Jessica Ahlquist, Atheist, Receives Threats Over Prayer Banner Ruling; School Board May Appeal (VIDEO)

Weeks after a judge ordered the removal of a prayer banner at a Rhode Island school, the atheist teen at the center of the controversy continues to receive threats as the school board decides its next move.

Since 2010, Jessica Ahlquist had been urging school officials to remove the banner from the auditorium at Cranston High School West.

The 8-foot banner features a prayer a student wrote in 1963 -- a prayer some consider part of the school's history.

On Jan. 11, federal judge Ronald R. Lagueux ruled it was unconstitutional for the banner to hang at the public school, The New York Times reports.

But the fight to remove the banner has come with consequences for the teen.

Ahlquist has encountered online threats and bullying and has even taken some time off from school, WPRO News reports.

Nevertheless, the 16-year-old says she plans on graduating from Cranston West next year.

Today, the prayer is covered by a tarp, as residents and school board members aren't ready to take the banner down without a fight.

First, the controversial ruling was a popular topic at a Jan. 25 budget meeting, and police even had to be called suppress the crowd, WPRI reports.

Now, a meeting has been scheduled for Feb. 16 during which school officials will hear public comment on the issue, Providence's NBC 10 reports. The board will then decide whether or not to challenge the judge's decision.

Ahlquist, an atheist who grew up Roman Catholic, was not the first to take issue with the presence of the 49-year-old banner.

A family filed a complaint with the American Civil Liberties Union in 2010, though Ahlquist eventually became the spokesperson for the plea and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, according to The New York Times.

At least one religious leader says Ahlquist should be able to stand up for what she believes.

"...We are proud to stand with others in Cranston who desire that Jessica and every young person be encouraged to learn to talk about their differences in peace," Rev. Leigh McCaffrey told Providence's NBC 10.

When the school committee addressed an initial complaint from the ACLU at meeting in August 2010, two religious leaders, a reverend and a rabbi, agreed the banner should be "altered or removed," according to the court document obtained by the Providence Journal.

In March 2011, the committee met again to hear public comments on the issue. Twenty-six adults spoke at the meeting, 24 of whom were in favor of keeping banner. Even one speaker who described himself as an atheist threatened to "assemble a group of people to surround the school and protect the Mural," if the ACLU took down the banner, the document states.

At the end of the meeting, committee member Michael Traficante announced the decision to keep the banner in its current state. Later that month, the committee decided to place an explanation next to the banner, detailing its decision to keep the prayer without alteration for "historic and cultural reasons."

The ACLU formally filed suit on April 4, 2011.

The prayer reads as follows:

Our Heavenly Father,

Grant us each day the desire to do our best,
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically,
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers,
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others,
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win,
Teach us the value of true friendship,
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

Amen

What's your take on the issue? Vote in the poll below.

Quick Poll

Do you agree with the judge's decision?

Yes, the presence of the prayer banner is unconstitutional.

The prayer banner should be altered, but not taken down.

No, the banner is a part of the school's history.

Undecided.

VOTE

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Comments

[RonP58]

09:18 PM on 03/07/2012

WOW...First, I think that Jessica has every right to do what she did. Second, anybody, adults especially, who threaten her for this is repulsive. I find their actions have much more to do with a lack of character rather than their religion. I find it very sad that a compromise was offered and not accepted. I think the "prayer" is a great lesson for all children and after taking out very few words it is no longer a prayer, but a positive affirmation for teenagers. I would hardly say a prayer hanging in the gym is shoving it down your kids throats, that is a little dramatic. I am a Christian, by choice, and will pray wherever the hell I want to and will expect not a single smirk or nasty comment about me being a "follower" of society or stupid for believing in "myths". How is this right? What I find amazing is that all of the posts I see, always involve a non-Christian resulting to name calling or an inability to be tolerant. Yes, there is a Constitution and amendments, but that does not mean you can use and abuse them however you feel. And, all the focus is on Christians when many religions honor a Father. I love my God and Jesus and think it is about time they were the ones to stop being blamed for the choices we make everyday. Let's get back to the basics, creating unity and supporting each other.

[bajesa]

07:20 PM on 03/08/2012

You said: "I am a Christian, by choice, and will pray wherever the hell I want to and will expect not a single smirk or nasty comment ..."

People (usually) deserve respect, but ideas or beliefs do not necessarily deserve respect. While you have a constitutional right to believe what you want, you do not have a constitutional right to not be offended. So, you are welcome to pray when you want to, but you should not expect that others won't smirk at the idea of prayer. Consider political views as an example. You might think Tea Partiers have ridiculous views and you might even mock their ideas. Why do you think religious views are more deserving of protection from criticism than political views?

You said: "...all the focus is on Christians when many religions honor a Father..."

The focus is on Christians for good reasons. As the judge said: "No amount of debate can make the School Prayer anything other than a prayer, and a Christian one at that. Its opening, calling upon the "Heavenly Father," is an exclusively Christian formulation of a monotheistic deity, leaving out, inter alia, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists alike." (from Ahlquist v City of Cranston, which can be viewed here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10811058226814137027&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr ) If you read the case, you'll see that those who fought against Jessica were Christians (usually Catholics).

[RonP58]

09:58 PM on 03/08/2012

I agree that public schools should be governed by our Constitution, so that issue is solved right there. I disagree with the fact that it is a prayer once the words which make it a prayer are taken out. And, there is a difference between Catholics ( a religion) and Christians, which is a deep relationship with Christ. So often they are confused and put together to stereotype anyone who believes that God exists.

I reserve the right as a human being to be offended whenever I want. It is how I express my feelings which makes all the difference. This works both ways: If Jessica is to be able to stand up for what she believes in without backlash, then I deserve the same. I disagree with you that people's values and beliefs do not deserve respect...THAT IS WHAT THIS ENTIRE ISSUE IS ABOUT!!! Does this fifteen year old girl not deserve respect for her beliefs???

[Timothy Woodward]

09:45 AM on 02/25/2012

It's a shame that the reporter (and most of the population of Providence, R.I.) seemed to miss the "real" point. These God fearing simple folk, "claim" the prayer is so much a part of there history and identity missed or forgot the part of the prayer that said:

"Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win."

After the judge made his ruling, it left no doubt at all that the prayer was inappropriate and needed to come down. It should have never been put up in the first place. The "good" and "righteous" congregations need to put down their bibles and pickup an read an elementary text on American civics.

The only one bringing credit to Cranston High School West is a brave young student and atheist named Jessica Ahlquist.

TimW
Faith is not a virtue -- pass it on

[sweetlilthing]

10:14 AM on 02/22/2012

What type of public school is this that doesn't promote the Constitution? Certainly the school knows it won't be backed up in the courts? These cases never win. All the school board is knowingly doing is wasting the taxpayers money while going against the Law. What's the message here? Have the taxpayers approved the use of their taxes on such a wasteful endeavor?

[MikeQ2]

12:30 PM on 02/21/2012

These people need to keep their religious comments to themselves and not assume everyone wants the prayers and Jesus signs all over the place. I am a retired Catholic working to be excommunicated. I am sick of paying into their retirement plan and have nothing to show for it. Praise Allah and I cannot wait for Yom Kippur

[Jeff Clifton]

01:54 PM on 02/21/2012

What 'people' are you talking about? Religious extremist fanatics,...or a teenager who had a message with good intentions?

Please re-post which lines offend you in the prayer....and if 'heavenly father' was replaced with 'Allah', would that be acceptable?

Ever think that may be offensive, or does it even matter whether it says 'heavenly father', or 'Allah'...should it not? Or are you just concerned with yourself?

[artboyzreborn]

03:06 PM on 03/01/2012

It's a prayer and it has to go.

[lifeline paige]

04:19 AM on 02/21/2012

Has anyone actually looked at the content of the prayer. The fact that this is directed towards God shouldn't bother anyone who doesn't believe there is a God. The fact that it brings so much attention confirms that there is a God. What part of the prayer bothers people...be honest or grow mentally? This is no surprise and I hope no one minds me quoting God on this but "But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of GOD (2 Tim. 3:4). The good news if we give it a little more time GOD will be happy to more explicitly prove his existence. The bad news is that it will be a little too late to believe that He does exist. For the record...God owns the world and its rather comical to think that He needs permission to govern our country.

[MikeQ2]

12:35 PM on 02/21/2012

Yes, yes I pray every day to wake up the next day. All my life this has worked, what could go wrong? Then again, uncle Feeblefester did the same but he did not wake up last week. Must have missed a prayer.
Or praying is a lazy person way of facing reality.

[Jeff Clifton]

01:59 PM on 02/21/2012

So, if say, uncle Feeblefester didn't praise Allah, would he die as well?

Are you coming with two agendas? One is that it is wrong to force ones religious ideals in the form of a banner, and the second being that Catholicism or Christianity is wrong and Islam is correct?

So, what is your argument? You seem focused on creating conflict here.

[sweetlilthing]

10:24 AM on 02/22/2012

The fact that people want it gone because it's a religious prayer that doesn't belong in public school is proof that God is real? The part that bothers people is that it's against the law and they don't want their children influenced by a prayer that represents a certain type of religion, in this case Christianity. My children are Atheist. I send them to public school to get an education not to read prayers from any religion. I respect your right to believe as you wish but please don't push it down my children's throats and I won't insist on a banner that says there is no God(s) in the cafeteria.

[lifeline paige]

11:32 AM on 02/22/2012

The fact that people want to take down a sign promoting community, respect for one another, and virtues that promote a great school environment was my issue. The idea of proving God's existence comes from the following question: Since you don't believe in God, then why would a sign containing the name of a God who does not exist bother you. If I oppose something that I claim doesn't exist then doesn't my resistance suggest that I must be opposing something that does exist. When someone steals your child's coat at school, you would agree that it is against the law to steal. You resist it by arguing that it is wrong. This awareness of wrong is not just the government's law but it's God's law. If human opinion is the only power behind our laws, then we have a major problem. If we can arbitrarily eliminate God's laws (don't steal, kill, or worship anyone other God), then why should anyone honor human laws. Since human power made the law, then human power can break the law because we are equal in power. You don't have to insist on a banner that says there is no God, just continue to fight against banners that promote God's value...mission accomplished. We're raising our kids to get a Masters in finance, only to commit suicide because life has no value. God is not philosophical argument, but God is good...God is love.

[Koreboomer]

08:26 PM on 02/19/2012

If they got rid of the religious references, it's all good advice.

Problem solved!

[Jeff Clifton]

02:01 PM on 02/21/2012

Which reference? Two words; 'heavenly father'??? Did you read the rest of the 'prayer'???

[bajesa]

04:28 PM on 02/27/2012

The religious references are these:
(1) The banner is titled "School Prayer"
(2) It makes a request to "Our Heavenly Father", an exclusively Christian formulation.
(3) It closes with "Amen", used only the the Abrahamic religions.
(4) It uses language such as "Grant us..." requesting help from a deity.

Although many have remarked that the overall sentiment of the School Prayer is good and valuable, the religious parts make it an unconstitutional endorsement of religion (in this case, specifically Christianity).

The school committee considered the option to remove the religious parts to make the banner comply with the law. They refused, apparently because the religious bits were the important thing to them. The court decision is worth reading:
http://www.rid.uscourts.gov/menu/judges/opinions/recent/01112012_1-11CV0138L_AHLQUIST_V_CRANSTON_P.pdf

[LisaJames]

08:11 PM on 02/16/2012

Tonight's the night. I wonder if Cranston finally will use some common sense. Hope so.

[LisaJames]

07:42 PM on 02/17/2012

And... it is over. 5-2 they voted not to appeal.

[bajesa]

08:42 PM on 02/06/2012

Jessica has inspired at least two others to protest prayer at their schools:
http://cranston.patch.com/articles/ahlquist-inspires-two-others-to-contest-prayers-at-their-schools

[Funkstronaut]

03:35 PM on 02/06/2012

Looking forward to seeing everyone back here next month.
http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2012/02/bible_man_okd_by_jackson_count.html
"Board members retired with their attorney into closed executive session to consider the five-page complaint sent last month by the Freedom from Religion Foundation on behalf of the parents. After an hour’s deliberations, board members returned to the room to announce, to applause, that they would not be banning the Bible Man from schools, despite the complaint about his monthly meetings with county elementary children."
Sounds like their attorney was home-schooled in Alabama. There is absolutely no way the school could win if it went (when it goes) to court. The fallout could be much greater than the Ahlquist case.
A storm is brewing.

[rmrgdr]

04:55 PM on 02/06/2012

I think they are, emboldened by the GOP/TP rhetoric floating around.
They WILL lose in court, no about about that.
Ask Judge Moore!

[crowepps]

04:24 AM on 02/07/2012

There's an old man and his wife who moved to our local area in the last couples years who shows up at all the public events handing out cheap mini-Bibles to little kids, but so far they've managed to keep him out of the schools. Frankly, he strikes me as pretty weird.

[eundrh]

12:36 AM on 02/06/2012

Think of the banner as a benign tumor...it doesn't belong there, but the removal causes more harm than its presence, and in time, the school would eventually come down and the banner find its way to some dusty corner of the historical society. Jessica may have been legally in the right, but she ought to have known enough to leave well enough alone. She is certainly not the first non-believer to go there; the others simply knew enough to go along to get along, not blaming the banner for the exclusion they felt as outsiders

[rmrgdr]

10:54 AM on 02/06/2012

Think of your post as ridiculous.
Why should anybody be a second class citizen?

[eundrh]

11:22 AM on 02/06/2012

Because they aren't as popular as the first class citizens but cooler than the third class citizens...high school "red in tooth and claw".

[bajesa]

11:07 AM on 02/06/2012

I must disagree with you. The school committee is entirely responsible. They were supposed to be the grownups in the room. They should have recognized that the prayer banner was illegal and remedied the situation. Instead they caved into the demands of the mob and their own personal religious preferences. They could have used this as an opportunity to teach the kids (and the parents apparently needed to learn too) about the importance of the separation of religion and government. They failed in their duty. Don't blame Jessica for this.

[Mac1967]

12:20 PM on 02/06/2012

The school board, being elected officials, cared more about their reelection than the law. Now they can say that they did everything in their power to prevent this imaginary outrage. They already had been on notice, that they weren't going to prevail, since the 1962 decision when prayers in school were ruled as unconstitutional. Plus, not a single nationwide challenge to the no religion in schools has ever been won. It was all about appearences and posturing by those who should have known better.

[Aardvaark]

02:25 PM on 02/05/2012

It's ironic that this took place in Rhode Island. The colony was founded by a Puritan, Roger Williams, nearly 400 years ago, who did it to separate church and state.

Here's an interesting op-ed piece that appeared in today's L. A. Times by John M. Barry. Barry says that Roger Williams "called such forced exposure to prayer 'spiritual rape.'"

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-barry-religion-20120205,0,3487349.story

[Miles Catlett]

09:04 PM on 02/14/2012

Roger Williams was a Baptist.

[Aardvaark]

10:39 PM on 02/14/2012

Not according to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29
Maybe you should send your "correction" to Wikipedia. ;-)

[BurtonDesque]

10:16 AM on 02/05/2012

STILL no arrests of anyone who threatened Ms. Ahlquist? Disgusting.

[Mac1967]

06:30 PM on 02/05/2012

Does anyone really expect anything different from the Cranston police? Politics have always been first.

[eundrh]

01:05 AM on 02/06/2012

They are too busy nailing speeders from our parking lot...likely to raise funds for the appeal.

[Paul Junior]

09:54 PM on 02/04/2012

Interesting is the fact that rmrgdr and others here who refuse to debate this issue on its merits... rather prefer to provide a link to an already well-known decision:) This article and the controversial issues it pertains to comprise the subject matter for this epic 27,000 + comment forum. Obviously, rmrgdr has no clue that such debatable cases are what court proceedings, judgments, and appeals are all about. Many details of this case are quite different from the case bajesa cited and which led to the 1962 ruling. Furthermore, decisions are overturned everyday on appeal:) I suggest rmrgdr study up and actually try legitimate debate after he/she graduates from middle school and begins to learn what debating is all about. High school and college should provide you with the opportunity to get a pretty good start:) If "reading a judge's decision" was all that was necessary to absorb and understand truths... we could save the courts a lot of time and expense... !!!:)

I have presented... as requested... sufficient reason and support for a successful appeal by Cranston High. The doubters may supply unfounded denials till the article and its commentaries expire. We will see what happens on February 16. As for me... I have other responsibilities and a life beyond Huff Post. If my comment #27,500 did not answer your request for a proper "presentation"... another 500 will merely bounce off deaf ears... !!!:) Good Night and may God Bless:)

[AZLibDem]

11:02 PM on 02/04/2012

"Interestin­g is the fact that rmrgdr and others here who refuse to debate this issue on its merits... "

Because, as has been pointed out, over and over, your argument is wrong on the merits, according to numerous court decisions spanning decades; furthermore, when a point of yours is rebutted, you simply ignore it and start the whole thing again. It's tedious, and pointless.

Oh yeah; Cha-ching! $$$$$

[rmrgdr]

12:02 AM on 02/05/2012

Gee thanks for taking the time for the personal insult !
I have worked in the legal proffesion for 32 years. You?
I'm not interested in debating idealouges.

[Aardvaark]

02:52 PM on 02/05/2012

F&F. Ideologues tend to start citing law, ignoring settled legal decisions that are counter to their preconceived notions.

[rmrgdr]

01:47 PM on 02/04/2012

Rather than refute Paul Juniors amateur legal argument, READ the Judges decision here:

http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/01/11/ahlquist_decision_011112.pdf

Paul, your legal analysis is somewhat like diagnosing a disease by reading a medical dictionary.
You wouldn't EVER change your mind, no matter what was explained to you. You have allready decided on this issue, you base it soley on your personal opinions based on your beliefs,.
The elephant you can't see ( because you choose not to), is that your personal beliefs, and those of the school board, are irrelevant, just as they are in any legal question. What is relevant is The Constitution, the law.
Read it! But I'm betting you won't!

[Cunningham]

02:43 AM on 02/07/2012

Thanks a lot for that link!

http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/01/11/ahlquist_decision_011112.pdf

[Paul Junior]

01:21 PM on 02/04/2012

In answer to those here who have cited the 14th amendment and Engel v Vitale.... and have asked whether or not I have read the related decisions...:

Certainly:) However, "...that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs..." does not apply here:) This banner was not imposed on the student body in order to organize "corporate prayer". It was merely a gesture by one student in order to encourage proper conduct and respect and compassion for fellow students... as coincidentally prescribed in Scripture.

In addition, the provision that "... it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."... also does not qualify this banner as "... the making of any law respecting an establishm­ent of religion..." as prohibited in the First Amendment... :)

My analysis of the case as covered under the First Amendment... found here several comments below... still stands as the most accurate conclusion concerning the displaying of the Cranston banner. I suspect legal representatives for the school system will be prepared to successfully appeal the original judge's ruling based on this approach to the true spirit of the Bill of Rights... :)

[rmrgdr]

01:56 PM on 02/04/2012

This banner was not imposed on the student body in order to organize "corporate prayer". It was merely a gesture by one student in order to encourage proper conduct and respect and compassion for fellow students..­. as coincident­ally prescribed in Scripture.

It WAS imposed on everyone by it's sponsoriship by the school, and it's display constitutes an endorsement. It was written as an assignment to the "school prayer comitee". No coincidence at all. Be honest.
This case wouldn't no be reversed on appeal, in fact, it might not even be heard. It could be won on a Motion for Summary Judgement.
Be honest man!

[myzelf]

03:16 PM on 02/04/2012

The person who wrote the prayer ADMITTED that the it was COMMISSIONED BY THE SCHOOL. The school itself recognized the authority of the Supreme Court and the Engel v. Vitale decision, and the fact that its endorsement of the prayer was illegal, around 1962 when it STOPPED reciting the prayer over the intercom each morning. A prayer mural that had been displayed in the middle school since the 1920's was REMOVED.

There's NO WAY you could have read the court's decision without seeing that. You can disobey God by lying and pontificate all you want, but that doesn't change the FACTS of the case. The prayer banner is illegal.