High school student upholds law, gets harassed / Rhode Island school prayer

[Travis]

Here's the deal as you may know from the JREF blog.

Jessica Alhquist was a high school student who sued to get a prayer banner removed. And then her classmates turned on her. Deciding that the whole "kindness" thing in Christianity is apparently optional they have been harassing and threatening her over this ever since.

Keep in mind this is a tiny little girl here. So their talk about "jumping her" to teach her a lesson is kinda........serious.

See here for some nice screenshots of what is going on.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I don't wish to disparage all Christians, but the vast majority of self-identifying Christians I've met are cafeteria-stylists. It would be great if they actually followed Christ's teachings...

 

[Lowpro]

At a superficial glance it's just a bunch of white kids making empty threats to pat each other on the back.

It's more likely her home will get TP'd than her suffering physical harm methinks. I base that solely on my own experiences

 

[Travis]

Threats made are nonetheless stressful for her to have to endure. No?

 

[alfaniner]

I don't see the reason for getting a banner removed. I would push for the display of other types of banners. If that were refused, then go for it.

 

[gnome]

I also prefer that approach. I would think FSM stuff tends to get the point across a little better.

 

[bruto]

I don't see the reason for getting a banner removed. I would push for the display of other types of banners. If that were refused, then go for it.

I'm not quite sure I agree. One of the best reasons, it seems to me, for keeping schools entirely secular, is to avoid having religions and anti-religious points of view fought out in that arena. A competitive banner-fest with questions of what's appropriate or not seems like an invitation to further trouble. People need to get over the idea that "secular" means anti-religious, and back to the idea that it simply means "it doesn't belong here."

 

[Travis]

I don't see the reason for getting a banner removed. I would push for the display of other types of banners. If that were refused, then go for it.

Of course that simply delays the inevitable court case.

Not to mention it creates further distraction as everyone tries to throw up their competing religious banners.

 

[Vortigern99]

Congress shall pass no law restricting the free exercise of religion.

I don't know all the details here, nor can I find them in the offered links, but from what I read in the OP and the linked articles, the law itself that the student "upheld" is itself unconstitutional.

People, including students in public schools, have a right to worship and pray as they choose, to any divinity or none at all. It seems to me that forcing the removal of a "prayer banner" (though admittedly I don't know what it said) is restricting the free exercise of religion.

(I'm an agnostic atheist, in case anyone is wondering.)

 

[crimresearch]

Congress shall pass no law restricting the free exercise of religion.

I don't know all the details here, nor can I find them in the offered links, but from what I read in the OP and the linked articles, the law itself that the student "upheld" is itself unconstitutional.

People, including students in public schools, have a right to worship and pray as they choose, to any divinity or none at all. It seems to me that forcing the removal of a "prayer banner" (though admittedly I don't know what it said) is restricting the free exercise of religion.

(I'm an agnostic atheist, in case anyone is wondering.)

Siiigh... and you really need to have it spelled out for you that the guarantees in the Constitution are not infinite or unlimitable?

You seriously don't have a clue that the 1st amendment gives people the right to be free *from* other people's religious indoctrination and proselytizing?

OK, here are some hints for you:

No... you can't have human sacrifices by claiming it is your religion.

No, you can't kill the infidels.

No, you can't trumpet your 'faith' and disrupt the educational process in a publicly funded state school.

 

[Travis]

By the way this seems to reinforce my maxim that people who are used to preferential treatment always try to play the "victim card" and get abusive when said treatment is brought to an end.

 

[fuelair]

I don't wish to disparage all Christians, but the vast majority of self-identifying Christians I've met are cafeteria-stylists. It would be great if they actually followed Christ's teachings...

Yeah that's gonna happen real soon now!!!

Most xtians would run to the other side of the city to avoid following those actual rules - which most seem to see as vague suggestions to follow if they really want to look stupid to their acquantances.

Of course, so would most followers of most religions that have rules (oops, vague suggestions) like that.

 

[tsig]

Congress shall pass no law restricting the free exercise of religion.

I don't know all the details here, nor can I find them in the offered links, but from what I read in the OP and the linked articles, the law itself that the student "upheld" is itself unconstitutional.

People, including students in public schools, have a right to worship and pray as they choose, to any divinity or none at all. It seems to me that forcing the removal of a "prayer banner" (though admittedly I don't know what it said) is restricting the free exercise of religion.

(I'm an agnostic atheist, in case anyone is wondering.)

It wasn't individuals exercising the right of free speech it was the government (yes the school board is part of the government) officially favoring religion.


What would you have thought if the school had posted "there is no god"?

 

[Lamuella]

Congress shall pass no law restricting the free exercise of religion.

I don't know all the details here, nor can I find them in the offered links, but from what I read in the OP and the linked articles, the law itself that the student "upheld" is itself unconstitutional.

People, including students in public schools, have a right to worship and pray as they choose, to any divinity or none at all. It seems to me that forcing the removal of a "prayer banner" (though admittedly I don't know what it said) is restricting the free exercise of religion.

(I'm an agnostic atheist, in case anyone is wondering.)

the banner was a "school prayer". In other words a public school (and by extension governmental) endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint. This is what was deemed as unconstitutional.

Individuals can hold and express any religious opinion they care to, providing that they do not express these opinions while acting as a representative of a government body.

 

[Gazpacho]

I would like to point out that, like the Dover ID case, this did not happen in the south.

I don't see the reason for getting a banner removed. I would push for the display of other types of banners.

There is already case law that displays with a non-secular purpose cannot be "diluted" into compliance with the establishment clause. (McCreary County v. ACLU, if you're interested)

 

[ddt]

Congress shall pass no law restricting the free exercise of religion.

I don't know all the details here, nor can I find them in the offered links, but from what I read in the OP and the linked articles, the law itself that the student "upheld" is itself unconstitutional.

People, including students in public schools, have a right to worship and pray as they choose, to any divinity or none at all. It seems to me that forcing the removal of a "prayer banner" (though admittedly I don't know what it said) is restricting the free exercise of religion.

(I'm an agnostic atheist, in case anyone is wondering.)

You have the text of the First Amendment wrong. Here is the right text:

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

It's the "establishment" part that is being violated. The school hung up the banner in a public place and cared for it. It might have been different if the banner was private property and didn't hang in a public place. Likewise, a student may pray at school, but you can't have a collective prayer being broadcast over the PA system.

The unconstitutionality of the banner is without question. Government may not promote one religion over others or over areligion. The 14th Amendment logically extends the establishment clause to the States (see Everson v. Board of Education).

It seems Jessica even suggested just to remove the religious part of the message, however, the school board insisted on the religious indoctrination. I'm relying here on the Daily Fail. Don't get your panties in a knot about the leading and, IMHO, offensive headline. It also has the detail that the maker of the banner, a 7th grader from 60 years ago, apparently is insulted by its removal and doesn't understand the unconstitutionality either.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Report those threats to the school; get those students suspended.

Tell those kids' religious leaders, too. I know how hard one of our elders came down on a couple of teens for what they had posted on social networking sites. Quite unpleasant for them.

 

[AlBell]

More fun, here, to get ones' knickers in a twist bashing Xians who I assume are white.

 

[tsig]

More fun, here, to get ones' knickers in a twist bashing Xians who I assume are white.

I thought Christians wanted to get bashed for Jesus.

 

[tsig]

Report those threats to the school; get those students suspended.

Tell those kids' religious leaders, too. I know how hard one of our elders came down on a couple of teens for what they had posted on social networking sites. Quite unpleasant for them.

Your elders regulate the private life of the members?