Rhode Island Prayer Banner Ruling Will Not Be Appealed, School Panel Decides

In this Oct. 13, 2011 file photo, Cranston High School West administrator Kim Magnelli points to where a dedication plaque once stood under a prayer banner in an auditorium at the school in Cranston, R.I. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, File)

CRANSTON, R.I. -- A Rhode Island public school committee on Thursday voted not to appeal a federal court decision ordering the removal of a prayer banner displayed in a high school.

The Cranston School Committee cast the 5-2 vote at a public hearing to discuss a lawsuit that had been brought on behalf of 16-year-old atheist Jessica Ahlquist, a junior at Cranston High School West.

"I'm thrilled," Ahlquist said after the vote.

The banner, put up in 1963, has been covered since a federal judge last month ruled it was unconstitutional and ordered it removed. The Class of 1963, which was the first to graduate from the school, gave the prayer banner and school creed as gifts.

Appeal opponents cited the legal costs as grounds for giving up the fight and proposed saving the money for education costs.

Lawyers representing Ahlquist have asked the court to order the city to pay $173,000 for legal fees. Attorney Joseph Cavanagh Jr., who represented the city, said a legal fight in the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston and the U.S. Supreme Court would cost another $500,000 in legal fees.

"You will be wasting time and incredible resources. Half a million dollars? How dare you," resident Rosemary Tregar said.

The costs swayed two members of the school committee who had voted last year to fight litigation over the banner.

Committee member Paula McFarland said the city is facing rising poverty and money must be spent wisely, drawing jeers from appeal supporters.

"This is what I don't like about this community," she said. "You have divided yourself in half."

Appeal supporter, Christopher Young, who is running for U.S. Congress, said he is talking to students about suing the school.

Student David Sears Jr., 15, asked the board to appeal.

"We have to appeal for the students of Cranston High School West and we have to appeal for our humanity," he said.

The legal battle over the banner incited passionate debate on both sides and made Ahlquist the target of online threats.

The atmosphere in auditorium was raucous at times. People pressing for the legal fight to continue wore signs around their necks that said "Appeal."

Some Ahlquist supporters wore T-shirts that said "Evil little thing," a reference to comments made by state Rep. Peter G. Palumbo, a Cranston Democrat, about the teen on talk radio.

After the court ruling, the junior was briefly shadowed by a police officer at school, and several florists declined to deliver flowers to her from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

People have flocked to school committee meetings to voice their opinions and protests have been held outside the high school.

Richard Tomlins, 80, an unsuccessful candidate for Cranston mayor in 2010, said he spent about $1,000 on automated calls and an online video that urged residents to push the school committee to appeal. He was gaveled down after going over his time limit for speaking and ended his address after being approached by a police officer.

The dispute began after Ahlquist noticed the prayer banner displayed in the school auditorium at the end of her freshman year. Ahlquist, who has been an atheist since age 10, started a Facebook page to support removing the banner and argued for taking it down before the school committee, according to court filings.

The prayer encourages students to strive academically. It begins with the words "Our Heavenly Father" and ends with "Amen."

Ahlquist argued the banner didn't belong in school and signaled to her that the school didn't respect her views.

The school committee voted in March to fight litigation over the banner. Volunteer attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on Ahlquist's behalf in April.

Comments

[Patriot334]

04:35 AM on 05/12/2012

Good decision. Now let's make sure the Islamic schools are in compliance too.

[Patriot334]

04:33 AM on 05/12/2012

Good decision. Now let's apply it to all the Islamic schools in the U.S. and make sure it's implemented !

[stepgro]

08:59 PM on 03/13/2012

The banner never should have been removed in the first place! Skip the appeal if you cannot afford it. Show some stones by simply disobeying the Court's clearly unconstitutional, and therefore tyrannical "order" by replacing the banner. School committee officials and parents should invite interested citizens from RI and elsewhere to peacably assemble, protest and "occupy" the space, 24/7/365, if necessary, and prevent ANY law enforcement officials from removing the banner. What part of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, that all lawyers, judges and most government officials have sworn to uphold and defend, do they and we NOT understand?: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion or OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF". Look it up! In view of the First Amendment, on what basis do the federal courts have any jurisdiction or business dictating religious exercise to local communities? Stop acting like scared little sheeple subjects, and stand up for our rights like manly and womanly CITIZENS! The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and we ALL have a duty to support and defend it against ALL ENEMIES, foreign and DOMESTIC. I for one am sick and tired of bowing and scraping before the inane rulings of tyrannical judges who have no understanding of or appreciation for the Constitution and expect us to cower to their will rather than stand up and defend our constitutional rights!

[bajesa]

10:49 PM on 03/17/2012

*People* have constitutional rights. Public schools do not. *People* may pray, post prayers in their lockers and notebooks, spout their religion on billboards, etc. But a public school does not have the right of religious expression. Public schools must remain neutral on the topic of religion. You have misunderstood the First Amendment. The "tyrannical judge" in this case is a conservative Catholic appointed by Reagan. He *does* understand the First Amendment and the other laws that pertain to this case. Perhaps you should read the court decision so you can learn something, such as how the Fourteenth Amendment causes the First Amendment to be applied to lower levels of government and other aspects of the law that you have apparently missed:

http://www.rid.uscourts.gov/menu/judges/opinions/recent/01112012_1-11CV0138L_AHLQUIST_V_CRANSTON_P.pdf

[Christopher Koulouris]

07:45 PM on 02/21/2012

So what is it about schools and local politicians insisting on mixing education and religion but more importantly what is about authoritative figures breathing down student’s necks when they choose to exercise their judicial right to make sure their rights are protected? Thank God (pun intended) that people like Ms Ahlquist are around to make sure our liberties are protected and to call out the fallacies that we are so often subjected to.

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2012/02/adam-hock-the-prince-offended-the-honor-of-the-supermodels-sitting-at-our-table/

[ThinkCreeps]

05:58 PM on 02/21/2012

You see - education does eventually work, even on school boards.

Next time, perhaps try to make a more advanced lesson, to avoid having to be taught by very expensive lawyers in an actual court.

[ChrisR Huffpo]

05:46 PM on 02/21/2012

I'm an atheist, and I don't see anything wrong with that banner. Just remove the header and first line and it removes all religious connotations, but keep the message. It is a plea to the students to do their best and be on their best behavior. That's something worth posting. As an atheist, I just ignore to source and accept the message, but for those who are religious, I imagine having an outside force aid you is helpful (not the word I was looking for, but you get the gist).

[myzelf]

11:12 PM on 02/21/2012

The school had the option of changing the banner to make it legal. They decided that wasting money on an unwinnable lawsuit was more important than complying with the law and educating students.

[NellWebbish]

07:15 PM on 02/23/2012

I find the whole "I just ignore the source" dismissal very compelling. It strikes me as rather limited in imagine to say "because I from my position don't see how I would be annoyed, it must be a trivial situation."

Not to mention that there seems to be a general lack of awareness of how a violation against the Establishment Clause is evaluated by the court. It's more then just having the word "god" appear somewhere in an egregious manner.

As an atheist, you should have at least a basic understanding of these cases. And it wouldn't hurt if you actually had an understanding of the decision on this case before poo-pooing it. It's available online and outlines pretty clearly why this case was decided as it was. All you have to do is Google Ahlquist v City of Cranston.

[powercosmic]

03:06 AM on 02/21/2012

Haha!

Christians are always scratching their heads, wondering how can it be?

How can it be that in America they are the 80%? The dominant religion, and yet, they are constantly being put in their place?

They can't force schools to stop teaching evolution, they can't get bible classes taught in public schools, they can't impose their religion on everyone else.

Why? Why? Why?

Its really simple, Christianity is a provincial religion (you won't know what that means but its just fun to taunt you) its a religion that was designed to make brood-mares of women and obedient sheep out of men. To break your spirit with guilt and shame, it has worked so well that I personally cannot believe it, its astonishing that in the 21st century you still willingly imprison yourselves with this bombastic nonsense!!

Carry on...

[B-Sel]

12:57 PM on 02/21/2012

E-gads! You're right? Does that mean I can spend all my money on strippers now?
I'm sure that's not what you mean but I do take exception to be accused of imprisoning myself. I used to be very outspoken against any organized religion. I was also very depressed and living in a very small world. Say what you want, but I guess God had something for me because he led me to him. I wasn't born into it, it found me, and I was a very unwilling participant. God actually opened my world rather than closed it, and where I used to be so selfish, I now see what life is all about. You're right that it was designed to keep people in line. If you don't make a life out of servitude to others then I guess your life will be servitude to yourself, which I can't see how that can lead to anywhere but destruction. Anyway you shouldn't make a life out of trying to unconvert Christians. Nothing wrong with challenging their beliefs I suppose but most Christians are in the world doing good, why wouldn't you do the same?

[xenubarb]

03:52 PM on 02/21/2012

That's nice, dear. Let's talk now about your religion intruding on and trying to imprison those who don't share your faith. And why your church keeps insisting in shoving their beliefs in our faces when we do not wish it.

[GJCO-JMH]

05:00 PM on 02/21/2012

It's astonishin­g that in the 21st century you're so willing to re-imprison yourself in a society ruled by the bombastic nonsense of greedy lawyers and governmentgoons.

[Drew Puli Wolf]

03:05 AM on 02/21/2012

The most insidious part of the this is it is in Rhode Island. I wish the people defending the school board would read at least a little bit of US history. Roger William a Puritan minister founded the colony on the belief of complete separation of church and state. To quote him "Enforced uniformity confounds civil and religious liberty and denies the principles of Christianity and civility. No man shall be required to worship or maintain a worship against his will. " Here is the agreement founding members of Providence had to sign: ""We, whose names are hereunder written, being desirous to inhabit in the town of Providence, do promise to submit ourselves, in active or passive obedience, to all such orders or agreements as shall be made for public good by the body in an orderly way, by the major consent of the inhabitants, masters of families, incorporated together into a township, and such others as they shall admit into the same, ONLY IN CIVIL THINGS." Note the phase only in civil things the government was to be secular, religious faith was left up to the individual

[BlueIndependent]

10:56 AM on 02/21/2012

Oh please! Don't say such inconvenient things! It worries the minds of the privileged.

[GJCO-JMH]

04:41 PM on 02/21/2012

Interesting that you haven't read enough history to know that this country was founded upon FREEDOM of religion, not INTOLERANCE of religion.

Please note that a more accurate reading clearly shows the words of Roger William to mean that FORCED (i.e. a court decision) UNIFORMITY (religious OR secular) confounds civil and religious LIBERTY and DENIES the principles of Christiani­ty and civility.

Please note that a more accurate reading of the "agreement" intends that the inhabitants would submit to the authority of the State "ONLY in civil things", NOT that they would submit to Civil authority in "RELIGIOUS things", i.e. they did NOT agree to submit to the demands of the State regarding when, where or how they should or shouldn't, could or couldn't PRAY.

Interesting that you don't know what the Constitution actually says about "the State" and religious freedom, and also that you don't consider the Judicial Branch as part of "the State"... which in this instance ruled in favor of the INTOLERANCE of ONE citizen over the TOLERANCE of the vast majority of other citizens... i.e. the STATE ruled in favor of INTOLERANCE OVER FREEDOM.... which is the exact OPPOSITE of what the people of R.I. agreed to.

[Humphrey Osmond]

02:00 AM on 02/21/2012

"Why couldn't she simply ignore the banner and..."

Because it was unconstitutional (and there's a lot of history to back this, that banner never belonged where it was).

Nobody is "forcing" theists into same-sex marriage, birth-control, or demanding they become scientists. Why can't theists simply ignore gay couples who want to marry, women who want reproductive rights, ...stop trying to wedge theology into science, etc?

They have special theocratic legislative privilege? Show me that in the constitution. Hmmm?

[GJCO-JMH]

08:05 PM on 02/21/2012

Nobody is "forcing" a-theists into heterosexual marriage, abstinence, reproduction, raising their own children, or prayer. Why can't a-theists simply ignore the religious institution of marriage, please DO use birthcontrol... but stop forcing your own views on all our young children and stop trying to make OurGovernment into Your Own Image as GodTheFather.

PS... do pro-abortionists have special scientific knowledge that a fetus doesn't become a human life until the moment of birth... a la the stork story. Show me that in any science book.... Hmmm?

[Humphrey Osmond]

01:52 AM on 02/22/2012

"Nobody is "forcing" a-theists into heterosexu­al marriage, abstinence­, reproducti­on, raising their own children, or prayer."

Which atheists are claiming this?

"Why can't a-theists simply ignore the religious institutio­n of marriage"

They already do, marriage is licenced by the state.

"but stop forcing your own views on all our young children"

Who is trying to put up banners in public schools, public buildings and on public property that say: "There Is No God", ...any examples of this?

"stop trying to make OurGovernm­ent into Your Own Image as GodTheFath­er."

Example?

Oh, and since when was the US Constitution mandating a Theocratic state?

...oh right, not yet, but you're trying.

"please DO use birthcontr­ol..."

...still not getting it.

"PS... do pro-aborti­onists have special scientific knowledge that a fetus doesn't become a human life until the moment of birth... a la the stork story."

Pro-abortionists?

Who is self identifying as a pro-abortionist?

Do you have a cite? Or is this just another 'appeal to' fallacy misrepresenting those who advocate for women's reproductive rights and sovereignty over their own bodies?

"a la the stork story"

a la?

Oh I see, you're French, obviously your lack of comprehension is due to a language barrier. Oh, no need to answer rhetorical questions (just a heads up if they don't have those where you're from).

[bbriani3842]

10:59 PM on 02/20/2012

" ... several florists declined to deliver flowers to her from the Freedom From Religion Foundation ... "

Also breaks the law ...

[RobertTheKiwi]

09:28 PM on 02/20/2012

What a demonstration of intolerance and huge waste of everybody's time! It only needed the removal of "Our heavenly father" at the top and perhaps "Amen" at the bottom to make it a generalized uplifting thought that would be equally acceptable to Christians and Athiests. Why does either side need to spend money with lawyers?

[myzelf]

12:15 PM on 02/21/2012

The title, "School Prayer," would have to have been removed, as well. The school had the option of changing the banner and avoiding a lawsuit months ago, but it decided that wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars to continue violating the law by promoting religion was more important than the education of the community's children.

[xenubarb]

03:55 PM on 02/21/2012

It's all about priorities, and theirs are skewed.

[Zilo]

12:39 PM on 02/21/2012

The school pushed this issue and took it to court. They wasted taxpayer money on this issue.

[rini1946]

05:47 PM on 02/20/2012

First the banner does not spell out any one religion. Two this country was founded for the people not for the 10%. Why is the 10 % can make the rules. The ACLU is there helping the minority but forget about the majority's rights.

[MagicManDoneIt]

10:40 PM on 02/20/2012

You don't know how the Constitution works, please read up on it.

[NellWebbish]

10:41 PM on 02/20/2012

1) "Our heavenly Father" is exclusively Christian. It is a reference to the Holy Trinity which is a bit of theology that only Christians believe in.

2) The Constitution of the US remunerates the rights we all have, regardless of what percent we are.

3) The ACLU also represents people of faith who are having their right to practice their religion infringed on. 50% of those cases are for Christians.

Nice try though. Have a case of Rice-A-Roni as a parting gift.

[Godelproof]

03:58 PM on 02/20/2012

When will these fundies realize that no one wants your gods? Fellow atheists, this is just the first step to eradicating religion from our society.

[BlueIndependent]

10:59 AM on 02/21/2012

As an atheist, eradicating religion isn't the point. Eradicating the view that religion is useful and good - and the efficacy of their underlying philosophies - is the point. The religions will die as a result of reason and critical thinking being applied. It will not be won merely as a result of bringing legal cases day in and day out.

[myzelf]

12:23 PM on 02/21/2012

As an atheist who respects and supports religious freedom, I have no interest in eradicating religion from society - just from the laws that govern everyone.

[Bunny Tickle Britches]

03:04 PM on 02/20/2012

Part of the banner read:

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

I wonder how that's working out for them now...

[powercosmic]

02:51 AM on 02/21/2012

You betcha!

[xenubarb]

03:59 PM on 02/21/2012

OH, EXCELLENT POINT!

[Jefferson Admirer]

10:22 AM on 02/20/2012

The solution is surprisingly simple: Remove "Heavenly Father" and "Amen". The things expressed in the body of the text are positive and reflective. Would it cause harm to read them and think a bit? Of course not. Not even for an atheist. There need not be an appeal to an entity in heaven, although those who are so inclined are welcome to do so.

Overall, an idiotic episode that could have been simply resolved to everyone's benefit. Shame on everyone for blowing this out of proportion.

[raker]

11:20 AM on 02/20/2012

There's also "help us..." in the text. It's a prayer and it doesn't belong on the wall of a public school whether or not it causes specific "harm." But I do think it might have been a satisfactory compromise it they had rewritten it as a non-religious, non-god-directed affirmation of a wish to do well. This would have honored the tradition that the city folk claim to be so angry about and honored the Constitutional ban on imposing religion on schoolchildren.

[HotelDrama]

12:22 PM on 02/20/2012

You mean, shame on the school for letting this happen. What you proposed was actually proposed to the school board and they refused to make those changes. Lets put the blame where it belongs.