Christianity, but he likened it to famine:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

(and that is just one excerpt of several anti-Christian statements, but it didn't keep him from riling up Christians against the Jews)

I do not consider Atheism a religion so much as a lack of religion and I am okay with that. As a generalist Pagan, yes I admit, it I believe all gods and goddesses exist. Including Yahweh and his son. True the phrase "Seperation of Church and State," are not present in the constitution, but the phrase is implied in the first amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. As a pagan and as a Wiccan I find that comforting. It means that simply by a majority no group of Christians, Muslims, Jews, or any one else who confuses Wicca with Satanic worship, can outlaw my religion on a whim. It's very wording allows a person to legally not practice a religion.

I am very conscious of the fact that at most 8000 Americans are practicing wiccans. I am also aware of the fact that many Christians who know nothing about how Wicca works as a faith may think we want to supplant Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wicca exists as it does today because of the freedom to have a religion or not have one. Even if the tables are turned in the future and Wiccans are in the majority and run the government there will be NO bill introduced in congress mandating Wicca as the sole religion in the United States.

If you are a Christian claiming the right to express yourself everywhere you have that right so long as it is limited to speech. Nonsecular writting is not protected on public property. If you want to erect a cross on public property there better be space for a rowan staff (one symbol of Wicca), A star of David, A cresent moon, A symbol holy to Hindu's, bhuddist's, Sihk's, and any other religion that feels left out. Classical religion in Europe, And Egypt is not dead, though diminished in number the Greek and Roman gods are still worshipped by some.

I cite the King James version for a reason if I am going to cite scripture at all,

Where I differ from Christians is that I do not see Yahweh as Chief among the gods. If asked do I believe in God I can honestly answer, "Which one?" And if someone choses to believe in no god or gods, I am okay with that too as long as my beliefs are respected.

@Crossfit: The Atheism argument has been used before, but forgets the fact that no leader or figure in Atheism has waged war on another in the name of Atheism.

They dont have to, my point is that no Non religious group meaning atheists come out smelling like roses either. Plus my point is that more people have indeed been killed by persecuting Christians and other religious folk. Not in the name of atheism, but in the name of killing them because of their belief in God.

Twist it how ever you like, the argument stands.

Um, no Crossfit, Stalin killed in the named of Communism, a political belief, it had nothing to do with his personal religious beliefs, which actually would've been very shunned by the Russian Government, which was predominately religious. No leader, has actually used Atheism as a means to kill mass quantities of others, unlike Christianity, Catholicism, Islam etc... Historical data simply doesn't back your assertions.

You can try to twist this entire argument any way you like, but your points have been answered, quite clearly, and proven false, again, quite clearly. You're lucky I don't hold you to your offer, because I'd own everything you have right now.

I'm sorry your amazing faith in the Lord has been so shattered by this event, really. I still say your beliefs and faith are pathetic if the removal of a prayer from a building means so much to you, that you have to distort and lie about historical fact in order to try and make yourself feel better.

your attack on me has little meaning. Nothing has been shattered. If anything I feel what has always been said in the bible. We will be persecuted. We have been and we have been killed for our beliefs. As i said above in my post, there is plenty of evidence to show the persecution of christians.

And I also said no one killed in the name of atheism, their non belief in God and killing those of religious faith for people who believe in God. Even if you choose not to call it killing in the name of atheism, its still atheists that are Killing. My point is atheists are guilty too.

I'm not attacking you Crossfit, I'm pointing out how meaningless and pointless your argument is, to say nothing how of loose you play with historical fact. You can ignore it all you like, but facts really don't lie here. Saying Atheist's are guilty also, doesn't change that fact. You can say it a billion times, and it still will be nothing but a lie and an attempt to avoid accepting that major religions have been twisted by man to horrible ends throughout history.

Bottom line, the law was upheld, and the original intent of the founding father's has been adhered too. Thanks for playing, just don't bet your personal belongings so casually in the future, in a real-life setting, you'd now be homeless.

Although i hate quoting wiki atleast they have history on there of the persecution of Christians

Indeed they do. As well as Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Religious discrimination against Neopagans, and (now everyone, please brace yourselves, I don't want anyone harmed from the shock) Discrimination against atheists.

But please, don't think I'm unsympathetic toward legitimate discrimination of Christians. I simply put it in perspective; as said in Benjamin Franklin's letter to the London Packet, June 3, 1772:

• If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England.

So, we can agree that discrimination and persecution are wrong, but I assure you, no one will move one mote closer to tolerance, acceptance, or uniformity by such ridiculous claims as "We are the good guys" or "Oh woe is persecuted us." We are ALL the bad guys, at some point, and we are ALL lacking for fairness and equity. As long as we continue to draw lines between "them" and "us," that is how it will remain.

Even if you take Hitler, and try to say he was a believer in Christ or used the Bible. He altered the meaning of the bible, to make his own religion .

That is among the most intelligent statements on this thread so far. You are right, he DID have his own religion. It is called "Megalomania."

He did persecute Christians and kill them.

And Jewish, and Blacks, and homosexuals, and that guy over there because he certainly doesn't look right, etc., etc. That's the problem with Hitler's religion, no one was safe. No one.

Or how about Stalin of Russia? How about Atheists who Kill?

He was no different from Hitler. He altered the meaning of Atheism, to make his own religion. Oh, of course you may be inclined to disagree, but consider this: Did Stalin kill Atheists? Were Atheists safe from his wrath because they were Atheists? These are questions worthy of some thought.

Should we point them out ? or lets just talk about people who proclaim they are christians.

How about we stop drawing lines in the sand? We might just find that we have more friends in this world than we realize.

Kind regards

B Murphy

I'm not attacking you Crossfit, I'm pointing out how meaningless and pointless your argument is, to say nothing how of loose you play with historical fact. You can ignore it all you like, but facts really don't lie here. Saying Atheist's are guilty also, doesn't change that fact. You can say it a billion times, and it still will be nothing but a lie and an attempt to avoid accepting that major religions have been twisted by man to horrible ends throughout history.

Bottom line, the law was upheld, and the original intent of the founding father's has been adhered too. Thanks for playing, just don't bet your personal belongings so casually in the future, in a real-life setting, you'd now be homeless.

I am still betting.. Because there is no where in our constitution that specifically says there is a separation of Church and state. If you can show me some where in the bill of rights, constition, ammendments that say that specifically then i will concede. To say this is what our founding fathers wanted, is nothing more then speaking for ALL of them. Not ALL of them believed in the same thing. To say they all wanted a separation of church and state can be putting words in their mouth.

from the ACLJ

• Where do today's arguments for the "separation of church and state" come from? What would our founding fathers say about the arguments being presented today?

Where do today's arguments for the "separation of church and state" come from? What would our founding fathers say about the arguments being presented today?

One of the amazing things about the Constitution is that our Founding Fathers had a foresight to imagine the kinds of issues we're facing today as the American people. They provided ways that we can rectify these situations, especially important now as we deal with homeland security and this war on terrorism. So the Constitution has served and continues to serve us well. However, there is some misunderstanding on church/state separation that I think is significant. The phrase "separation of church and state" is not even used in the Constitution. Nevertheless, there are two basic conflicting views. The accommodation view, which we hold and which we believe the Founding Fathers held, says that government cannot enforce a certain religion on people - the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion; this is why we have the Establishment Clause in the Constitution. Then there's the view of strict separation, which the ACLU holds, because they think that their view has the support of the Constitution. But church/state separation was never meant to exclude religious expression from public life. The Founding Fathers never intended to prevent anyone from saying the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school or other public arenas simply because it has the phrase "...one nation under God." Nor did they intend to ban the posting of the national motto, "In God We Trust." Many of these cases concern a general misunderstanding of the law. The founding fathers would never have imagined religious expression creating a constitutional crisis. Yet the ACLU thinks the constitution prevents religious expression, and some courts have agreed with them on some points.

Because there is no where in our constitution that specifically says there is a separation of Church and state. If you can show me some where in the bill of rights, constition, ammendments that say that specifically then i will concede.

Here you go:

James Madison (the Father of the Constitution himself),

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Note that Mr. Madison declares the separation is IN the U.S. Constitution

Then there's the SCOTUS landmark case: Reynolds v. US (1878), which interpreted the 1st Amendment to include separation of church and state, thereby establishing legal precedent which satnds today. From their decision:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

I'll accept your concession now, thank you.

Where do today's arguments for the "separation of church and state" come from?

Perhaps from constitutional violations of the government when it endorse a religion, such as a school displaying a religious themed poster.I would think that's obvious!

What would our founding fathers say about the arguments being presented today?

One could speculate they would be quite upset with the attempts at subverting the constitution.

However, there is some misunderstanding on church/state separation that I think is significant.

What makes you more of an authority on the Constitution than the Founding Fathers or the SCOTUS?

The phrase "separation of church and state" is not even used in the Constitution

I just proved it is, even if it's not explicitly stated. Do you think you have a right to privacy or to a fair trial? Those aren't stated in the Constitution either.

- the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion;

Free exercise is not without its limits, especially if that exercise violates secular law. Free exercise applies to the individual. It does not apply to a government agency, such as a school, which is an extension and representative of the government itself.

But church/state separation was never meant to exclude religious expression from public life.

No one's religious expression is being denied.

there's the view of strict separation, which the ACLU holds, because they think that their view has the support of the Constitution.

It does, and the courts agree!

The Founding Fathers never intended to prevent anyone from saying the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school or other public arenas simply because it has the phrase "...one nation under God."

The Founding Fathers never put "under god" in the Pledge either! That was added in the 1950's due to pressure from religious groups. However, n o one is obligated or forced to recite the Pledge.

Nor did they intend to ban the posting of the national motto, "In God We Trust."

They never put god on the currency either. That too was mandated by law in the 1950's. also due to pressure from religious groups.

Yet the ACLU thinks the constitution prevents religious expression, and some courts have agreed with them on some points.

As I said, this case isn't about religious expression. It's about religious ENDORSEMENT by the government!

Many of these cases concern a general misunderstanding of the law.

It seems you're the one who has a gross misunderstanding of law and history.

I'll accept your concession now, thank you.

You dont have it thank you because as i said it IS NOT in the constitution.

Then there's the SCOTUS landmark case: Reynolds v. US (1878), which interpreted the 1st Amendment to include separation of church and state, thereby establishing legal precedent which satnds today. From their decision:

Emphasis in Bold.. It was interpreted, which means people who are NOT the foudning fathers themselves made a decision based on their OWN personal view and made a conclusion. So once again I will state, no where is there anything in our ORIGINAL constitution that our founding fathers specifically said Separation of Church and state. Even with some one suggesting it, the fact is if you can not show me the actual word in the constituion , it is NOT there.

The Supreme Court says you're wrong.

School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."
530 U.S. 290, 309-10, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 2279

What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.
505 U.S. 592, 112 S.Ct. at 2658.

It was interpreted, which means people who are NOT the foudning fathers themselves made a decision based on their OWN personal view and made a conclusion.

That's exactly what the founders said it should happen: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court..."

So once again I will state

Conditioned as such, your comments are clearly categorized as literally meaningless. You're saying that you don't see specific wording in the document that you demand to satisfy yourself about this issue, but the reality is that separation of church and state is absolutely and unequivocally asserted by the US Constitution, as the US Constitution itself says such a thing would be supported. You simply don't like it, and that's okay, but it doesn't mean it isn't actually the case - it is the case.

You dont have it thank you because as i said it IS NOT in the constitution.

The SCOTUS and the Founding fathers disagree with you! Tell me, do you think you have a right to privacy or to a fair trial? Those are not in the constitution either! Something doesn't have to be explicitly stated in the constitution to be constitutional law.

.. It was interpreted, which means people who are NOT the foudning fathers themselves made a decision based on their OWN personal view and made a conclusion.

Interpretation of the Founding fathers intentions and the constitution is the job and responsibility the SCOTUS! Their "interpretations" IS LAW and the final word!

So once again I will state, no where is there anything in our ORIGINAL constitution that our founding fathers specifically said Separation of Church and state.

Then once again, you're flat out wrong! I've provided original sources and references which prove separation is in the constitution, and any legal scholar will agree, especially the SCOTUS, as it has for over 130 years. What have you provided? Nothing except your own opinion, which you erroneously think is more valid than SCOTUS precedcent. Repeating " it IS NOT in the constitution" like some kind of mantra is neither persuasive nor convincing.

the fact is if you can not show me the actual word in the constituion , it is NOT there.

I just did! Refusing to see it is just sticking your head in the sand or lying.

Crossfit and Swagganaut, how many times do you have to see it in print? The words seperation of church and state are not in the constitution. Rather "Seperation of Church and State" are a legal principle based on the beginning of the first Amendment. The states and the Federal Government may NOT endorse ANY religion. And unless a cult starts suppressing the rights of it's members, no action can be taken against a minority religion even if the majority dislikes it.

By insisting that anyone show you word for word something that is not in the constitution you are defending a trivial and unimportant position that has NO basis in reality. You lost and the sooner you admit to yourselves the sooner you can move on. If you really want Christianity to have primacy there is only one way to do it. Repeal the first amendment, and pass a proreligion amendment. There is just one problem with this scenario, whose version of Christianity is correct. You will be harming one of the cornerstone of democracy if you do, but who cares, you will get your way.

Look its a simple point, and obvious point. I cant say this any clearer on my point, is that the words Separation of church and state is not located any where in the constitution. We can debate until were blue in the face about what our founding father, supreme justices mean by their interpretation , but im not talking about THAT. Im saying the words do not exist in it. Can no one agree with that ? No one ? I am not asking if you believe in it or not, Im just saying the words dont exist , they dont exist, they dont exist. Show me the actual part of the constitution that has these words. SHOW me. SHOW ME SHOW ME.

Conditioned as such, your comments are clearly categorized as literally meaningless. You're saying that you don't see specific wording in the document that you demand to satisfy yourself about this issue, but the reality is that separation of church and state is absolutely and unequivocally asserted by the US Constitution, as the US Constitution itself says such a thing would be supported. You simply don't like it, and that's okay, but it doesn't mean it isn't actually the case - it is the case.

And once again its open to people who can choose to interpret how ever they want. Do all of the judges always agree when they interpret the law ? No, there is usually a split between them. The majority rules, but the point being is that not all of them always agree. Which is because they view something different.

The SCOTUS and the Founding fathers disagree with you! Tell me, do you think you have a right to privacy or to a fair trial? Those are not in the constitution either! Something doesn't have to be explicitly stated in the constitution to be constitutional law.

Im not talking about privacy, or a fair trial Im talking about the actual Words of Separation of church and state.

Interpretation of the Founding fathers intentions and the constitution is the job and responsibility the SCOTUS! Their "interpretations" IS LAW and the final word!

I never said it wasnt, once again my point is its their interpretation, of somethign that isnt there in Black and white.

Then once again, you're flat out wrong! I've provided original sources and references which prove separation is in the constitution, and any legal scholar will agree, especially the SCOTUS, as it has for over 130 years. What have you provided? Nothing except your own opinion, which you erroneously think is more valid than SCOTUS precedcent. Repeating " it IS NOT in the constitution" like some kind of mantra is neither persuasive nor convincing.

Just looking for the words, not assumptions or it was meant to be's . They dont exist

I cant say this any clearer on my point, is that the wordsSeparation of church and state is not located any where in the constitution.

Neither are the words, "don't discriminate against women".

So?

Can no one agree with that ?

Can you agree that separation between church and state is constitutionally required?

And once again its open to people who can choose to interpret how ever they want.

No, it isn't "open". The people who's interpretations matter are explicitly outlined in the US Constitution. Specific words saying that are there.

Im not talking about privacy, or a fair trial

The purpose of people presenting analogies for you is so you can learn from the parallels between the matter in dispute and other matters. If you close your eyes to all manner of ways that you can come to understand the reality of the constitutional issue, then you're going to remain stuck in your erroneous position.

Im not talking about privacy, or a fair trial Im talking about the actual Words of Separation of church and state.

Grade-school rationalization doesn't fly. Avoiding a fair comparison is reasonable proof that you're not interested in truth, you're interested in advancing a biased agenda.

Regards

Rather "Seperation of Church and State" are a legal principle based on the beginning of the first Amendment. The states and the Federal Government may NOT endorse ANY religion.

Well said Wade. That sums it up nicely.

I cant say this any clearer on my point, is that the words Separation of church and state is not located any where in the constitution.

Answer my question: do you think you have a right to privacy or to a fair trial?

We can debate until were blue in the face about what our founding father, supreme justices mean by their interpretation , but im not talking about THAT.

No, you're just talking. But there is no debate. Separation is in the constitution and the Founding fathers and the SCOTUS say so. The SCOTUS is responsible for those "interpretations," which you seem to disregard. But those interpretations IS law! your refusal to acknowledge that fact only makes you look foolish and disingenious!

SHOW me. SHOW ME SHOW ME.

I already did and you didn't listen. Throwing a tantrum doesn't help your argument or credibility.

Okay Crossfit here is the actual text first amendment, you tell me what it means, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 I am sick and tired of posting this. Are you saying that the first clause cannot serve as the basis for any legal precedent? Spare me the b.s. you are using to justify your position and explain what the amendment is saying about the role of government in regards to religion. Then tell me if what you read is subject to interpretation.

Im not talking about privacy, or a fair trial Im talking about the actual Words of Separation of church and state.

So am I! You want to talk about actual wording of the constitution, then answer my question! Don't deflect!

once again my point is its their interpretation, of somethign that isnt there in Black and white.

Their interpretation is written law, in black and white so to speak!

Just looking for the words, not assumptions or it was meant to be's . They dont exist

Then you're being willfully ignorant!

Ty Gordy.

nevermind. Your all no different from people who cant answer the Goo to you step by step process. I ask repeatedly for people to show a process they believe in and no one can show it, they just rant on about everything else proving their point. Same goes for here. If its not in the constitution its not in it. If you want to assume certain view points go ahead. Im stick by knowing my founding fathers were believers in God and inspired by God , made a set of guidelines for our country with a God in mind. If you insist in separation in church and state its a one way thing. People can and do have the right to their religion, the government does not have a right to make religion or take ours away.

nevermind. Your all no different from people who cant answer the Goo to you step by step process. I ask repeatedly for people to show a process they believe in and no one can show it, they just rant on about everything else proving their point. Same goes for here. If its not in the constitution its not in it. If you want to assume certain view points go ahead. Im stick by knowing my founding fathers were believers in God and inspired by God , made a set of guidelines for our country with a God in mind. If you insist in separation in church and state its a one way thing. People can and do have the right to their religion, the government does not have a right to make religion or take ours away.

Your post is not answer to my question Crossfit. It is an evasion. So I will supply an answer for you. You cannot answer my question, as given without acknowledging defeat. One question, I asked you to explain what the first amendment said and you EVADED the question. Welcome to my ignore list. Willful ignorance and bigotry is a choice. I have zero respect for people who stubornly embrace both.

Your all no different from people who cant answer the Goo to you step by step process

That doesn't even make sense and it only shows your lack of credibility.

I ask repeatedly for people to show a process they believe in and no one can show it, they just rant on about everything else proving their point.

We did! We pointed out relevant SCOTUS precedents and Founding father words themselves. you simply refuse to acknowledge or address them in favor of your own opinion, much less refute anything we presented.

If its not in the constitution its not in it.

You obviously do not understand the constitution or jurisprudence, and you ignore SCOTUS precedents. So answer my question I posted to you earlier: do you think you have a right to privacy or to a fair trial? I notice you keep dodging it!

If you insist in separation in church and state its a one way thing.

The SCOTUS and the Founding Fathers insist too, and you have provided nothing which says otherwise!

People can and do have the right to their religion, the government does not have a right to make religion or take ours away.

no one implied otherwise and that's not the issue here. This is obviously way above your head and comprehension!

One question, I asked you to explain what the first amendment said and you EVADED the question.

And he EVADED my question too while repeating the same erroneous rhetoric.

@ Wade, Tampa Fla.: Good call, I think we very clearly responded to everything this 'person' had to say, and was simply met with ignorance, and evasion. I'm adding 'it' to ignore also. ( I say it because I don't know the gender, and really, I don't want to disrespect either gender by lumping it in with them).

Ty B Murphy. I had lost all patience with Crossfit. Crossfit has not seen fit to respond to my last post, and gods willing s/he won't.

People can and do have the right to their religion, the government does not have a right to make religion or take ours away.

Correct, and this ruling does nothing of the sort - yet-another attempt by you to try to distract attention away from the topic of the thread, to try to avoid the fact that your criticisms of this ruling are without any merit.

Doesn't appear to be any separation of church and state of delusion here.

Because by making a poster you are forcing that personal belief on others. This is especially bad if done in schools, where children may not have as developed critical thinking as adults would have.

No on is saying you can't worship allah or any other magic sky fairy. What we are saying is that a government institution cannot endorse religion, any religion. Period.

What is wrong with it is that it hinders the scientific mind. The belief of a god is simply conjured up to explain what science can not yet explain. We are already lacking in science and engineering here in the U.S. and if we are teaching children in schools not to be objective critical thinkers than there is harm in that. If a childs parents choose to enforce this un-intellectual belief on there children that is there choice but this has no place in our public education system.

"Because by making a poster you are forcing that personal belief on others" This makes no sense to me. No more than a sign selling cars forces me to buy one. You people want to call Allah a "Sky Faerie"? That doesn't upset me. I just read the prayer and wonder if they removed the first line the one that has "Father" in it, if it would be pallitable to athiests? You are worrying me. Do books force people to do, believe or start anything? If so, you obviously are for banning books. This girl has found a way to garner national attention and ridiculously idiotic statements from people supporting her, tell me that there are loads of idiots in the USA. A prayer doesn't force anyone to do anything. As to the effect such things have on children, they deserve the right to research various religions, or simply Allah, should they choose to. Unprotected minds huh? Videos, tv, games and some mommies who put their toddlers in tiaras are ok but a prayer, ewwwwww that is dangerous? Talking about sky faeries, maybe you don't live in this real world where sex and violence sells? Where children are beating up on senior citizens? Where people are invading homes? Just what athiestic propaganda do you wish to be taught in schools that would teach children morals? I'd like to know.

Or maybe you are just grandstanding to gather the same attention as she has?

Oh and I do not agree with those who wish to do the child harm. Leave her alone. If you think you are doing Allah (God) a favor by choosing to harm someone, you really really need to see a certified psychologist in a hurry! Do not! I repeat, DO NOT act upon those voices in your head! If you must, immediately go to the nearest ER (Emergency Room) for assistance.

by condoning religious idiocy the school is failing to NOT promote ANY religion. IF you WANT religious bull@!$%#, go to a parochial school. That category of school will be more than happy to provide "indoctrination".

Dave, is it so painful to expect people in our country to obey the rules of the laws that were used as the foundational origins?

Is the constitution so hard to obey?

The test is simple -- examine the Lemon test (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman ) :

"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;

second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion;

finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Does, in this case, the keeping or presentation of that banner have a secular purpose? No, of course not.

Does it foster or advance religion (not a specific religion)? Yes.

Ok, so that's it -- the banner is in violation.

If someone were stealing pens, would it be SOO offensive to look the other way? You can answer your own question now.

Dave and Chirmly

Your cogent analysis gives credence that this young girl is far too intellectually immature (or a publicity hog) to form a rational argument on this issue.

Furthermore, in the selfsame immaturity, she has allowed herself to be a tool of special interests.

$13,000?

You're missing the point... ENTIRELY.

You are perfectly free to believe in whatever made-up deity you want. What you are NOT free to do is use government to promote that deity. If this is a public school, it is funded by government and by ALL taxpayers in that district. Therefore, no establishment or promotion of ANY religion is allowed.

You zealots are acting like all the churches have to remove their signs and billboards or something. Good grief.

Remove all objects funded by the government that are cross shaped. It's forcing atheists to believe in God and it's unconstitutional. Also, any government funded constructions should only be built by non-religious people, you never know, atheists might be driving on blessed roads and could magically be converted to believers!

Do you believe in the Constitution? Is it worth fighting for? Is it a good thing? Is it worth defending? Yes or no - pick one.

As an atheist, I have no problem with anyone wanting to believe in God. I do have a problem though with my duly elected government asserting their religious beliefs on me. I pay my taxes, I am a good citizen, I vote, I help my neighbors, I always try and do the right thing. I never feel compelled to do these things in the name of a any God.

I see many of the posts above are critically citing the special favors and treatment of Muslims. Isn't there God, the Jewish God, the Christian God, aren't they all the same God? Is one better than the other? If you think so does that make you a bigot?

Good for her!!! Religion is personal choice/error and should not be supported by state funds or have an effect on people who don't want anything to do with it. Religion is truly a handicap on humanity.

"god" should NOT be on U.S. currency, or in the pledge of allegiance!