If the students took it upon themselves to erect some sort of religious decoration or tribute on school property that had no relation whatsoever to any school work but was intended to be a symbol of praise or worship to their chosen deity it would not be OK. The students would be free to erect such displays at their homes and churches or any other private property they wish, but not on public school property. The school is not anyone’s billboard for advertising faith (or lack thereof).

I’m in 100% agreement that the banner contained very good advice for being a good sport and responsible citizen. I’d have loved to see it stay in place without the superstitious mumbo jumbo and have foregone all of this hostility. I don’t know about the other side. It pretty much seems from everyone who has commented that the prayer belonged there and that’s that.

Removal of the top two lines and the bottom line would no longer make this a prayer, but rather a statement. It would not exclude people of a particular faith. I would not exclude people of no faith. It would simply be a statement that, in my opinion, is positive.

Sure the banner would still be up, and sure the MEMORY of those three lines of text would still be in the minds of some, but they would not be on display for the students. The ones stuck on tradition can remember that those likes were once visible, and the banner is still in place. The ones who feel they are being excluded can look upon it without fear.

Instead, this had to be fought out in courts of law. This had to become a battle cry for some, and a focal point for what is wrong with the human race for others.

I’m curious as to how both people in the above conversation view what I have said (as it appears that both people are from opposing schools of thought on the matter). From the (very little) information I have read about this incident, it does not sound like a compromise was even in consideration by either side of the fence. If that is the case, I find that deplorable.

Or are those wrong as well?

I am sure there are nuances to this system that I am not considering. But those details would have to be worked out. But I see no problems with the system I suggested above.

Joshua Fisher

This isn’t abridging the freedom of speech because if it’s censoring anyone, it’s censoring the school board. The school board isn’t a private citizen and as such has no protections from the government as to freedom of speech. These freedoms apply to citizens, extended and protected by the government, not the other way around.

You’re playing the victim card calling these “wars on free religious expression.” They’re really not wars and nobody cares about limiting your religious expression. You’re free to express whatever religious views you want. The school board is not.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

Now, please explain to me how citizens erecting a prayer mural in a public space equates to congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Furthermore, seeing that erecting a prayer mural is clearly both speech as well as an exercise of religion, please explain how requiring its removal is not actually prohibiting the free exercise thereof and also abridging the freedom of speech.

Remember that that there are no constitutional provisions protecting anyone from being offended or seeing anything–how did you put it?–that is divisive and sectarian. The Bill of Rights acknowledges that we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

I suppose many people feel their intentions are in the right place when the wage these little wars on free religious expression. But while they think the are defending the constitution they are actually destroying it.

1. This girl is a disgrace to whom, exactly? America as a whole? Not hardly, and if you really read my post you’d know why. The United States is founded on a Constitution that protects the people from religious groups creating a theocracy every bit as much as it protects religious groups from government encroachment on their freedom to practice their religion how they see fit. By recognizing an infraction of this Constitutional mandate and fighting to see it upheld, Ahlquist has actually protected religious people like yourself (assuming you’re not a Poe) every bit as much as the “disgraceful moraless[sic] persons” you describe above.

2. Nobody is forcing non-belief on anybody, and this is precisely what Christians seem to be unable to grasp in this and every other case like it. Taking down the prayer banner at this school was in no way impeding or restricting any Christian’s right to pray or worship. Removal of the banner is not, in any conceivable way, equal to (or even remotely resembling) an authoritative mandate to end the Christian faith. People can do what they’ve always done; they’ll just have to do it without a huge, sectarian banner hanging on the wall of a public school.

3. America was founded on no such thing. The founders of this country were refugees from a theocratic state and wanted, above all else, to ensure that this new country would never become what they had just escaped. That’s why the First Amendment to the Constitution was written, and that’s why we don’t have a state religion or a king. And that’s precisely why you’re free to practice your own faith and I’m free to practice none at all. If you honestly believe that this is a “Christian Nation™” then you’ve deluded yourself into believing a history that never existed.

4. If you want to see hatred you ought not to be looking at the atheists; you should look at your fellow Christians who are hurling insults, threats, and vile bigotry at Ahlquist. If removing a decoration from a wall is all it takes to make the real “Christian” come out in these people, then it’s very clear that your accusation of a lack of a “moral compass” is misdirected. There is real hatred in this case but it’s not coming from the atheists, Don.

5. Yes, the board voted and yes, the banner was erected. The point that the courts just made clear is that when the board voted they did so illegally and unconstitutionally. Their decision, whether they knew it or not and whether you like it or not, was wrong. It was wrong then and it’s still wrong.

6. “If you don’t like it leave” seems to be a mantra of a failing mentality. Because you have absolutely no solid ground on which to base any of your views, you resort to closing the discussion like a third-grader with nothing more than, “Shut up!” Shame on you.

7. If removing a decoration from a public school wall is akin to “stripping people of faith” then faith is completely devoid of meaning or worth. Are you honestly trying to tell me that faith is so shaky and sensitive that it can be broken, battered, and stripped simply by not having a banner on a wall? I feel so sad for you right now. That’s a horrible thought. Then again, maybe that’s not such a bad thing! Perhaps there’s hope for humans after all in that when every unconstitutional display of religion has been removed from public schools and government property we’ll have fewer Christians spewing their ignorance and bigotry.

8. We’re selfish? Because we want to remove divisive, sectarian displays of religion that exclude not only atheists but every other faith that doesn’t share your Biblical views we’re the ones who are selfish? I think you need to look the word up in the dictionary, man. You obviously have no idea what “selfish” means. Then again, it’s very clear from your comment that what you mean by selfish is precisely this:

Any action or speech that makes it difficult or impossible for Don Wilker to always have his way with impunity regardless of who it may exclude, offend, or harm.

Good day to you, sir.