Atheist Teen Sues Over School Mural

I personally think the student is right; there should be no form of religious promotion in public schools.

The school's claim is that it was written by a graduate in the '60s. That claim is coming under question now.

This mural is wrong and it WILL come down. Another WIN!

Federal law does not prohibit religion in school or in any public office. If that is what you have been taught, it is wrong.

We are guaranteed that the government will not establish or prohibit us from worship and just like every atheist takes his/her atheism with him/her everywhere, so it is with people of all faiths. No one is prohibited from practicing his/her faith or non-faith.

Further, it is expected that since our country was founded as a Christian nation and that most (over 85%) still claim to be Christian, that when religion IS TAUGHT in school - rightfully and by the law - that there does not have to be equal time for all faiths to be taught.

The ACLU has frightened schools because there is big money behind it. Schools don't usually have the money to fight back. Thankfully in more recent years there have been Christian organizations helping students fight back and more and more Christians are winning and protecting our history and our schools and buildings that display and cherish that history.

take that up with the federal courts who removed the 10 commandments from court houses, etc etc, and the other non-secular court battles that have had similar results -- not with just a lowly writer.

Also, our historical writings have clearly shown that the US is not a christian country. Reading reveals this fact. Reading books. History books.

You should read what is allowed in public schools, as written by the Secretary of the Dept. of Education back when Clinton was in office. The law and the stand of the DOE has not changed, nor should it.

http://www2.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm


again, reading works. (just one source, there are many but I'm sure we all know how to use the google)

The courts were wrong to do that, Chelsea, and as we become aware of what's going on, we are fighting back.

Chelsea, try reading the actual words of our founding fathers. They were men of faith. I'm sorry you've been so deceived.

no, the courts were perfectly right in doing so; that's why they did it, and that's why things have remained as such.

Some of the founding fathers were men of faith, as the source I shared also shares. However, the exact wording of our founding fathers blatantly and expressly says that this nation is not a religious nation, it is not one based on christianity or any other belief.

I have read Jefferson's words. Have *you*?

I don't think you quite have, since you're still arguing the issue. I've found that people who haven't read the actual history have a hard time grasping the facts of the matter, and therefore do not understand when the supreme court rules in favor of these things.

I couldnt have said it better Marilyn M.
When I was in high school we really had to fight to have a Bible study for teens and participate in an annual event called see you at the pole. Because they are legally required to allow us to do these things they had no choice but to provide us the space.

couldn't you have had a bible study in.. i dunno.. .a church? Not a public school, perhaps?

It seems that logic dictates that prayer and bibles go in churches, and education goes in schools.

You can practice your faith as long as long as you do it out of sight behind closed doors. Is that the way it is Chelsea ? No non-believer should be forced to walk by a wall and forced to look at a mural on it. I mean looking at picture is tantamount to torture and brain washing. Wouldn't want to change anyone's mind by "forcing" them to look at a picture would we. Maybe if the offending picture has that much sway on what someone believes then maybe they aren't such rock solid non-believers after all.

BTW what about those who aren't "offended" by it? I guess screw them huh? Somebody has way too much time on their hands.

publicly funded establishments are no place for religion -- no need to read into it any other way.

Nobody says "believers" should believe behind closed doors. However, as stated before, you already have churches. No need to force it down the throats of everyone on the planet aside from that.

It goes both ways.

Marilyn M............"Federal law does not prohibit religion in school or in any public office. If that is what you have been taught, it is wrong."

- the government cannot prohibit or endorse religion. The school cannot put up a prayer because that endorses religion. They cannot put up a sign that says "There is no god" for the same reasons.

The first amendment protects all people.

The gov may establish a "public forum" that opens an area up to religion but cannot deny access based on religion. You see this a lot during x-mas (nativity scenes next to an "atheist tree") If the school opens their auditorium up to a public forum - then a sign proclaiming "Jesus never existed" could not be denied from hanging next to the prayer mural. This of course would shut down the "public forum" because the x-tians would never tolerate it.

The whole "This country is founded on christianity" has been debated ad nauseum in the comments sections since the dawn of the internet. I doubt both sides will ever agree.

What matters is America's current law. The congress and supreme court determines that and the prayer mural is illegal and it WILL come down.

Why is the public display of religion so worrisome? Are these people so insecure that they can't bear to see it? Should I file suit to ban billboards promoting atheism. After all they are intruding on my space while on public roads with are funded city/state and federal agencies. No need to force it down the throats of everyone on the planet aside from that. But she's trying to force her beliefs on others by the removal. How does that make her better? Maybe instead she should do an atheistic prayer to go along side it instead.

Actually, charles. Bilboards are not on roads. They are on the land adjacent by the roads, which is usually privately owned and leased to bilboard companies.

Nice try though, unless you honestly believed that highway facing land was publicly owned... in which case, now you know otherwise.

As long as the bible study came before/after school I would have no problem with it. Why not a bible class/club just like any other club? But I am bothered by religion DURING school.

and there is no such thing as an "atheistic prayer" -- atheists don't bother themselves with imaginary things. That's the whole point. As for the mural issue, don't care one way or the other ,but I support any atheist who has the guts to speak out for what they believe. Atheists have been persecuted for centuries, so in this day and in this nation, it's good.

Chelsea, 26 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were either pastors or went to Christian colleges.

Have I read Thomas Jefferson? You bet I have. If he actually believed that religion should be separate, why in the world did he not only endorse having worship services in our public buildings, he also arranged for the Marine band to play and he attended them. That doesn't sound like he meant to keep religion and government separate, and he did not. His letter to the church using the words "wall of separation of church and state" was to assure them that there would be no official church of the state like in England. Period.

"no, the courts were perfectly right in doing so; that's why they did it..."

Just remember what you learned here from Chelsea: When the courts do whatever they do, they're perfectly right in doing so and that's why they do it. It just couldn't be simpler.

Chelsea, you might want to do some more research. I learned just yesterday that the Supreme Court has decided that any government building may have a Nativity for Christmas as long as no government dollars were spent to buy it. That was such fantastic news and, of course, they're right. The government CANNOT establish a religion but it also CANNOT keep us from practicing our faith.

Mmmhmm.. I've done plenty of research -- and as usual, I'm going to repeat myself with you and reaffirm that nobody is trying to keep you guys from practicing your mythological rituals.

Think that's been said multiple times in this thread and several others you've injected yourself into, yet you've yet to grasp that one simple point. It's kind of disheartening when someone either can't or wont grasp a simple black & white point that's been stated multiple times over. But it's kind of not surprising considering the topic being argued about.

But what you don't seem to be able to grasp is that you are keeping us from practicing our faith if you insist that any trace of it be kept from your view. You're right. It is very disheartening when someone cannot grasp such a simple concept. I pray that your eyes will one day be opened.

I agree with you Chelsea that the USA is NOT a Christian country, it is secular. However, I looked at the prayer... honestly, boring and trite, but really doesn't endorse any particular religious view. I wonder how much the removal will cost...it was hard to tell if this was a plaque just hanging them or part of the wall itself.

Personally, Hinda. I also agree; boring and trite. Had I been a student at the school, I probably wouldn't have taken any notice of it. Still, knowing that a student is expressing offense at it is enough for me to support its removal. If it's disrupting the learning process, then get rid of it. It's not adding to the teaching learning process by being there.

Otherwise, I wouldn't care about it being there. It's really nonreligous looking at first sight. *shrug*

Its in the auditorium (I think), so I'm not sure it would disrupt classes. I'd be more concerned if they were trying to get the kids to read it, pointed it out at the beginning of assemblies etc. But this? Blech...
Now I don't like rearranging class schedules so someone can say prayers...but I'm not too bothered by this one either way it flies.

agreed.

They never care about that, jj. They don't care when publicly funded colleges spend tax payer dollars to put in foot baths just for Muslims. That's okay with them. But they don't want a Bible club meeting on campus. Absurd. Brainwashed.

That's what i agree on

As the old saying goes, "Don't make me pray in school and I won't make you think in church!" or something like that. There was a study done a couple of years ago and it was found that most religious(majority were christians) people think its just fine to discriminate against Athiests/agnostics...another fine, upstanding christian tradition...

exactly, Kim.

Can we get together and sue the athiests for something that they believe in? This outpouring of hate for christianity has got to stop.

lol @ "sue the atheists."

that's ridiculous, since nobody is "suing the christians."

They're only wanting the constitution followed for their religious freedom, seeing as though the past clearly shows that in a theocracy (which is what many christians want) atheists were put to death, simply because they didn't adhere to the belief of some god.

Honestly, Jeff. I thought you were smarter than that, christian or not.

We should be suing them for taking away our rights to freedom OF religion. Actually, in some cases they are being sued. Like when they to keep a valedictorian from mentioning that Jesus is the reason she got through high school. I'm glad Christians are fighting back.

I a student wants to carry around a "prayer" image on his notebook that's one thing, and it's fine. It's his/her personal thing. On the wall of a public school? No. Clearly not the place of the school to be promoting religion of any kind.

So, Robert, if the building was built in the early 1900s and removing the words would be costly and ugly, that's okay with you? Would you also choose to tear down all the buildings in DC that have Bible verses on them? And spend millions and billions doing that?

So if you read the linked news article, Marilyn, it says she hadn't even noticed it until the end of her freshman year. Suddenly, just because someone noticed it, it's a "promotion" of religion. though.

And according to what you said, Marilyn, you do have to at least try to see it from their perspective too. You mentioned some of the historical architecture with vestiges of proof denoting the Christian heritage of the nation. Here we also have a mural that's been there for close to half a century now. How would you like to try to teach revisionist history when the real history is evidenced right before you? Surely, you'd want to set a bulldozer to it all.

Answer to your question, Marilyn. No - although I believe that a particular religion should not be promoted by the government (as the Constitution specifies), I don't think great expense should be undertaken to "tear down" old buildings with Biblical references on them.

A public school is in a different category, though. Public schools are full of young minds that are establishing belief systems and learning to think rationally. A public school using public funds provided by taxpayers of ALL religions or NO religion should not be used to indoctrinate students into any PARTICULAR religion, such as Christianity, Islam or any other.

"Public schools are full of young minds that are establishing belief systems and learning to think rationally."

Oh really? I think we've got far more documentation and proof that the nation has a Christian heritage than that "public schools are full of young minds... learning to think rationally." But they are "full of" something.

As I said, a mural that wasn't even admittedly noticed for months on end by the student making the anal retentive deal out it when she finally did notice it, can hardly be characterized as "indoctrination." But to indicate that it is makes the point that saying rational thinking is any general product of the public school system difficult, if not impossible, to prove.

Sue -
(1) How much "documentation" do you have about whether schools are full of young minds learning to think rationally?"

(2) Does a "Christian heritage" (whatever that means) take precedence over the US Constitution?

(3) What does it matter how long it took "the student" to notice? It's about all the students, and the taxpayers who funded this indoctrination scene. Whether it's indoctrination or not isn't dependent on how long anyone individual takes to notice it.

Thomas Jefferson: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by US Congress and signed by President John Adams: “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."

Alex DeTocqueville, in "Democracy in America" wrote: “They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.”

Yeah, "How much 'documentation' do you have about whether schools are full of young minds learning to think rationally?"

No, no, no. I said poster boys like you of public school education are the proof we have. Guess you missed that too. Oh well.

It's just an observation. I didn't say it was "documented." You're the one who brought up "documentation."

It's fairly clear though that the general belief on the topic of rational thought though (including psychology professionals) is that human beings learn to think rationally in their teens and twenties.

I'm not a poster boy for public school education. I just think that public school education that's paid for by taxpayers, shouldn't include indoctrination into any particular religion. Would you be ok with Islamic images on the walls of a public school you paid for? Why should Christian images be any different? Not all Americans are Christian.

"It's just an observation. I didn't say it was 'documented.' You're the one who brought up 'documentation.'"

I said, "I think we've got far more documentation and proof that the nation has a Christian heritage than that "public schools are full of young minds... learning to think rationally."

That means that we have documentation and other proof that the nation has a Christian heritage, but you have no proof at all that learning to think rationally is a product of public school education. The only proof there is that it doesn't teach students to think rationally is when they say things like you indicated, that this mural is a form of indoctrination.

"A public school using public funds provided by taxpayers of ALL religions or NO religion should not be used to indoctrinate students..."

How can a mural that has been there for close to a half century with no attention to it by the scores of atheists who passed by it all these years, not even noticed by the atheist who called attention to it until only after she herself finally noticed it after months, be considered indoctrination?

The only thing I was pointing out is that the argument you gave Marilyn was nonsensical.

It would be a much different matter if the school's mural showed multiple religions at prayer. Then it wouldn't be supporting any of them, merely showing a human experience. But a single faith, any single faith, being the only one represented, is a conflict of interests.

The prayer itself, as I stated earlier, doesn't refer to any particular religion. I wouldn't want a multiple prayer mural either. But the only "religious" reference is really "Our Heavenly Father..." or something like that "We pray blah blah blah and amen. Not pushing any creed really.

Most others have echoes my thoughts on this, all I can say is "beam me up, Scotty!"

My message to the young lady in the story:



All I can say is if I could avoid getting my butt shot off, I'd borrow my best friend's boat and sail her to Cuba.

so you condone deporting people, even children, because they're atheist?


says a lot about your character there, guy.

Well, not really, but if they ain't happy here, there are other places to go. Remember Thanksgiving and the Pilgrims? They were not happy in England paying taxes to support the Church of England so they set sail for Holland. The people of Holland were nice, but too liberal in their views so they decided to set out for the New World to make their own colony based on their rules. From the time of cavemen onward, if someone said, "I'm not happy here" for whatever reason, they moved to where they would be.

BTW, I don't see 16 as being a child but an adult, at that age, they should understand right from wrong and be able to make decisions on their own. In Jewish tradition, being 13 made one an adult, the Romans made it 14, the American Indians generally set it at 12. I'm more of a libertarian but I think where our parents and society fall down is they should teach their children responsibility and good thought processes earlier to handle adulthood when it comes around. My grandfather quit school in 1914 and got a full time job, at 13, he faced adult responsibilities and did them well.

The latest statistics show that 90% of Americans believe in God and 71% still call themselves Christian. Another 15% were raised in the Christian church and don't call themselves atheists or agnostics, they just "don't practice."

It's high time that the majority who are believers put a stop to the small number of persons who want to crush Christians and our history. We must insist that persons like Howard Zinn not be the be-all/do-all/go-to-person for college students about American history. He is an avowed atheist and his book has zero footnotes to prove anything he writes. (Yes, he alludes to magazines and books he has read to prove his quotations, but he uses magazine sources from the 70s which are hard to find and check and he never says which issue or on what page.)

There is a prayer board up at ghost ranch. Of course the ranch is operated by the presbyterian church so it makes sense. When Georgia O'Keeffe found out the ranch was being donated to the church, she was livid. She wasn't exactly religious, but she found they were not bad neighbors after all.

This is too much. If a non-believer hears or see the word God he or she will instantly sue. What about the rights of the faithful? Why is this teen’s rights more important than the other students? You can see by the idiotic smile on this girl that she is having a great time with this suit and she is enjoying her 15.

Agree totally!

Maybe because she's proud that she's standing up for those who have been persecuted by the christians for thousands of yrs? Remember, a person of every belief has been put to death before by christians, throughout history. Preserving the neutrality of this nation assures that won't happen again.

Wow, Chelsea, so you claim to have read that Christians killed people, but you have never read Jefferson? What a strange education you've had. I imagine it was in public schools.

If this girl and her atheist cronies have it their way, this girl will soon reflect nations such as China, where being a Christian , owning a bible can lead to jail time.

China is a dominantly christian nation. *facepalm*

It is estimated that there are over 50 million practicing Christians in China and that since 1949 Christianity has been growing. However there are over 100 million practicing Buddhists. There are also over 100 million people that practice Taoism. 20 million practice Islam.

Coming from the UK I had to attend schools that practiced Christianity, the school that I attended was a Church of England school and as such just like other schools in my city that were Catholic we were used to seeing prayer murals and even clergymen who would take prayers before classes started. If no clergymen were available then the headmaster or headmistress would stand in and take those prayers.

All our schools even the ones that are not Catholic or C-E have a period before classes begin where they say a prayer and sing some kind of hymn. Pupils from different religions such as Islam and Judaism have the option of not attending this period.

It did me no harm and it gave me a set of values that I still have to this day, although when I was twenty years of age I found that I no longer believed in any kind of God.

This young girl should realize that in life we give and we take and that everyone has the right to express their views and that walking past a small prayer muriel that was wrote by a student all those years ago is actually no big deal.

Chelsea, you think that China is a Christian nation? Are you for real? Do you read anything???

yes. DO YOU?

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_christian.html

Unbelievable.

BTW, this prayer on the wall doesn't bother me as much as schools, which, in the interest of multi-culturalism, take kids to houses of prayer DURING during a time of worship. I think that is the greater problem. Or asking kids to take on a religious aspect for a week to learn about that religion or whatever.

Why does a child who lives is a family of faith have to hide his or her believes? If some athiest see a student wearing a cross said athiests feels ofended, what about the person wearing the cross?

she's obviously not hiding her beliefs why make the school hide their's no one is making her read the bible or anything she shouldn't even be considered about one prayer mural what is she going to do when she's out on her on sue a church across the street from her for having a cross religious symbols are everywhere she needs to calm down

I doubt that this suit was all her idea. I smell a rat pushing her.

Good poiny, Nesha.

What will happen when she gets out into the world and figures out that she doesn't always get her way? She won't be able to cope with it.

What kind of example does this set? That math, reading, and history (the things that she should be learning now) are not important. What's important is to make a fuss to get your way and it works.

It's just sad.

But look at OWS. They probably will get their way. The government will make sure all their student loans are completely forgiven and they'll vote for Obama. Then they'll get their other demands - that everyone gets a "living wage" even if they choose not to work.

Obama won't always be the president.

yah, but the supreme court will always be the deciders on such issues (when they make it to them)

Dee, I wouldn't be so sure. With the way things are going, I expect that he'll find a way to be president forever. More likely he'll be one of the one world government rulers.

Chelsea, you can not say "always" and "when they make them" together. That is a contradiction. and "yah" means you agree with me.

Marilyn, I would not count on that. We have too much to lose.

I can just see her suing the guy in the next cubicle because she gets offended every time he bows his head to pray during his lunch.

What about the Christian student being offended by the atheist? I did not bother to read the comments above. These things are ridiculous! Get over it!!!

I am quite surprised at how people interpret this case as an attempt to remove religious rights from anyone. This case is about protecting religious rights for all people.

Challenge: Find a suit by the ACLU or Freedom from Religion Foundation or any other mainstream 1st amendment rights group that is suing to stop personal worship. All of their suits are to prevent government endorsement of religion.

You can have your bibles, crosses, jesus fish symbols, mary statues, churches, t-shirts. You can pray privately in school even! No one is suing you. It is solely about government endorsement. Show me the lawsuits......please!

People have most of the world to promote their beliefs and exercise their religion but it is never enough for some - they need to use the government to cram it down everyone's throats. I feel if they are truly strong in your beliefs, this case should not bother them.

The school is the perpetrator against Jessica Ahlquist. I am so glad she will not take any crap from a bully. She is a strong person that should be looked up to.
Jessica will bask in her victory. The mural WILL come down!

I don't think it was a government endoresment. From what I understand, it was in honor of a former student. Had he made a mural of monkeys in a jungle, it would be the same.

The point was that this particular child din't like this particular mural.

Yah, it's obvious people are missing the point entirely. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about the difference between personal faith and government promotion of faith.


It's kind of mind boggling.

Put it this way, if there was a Satanic prayer on the wall, wouldn't Christians want it pulled down?

I don''t happen to be one of them because I don't see it this way, but there are some Christians who firmly believe that anything associated with Halloween is Satanic, so if they wanted to make a big deal out of it, there could be some Christians who would insist that such decorations would be unconstitutional.

...not according to the Constitution, but according to the way you people see the unconstitutionality of the issue.

Chris, I hate to tell you, but Satanism is a religion, maybe not one you would agree on, but all in all..tis a religion and a very old one at that.

A cult is more like the Westboro church group where they live together, girls do not want to marry, hatred is preached, children are told what to believe and whom to speak to.
Satanism is people whom live in their own homes, work outside of the home, do not preach about their religion (except amongst themselves or nowadays via internet).

well, the definitions of "cult" and "religion" are quite similar...

which would make all of them cults.. christianity and all its "branches" included.

HI Sue,

Actually I think this is blown up. A small plaque that has been up for 40 years is not a big thing.
Cripes, even I have a small plaque pertaining to the footsteps in the sand, in my home because I love the phrasing of it even though I am not a Christian and it doesn't offend anyone I know. (my husband is an athiest and he is one the one who put it up for me..oh and bought it for me also after I made a statement I loved the plaque)
My comment pertained to a "what if it was this instead" would it be considered offensive to another group of people...which I do believe it would be (and I would Not want to see it at a school mainly because of the misinterpretation of what Satanism is and some kids would go overboard with it as they have with Wicca "which sorry folks whom are Wiccan, that is a fluffy wing off of Paganism, those whom are Pagans can't change hair color without dye or make a boy fall in love with you, it is a nature base religious aspects")

So off I go now...tis a day for woot woot as I got to finish the last mechanics of the haunted house (blasted monster's arm keeps flipping over)

Yes, Nellie, I understand that you probably aren't on board here and I know atheists who would also not be. As I have said before, there are some of the most vocal and militant atheists who congretate on the Internet. Any of the atheists I know couldn't care less about something like this. Nonetheless, there is an anal retentive faction that does wish to make issues of such trivia.

I didn't want to disagree with Chris, but the term "cult" is nebulous and defined with different parameters, depending on who is defining it for their purposes. Whether you want to see Christianity or Satanism as cults or religions is moot to the issue of constitutionality of freedom of expression. That's why I introduced the idea of the Halloween decorations being considered unconstitutional according to the way the atheist in this story is making her case.

btw... halloween isn't a satanic holiday.. it's a pagan holiday...

Well, that may be true, but there are Christians who do see anything associated with Halloween as Satanic as they also define Paganism and anything associated with Paganism the same way.

yah, but they would be wrong.

I mean, a balloon isn't defined as a metal box with wheels either..

When I was in Catholic grade school, we were instructed about the Pagan origins of Halloween. RCs did not look at the symbolism of the holiday as being verboten, while there are some sects of Christianity who do not celebrate the holiday at all, and do see the symbolism as Satanic.

Whether they are right or wrong is not the issue if it is a part of their belief system.

That's the problem with some religions.. they completely throw proper education out the window and breed intolerance and ignorance.

I grew up in the bible belt, so I get it. When people found out my family was pagan, I sure heard the words "devil worshiper" a buttload -- and I thought it was as stupid then as I do now.

It also depends on what you define as "proper education." To educate someone properly means not to withhold the acquistion of knowledge of the beliefs, customs, and cultures of others. To educate someone properly means to broaden their minds to understand those beliefs, customs and cultures, not to dictate what is correct to think, but to exercise the mind to learn how to think and then derive conclusions based on truth, not on existing biases of the day, whether they be religious dogma or revisionist history.


You may have been raised in the bible belt around people with very different ideas from your own, but your own characterization of all of them as ignorant and intolerant is no different from their characterization of you as a devil worshiper. It is all indicative of improper education.

Sue, you got it. To educate properly means to educate and to show all sides. Proper science would include Creationism and evolution.

Countries all over the world are studying our history - which includes learning about the faith of our forefathers - and our own American kids are being deprived that "proper education" about how things really were here. It's sad.

And, it's no wonder that our kids are falling so far behind the rest of the world.

What should really be happening is that all faiths should be studied in social studies. To ban study of religions from schools and gives young the idea religions are bad. We shouldn't give them a distorted sense of what religions are about and shouldn't promote any, either.

I can tell you have a habit of making wide-sweeping and generalized assumptions off people based on very little information about them. If this is how you behave in real life, I could only imagine what kind of quality any of your relationships are in your home, work or elsewhere.

But FYI, I'm actually not uneducated in religion at all. In fact, I'm educated enough to get and understand that tax-funded institutions aren't supposed to promote religion. I think you learn that in high school, but I might be wrong.

Furthermore, "religious ignorance" is an oxymoron, seeing as though religion only inspires ignorance, as I've noted from nearly every post you've made in this discussion.

and you'd be advised to pull back on your personal insults. I really don't have a problem with stopping your comments from showing up on my posts. Not a problem at all ;)

I can tell you have a habit of making wide-sweeping and generalized assumptions off people based on very little information about them. If this is how you behave in real life, I could only imagine what kind of quality any of your relationships are in your home, work or elsewhere.

But FYI, I'm actually not uneducated in religion at all. In fact, I'm educated enough to get and understand that tax-funded institutions aren't supposed to promote religion. I think you learn that in high school, but I might be wrong.

Furthermore, "religious ignorance" is an oxymoron, seeing as though religion only inspires ignorance, as I've noted from nearly every post you've made in this discussion.

and you'd be advised to pull back on your personal insults. I really don't have a problem with stopping your comments from showing up on my posts. Not a problem at all ;)

Actually, and this is just to show your lack of a good general education, religious ignorance, if you think it is ignrorance to have religion, would not be characterized as an oxymoron at all. According to what you consider religion, religious wisdom would be the oxymoron. Religious ignorance for someone like you would be characterized as a tautology.

actually, you're right. "oxymoron" was the wrong word to use.

But I doubt that's caused by a "lack of *good* general education."

a slip-up in vocabulary, yes.

Well, sorry, but coupled with that statement of logic you made yesterday, "no, the courts were perfectly right in doing so; that's why they did it..." might have caused me to think it was more than just a "slip-up in vocabulary."

Then again, I might have allowed the bias from all the leftist blogs about functional illiteracy in the Bible Belt where you were raised cloud my perception of the value of your educational experience.

The supreme court judges are more educated in constitutional law than either one of us will ever be -- that's why they're appointed to make those decisions and do them correctly.

When someone has to work for 18 hours straight -- conversational blunders do occurs. Nothing to do with being a "leftist" or any of those other cute little buzzwords.

The people in the bible belt can only read "dick and jane" books, so what do they have to do with a vocabulary mistake?

The edcuation of Supreme Court justices does not justify the statement you made. You may as well not have made the statement at all. "no, the courts were perfectly right in doing so; that's why they did it..." is a Dick and Jane explanation to what was presented to you. Any five year old could have come up with the very same reasoning and phraseology to demonstrate that reasoning. That is what I meant about the statement.

I never said that your little blunder while you were trying to make yourself look educated to someone else had anything to do with you being a leftist. Can't you read?

"The people in the bible belt can only read 'dick and jane' books, so what do they have to do with a vocabulary mistake?"

In the first place, the first clause shows how biased and ignorant you are. You get yourself into deeper and deeper doo doo with each successive statement. I'm starting not to be able to keep up.

Vocabulary has everything to do with reading comprehension and literacy. That you don't seem to recognize the correlation is not in your favor either. Your mistake may very well have been an isolated one, but if someone else (from the Tea Party, for instance) were to make a similar isolated mistake about an historical trivia fact after 18 hours of work, you'd have a blog up in a New York minute, blasting the person's utter ignorance and stupidity. Whom the hell do you think you're kidding?

no, i didn't need to say it, because it goes without saying that they made the right choice because they are in the know. Whereas certain other people are not.

You're getting a tad bit aggressive. Hmm.. wonder why.. hmm.. *yawn*

http://www.crimetimes.org/95c/w95cp10.htm

and I can read perfectly -- my comment was in regards to your rabid way of connecting a slip of vocabulary to "leftist" bla bla bla "insert buzzword here in political diatribe."

to be honest, I only half read it. When my wingnut filter goes off, I tend to tune out.

oops wrong link.. .....

You're the one who has identified a buzzword in my comment and just because it happens to be a a buzzword, you take it out of context to mean whatever you want it to mean. It was a screechingly sarcastic comment about leftist blogs that paint the whole of the Bible Belt as being functionally illiterate. It had nothing to do with calling you a leftist as you said it did. But since you admit now that you only "half-read" it... well...

Maybe all you need is good long nap and you'll wake up "Websterized."

I love how these right wingers interpret the First Amendment so literally but then interpret the Second Amendment so liberally.

Chelsea, can I ask if you'd be against the study of all faiths and religions to be included in school curriculums? That promoting any should not be allowed goes without saying-- the studying should be strictly informational and without any proselytizing or favoritism.

I'm all for religious studies, as long as all of them are taught with equal curriculum and no promotion of one or the other.

In other words, I wouldn't find it acceptable if a teacher was teaching about.. let's say, budhism, and the teacher says "but this isn't the right religion, it's just one of the false ones" or something to that affect.

Theology is fascinating, and a good way to learn about the different cultural influences that led to who and what we are today; but in a designated curiculae without bias.

I find it interesting the original article says she "feels that it violates her religious rights."
This is an amazing admission that athiesm is a religion.

The 10 year old is "offended" that a worldview different from her own is being displayed. Yet all she has to do is open up her science and literature books among others to find almost all view points that would agree with her worldview. But you don't see Christian students suing over it. I would say that the mural appears to be one small expression of a worldview that many students have shared over many years. Why should this one artistic expression be removed because of one complaint from one girl who pretty much has all the education material agree with her particular worldview?

Athiesm and secularism are not neutral worldviews.

Expressing faith in a Supreme Being who many call God through a mural on a school wall does not establish a religion. No one's religious rights are beign violated. Our Constitiution does not protect people from being offended.

you have no proof or firsthand knowledge of this; so I wouldn't be so certain.

I know it may be hard to believe, but some people do think on their own.

"you might want to do some research before you attempt to argue with someone who knows it."


Okay, so how long have you known Jessica personally? Because that's the only way you'd know for a fact as to whether or not she's being "put up to" anything here.

I suggest you take your own "advice."


PS -- some 16-year olds are perfectly able to think for themselves. Simply because you are in the belief that people who are only 2 yrs away from adulthood can't think on their own, doesn't mean every 16-year old on earth has the leadership skills of a lemming. Some move out of home, go to college and hold down jobs at that age.

Where were you at 16?


I think the key factor here, is this girl's intelligence. Reading the other articles and interviews of hers would reveal that much.


and PS -- you're wrong, a 16-year old *can* in fact enter a legally binding contract, as well as initiate a lawsuit. It also depends on the state's laws. I've had a few experiences myself as a "teenage adult" -- back years ago.

Keep on thinking that, Chris. Some people know the facts.

A 16-year old can't decide she's an atheist, because a 10-year old can't get a credit card? You're comparing the "adulthood" of a 16-year old young adult with the legal-financial rights of someone who hasn't even physically hit puberty yet?

Who's embarrassing who here?

Furthermore, you should seriously check some state-by-state laws instead of just running off at the fingers like you know something. You're actually talking to someone who was emancipated at 15, never had to ask "parental consent" for a job, and never knew one person who did have to get parental consent at 16 for a job. Etc etc..

Also, gauging someone's maturity based on what age the government says they can do what at, is just.. well.. it's just stupid.There are age brackets for everything. 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink, 25 to rent a car etc etc etc. I know some 16-year old that are far more mature than some of those car-renting 25-year olds, but I hardly doubt these little laws constitute an individuals decision making skills.

you[re wrong. Again. Do you even bother looking anything up before you say something, or do you just randomly talk and hope something randomly sticks?

In the state of NV the age of consent is 16 yrs old, in the state of alabama is 16, in the state of in colorado it's 17.

Again, do you bother reading anything before you make statements or do you just HOPE you're correct when you do? Because I can assure you it's much more fulfilling to just learn things right the first time.

Even wikipedia knows better...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Alabama

not necessarily, my situation was complicated; and not one I'm going to get into. But no, there was no "legal process" to be declared "independent of my my parents." and a court didn't have to "step in and give me status."

again, you've drawn huge, generalized (and incorrect) assumptions off tiny fragments of information that I've given you. That is a huge character flaw.

oh and chris, here's a tip for you sweetie: Wiki's "Law" pages aren't edited and use law library sources. Again, learn to read before speaking. It will do you wonders:

^ http://webapps01.un.org/vawdatabase/uploads/Antigua%20and%20Barbuda%20-%20Sexual%20Offences%20Act%201995.pdf
^ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. "Refworld | 2003 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - Antigua and Barbuda". UNHCR. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ https://www.anguillalaws.com/Acts.asp
^ "The Government of The Bahamas - Home". Laws.bahamas.gov.bs. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ "Microsoft Word - Barbados template start.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ a b "CAP 101 CRIMINAL CODE ACT" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ "Canada's age of consent raised by 2 years". CBC News. 2008-05-01.
^ SACC Website Team. "Sexual Assault Care Centre: Since You Asked: The Law - SACC provides emergency nurse, medical care, information thoughts feelings collect physical evidence help legal". Sacc.to. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ "Criminal Code (R.S., 1985, c. C-46), Section 159, Subsection (1)". Department of Justice Canada. 21 May 2010.
^ R v CM, 1995 CanLII 8924 (ON C.A.)
^ R c Roy, 1998 CanLII 12775 (QC C.A.)
^ R v Roth, 2002 ABQB 145
^ Weber, Terry (2006-06-22). "Tories move to raise age of consent". Globe and Mail.
^ Social Laws of Canada and Ontario summarised for the use of Children's Aid Societies and Social Workers, 1914
^ a b "Canada's legal age of consent to sexual activity (PRB 99-3E)". Dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ http://staging.caymanjudicial-legalinfo.ky/laws/Laws-In-Force/2007/G16%202007%20s9%20-%20Penal%20Code%20%282007%20Revision%29.pdf
^ .https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ip.html
^ http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaCostaRica.pdf
^ http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/eee5f7f35a099082c1257220004efcbc/$FILE/G0545629.pdf
^ "Cuba Travel Advice and Advisories | Government of Canada". Voyage.gc.ca. 2011-01-07. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ [1]
^ "2009 Human Rights Report: Dominican Republic". State.gov. 2010-03-11. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ a b c d e f http://www.csj.gob.sv/leyes.nsf/ed400a03431a688906256a84005aec75/29961fcd8682863406256d02005a3cd4
^ "Microsoft Word - El Salvador.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gl.html
^ "2009 Human Rights Reports: Guatemala". State.gov. 2010-03-11. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ "2009 Human Rights Report: Haiti". State.gov. 2010-03-11. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ Interpol (2007-08-03). "Sexual Offences Laws - Honduras". Interpol.int. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ "Microsoft Word - JAMAICA TEMPLATE START.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ a b "Microsoft Word - MEXICO TEMPLATE START.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ http://www.mapsmontserrat.ms/Legislation/Penal%20Code.pdf
^ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-LCIQ1ccEK4J:www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/CRC.C.OPSC.NIC.1.doc+"
^ http://www.oslpr.org/english/PDF/penal%20code.pdf
^ "2009 Human Rights Report: Saint Kitts and Nevis". State.gov. 2010-01-26. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ "2009 Human Rights Report: Saint Lucia". State.gov. 2010-03-11. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. "Refworld | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Prevalence of abuse against children, including sexual abuse; laws concerning abuse against children; availability of facilities for abused children". UNHCR. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ "2009 Human Rights Report: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines". State.gov. 2010-03-11. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ "Wetboek van de Nederlandse Antillen" (in Dutch). Government of the Netherlands. Retrieved 24 April 2011.
^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-102P.ZO
^ "85898 - State v. Limon - Luckert - Kansas Supreme Court". Kscourts.org. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ United States v. Dhingra, which discusses the fact of incorporation of state criminal law into violation of 2422(b), specifically California statute, where Dhingra resided and committed the acts.
^ Posner, Richard (1996). A Guide to America's Sex Laws. The University of Chicago Press. p. 45. ISBN 0-226-67564-5. The case cited is Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981).
^ http://www.age-of-consent.info/
^ "CA Penal Code, Section 261.5". Retrieved 20 June 2011.
^ "DC Code §22". Moraloutrage.net. 2010-10-25. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ "§ 16-6-3 - Statutory rape :: 2010 Georgia Code". Retrieved 18 July 2011.
^ "§ 17-10-6.2 - Punishment for sexual offenders :: 2010 Georgia Code". Retrieved 18 July 2011.
^ "§ 16-6-4 - Child molestation; aggravated child molestation :: 2010 Georgia Code". Retrieved 18 July 2011.
^ "§ 16-6-2 - Sodomy; aggravated sodomy; medical expenses :: 2010 Georgia Code". Retrieved 18 July 2011.
^ http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/hb377.htm
^ http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19950207&id=rassAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CRUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2300,2551818
^ http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb722.htm
^ Georgia General Assembly - HB 722
^ "Idaho Statutes - 18-6101". Retrieved 28 July 2010.
^ "Idaho Statutes - 18-6104". Retrieved 28 July 2010.
^ "Idaho Statutes - 18-1508". Retrieved 28 July 2010.
^ "Idaho Statutes - 18-1508A". Retrieved 28 July 2010.
^ "Idaho Statutes - 18-1506". Retrieved 28 July 2010.
^ "Indiana Code 35-42-4". Retrieved 9 June 2011.
^ http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title31/ar11/ch1.html
^ These laws have been translated into layman's terms at the child sexual abuse prevention website YouCanStopItNow.org.
^ "§ 97-3-65. Statutory rape; enhanced penalty for forcible sexual intercourse or statutory rape by administering certain substances.". LexisNexis.com. Retrieved 2008-02-18.
^ http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca_toc/45.htm
^ http://www.ageofconsent.com/newjersey.htm
^ "2006 New Mexico Code - Section 30-9-11 — Criminal sexual penetration. - New Mexico Section 30-9-11 — Criminal sexual penetration. :: Justia - US Laws, Codes, Statutes & Cases - Justia". Law.justia.com. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ e.g. § 6318. Unlawful contact with minor (does not require the offender to be over the age of 18) or § 6301. Corruption of minors (requires the offender to be over the age of 18)
^ "''See Commonwealth v. Decker'', 26 Pa. D. & C. 4th 157 (1995)". Scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ Id. at 161.
^ http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/statutes/TITLE11/11-37/11-37-6.HTM
^ http://www.sccourts.org/summaryCourtBenchBook/HTML/OffensesC.htm
^ "Tennessee". Age of Consent. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ "The Vermont Statutes Online". Leg.state.vt.us. 2006-05-26. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
^ https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/09
^ https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/02


Look at all the research I've done for you in such a little amount of time. I wonder if you were one of those kids that was too lazy to study, do your homework, or even pursue college....

Again. You're wrong.

So, quick question. What law school did you go to? Or, what degree did you get? Honest, serious question.

Since you're so well versed in law, and kno so much (so much more than even several law libraries online that are at your fingertips by using the simple google search) I'm going to let you keep making your assumptions until one of your random ones stick. Since that is your tactic, to just throw out random ideas until one of them is right.

So far though.. you're O and nothing with this technique. I do suggest you at least read the sources that my feeble little uneducated mind found for you in my 2 minute research. Maybe you'd garner some insight on the differences, stipulations, loopholes etc of the different laws you are so confidently reciting wrongly.

again, read the law library sources, which are actual state law and statute resources. If you have even the most elementary grasp of reading and browsing the internet, you can scroll down on that wiki page and check their sources, which are THE sources. The laws themselves. If you're too unequipped to mentally handle the simplistic action of scrolling down and.. reading... then that's all on you, and not me.

I have a great mom, but I became an adult at 15; graduated high school at 17, and have done just fine ever since.

Continue with your assumptions. You're wrong. You haven't figured it out yet, but maybe you might eventually. No, not a runaway and not an orphan. Lol, but obviously, this is a topic I know more than you about. And that's about all that needs to be said about it.

and I'm still waiting for the answer of what law school you attended, or what college degree you obtained to arrive at such great expertise that you know more than even the statute books of all 50 states....


and i haven't gotten it yet... I wonder why..


Bachelors of Science in Criminal Justice here, and not planning on stopping there. What about *you* ??

Not lying about anything here; and obviously we know that I've already proven your expertise wrong in this thread before. Of course, simply because it was the wiki version you disregarded it. Even though it came with the statutes in full citation. hmm..
\
maybe because you just don't want to admit you're wrong. I'm not going to say I think you're lying about your degree, but I must say that i don't think it's in anything remotely related to the law since you didn't even know that the age of consent is NOT 18 in every us state, and you seem to think that 16-year old require parental consent to work , by law. These are two blatant falsities, showing that you don't know what you are talking about.

Furthermore, you've yet to hit the other stipulations that lend to an emancipated minor; showing that you either "forgot" or you just never knew; and you're far too lazy to do the search on the internet for it, like I did for you to show you that yo uwere wrong about your little "age of consent" diatribe.


I can see that you're the type of person that will argue that the sky is yellow until your throat is hoarse because you just can't stand knowing that a female, who is younger than you and *gasp* a liberal atheist; is simply more formally educated than you and has a better grasp of certain aspects in law than you. And I bet that just burns you up. But sadly, arguing on the side of "false" doesn't make you look good. It makes you look stubborn and unwilling to remedy ignorance.


I'm not going to waste my time on the likes of you anymore, because it's obvious that, as stated before, you are not equipped to converse with me. Even faced with sources and facts you argue; and for what? So someone can stroke your ego and say "you're so right and all of those law books, are wrong. You're a man god, you smart intelligent person who knows everything." But guess what, I'm not going to do that. That's the job of whoever decided to marry you. Not mine. I'll stick to actually paying attention, knowing the facts and learning the new ones when I don't know them; instead of taking your route of "braying" for the sake of doing so, whether I'm right or not.

Like I said, that problem of yours of "I'm right even though I don't even know what I'm talking about." is a SERIOUS personality flaw. Be prepared to only be accepted among like-minded people. I mean that with the utmost respect intended.

and ps, another one of your idiotic wide sweeping statements. I wasn't emancipated because I didn't like my mom's rules. I think I stated like 20 posts ago that the relationship between my mother and I is just fine. You're just resorting to insults (again) because you've YET to figure anything out here; and I'm not going to hold your hand through it, since you claim to have an MBA; you should totally know everything.. even though you've already been proven wrong ... twice.

What did you get an MBA in, "guesswork" ?? jeez.

Yes, jj, but that person still needs permission to get married because at 15 they are considered a minor.

I was told that I could not legally kick my 16 year old out of the house because he was a minor and unless he agreed to go to court to be emancipated, he would be my responsibility until he turned 18. That was from my attorney and from a judge I knew. I would believe them over Chelsea.

Good luck to her, prayer has no place in public school.

I can see it both ways. The mural has been a part of the school for 40 years and could be considered art work AND religion in school. At least the school doesn't make her read/recite the wording on the mural as part of the curriculum. Good article!

There's a point where the separation of Church and State can be overkill.

For one thing, the mural does not violate an Athiest's Right not to believe in God.

But Much More for another thing, if we truly invoked the law of the separation of Church and State in public spaces, then carpenters, masons, construction workers, screen printers, welders, and the like, would be employed for the next century, removing religious words from plaques, emblems, insignias, flags, friezes, iconography, statues, coats-of-arms and chiseled letters on granite buildings.....

While that might help to satisfy President Obama's plan to improve infrastructure, from a second stimulus plan, it would not necessarily be an efficient way to spend public funds.

It seems to me that those of us, who support the separation of Church and State, ought to choose our battles more prudently.

Chris, I will ask you one final time to limit your personal insults or I will remove all of your comments, and block them from any future article of mine. It;s one thing to have a heated discussion with me, and to me; but simply because you've been trumped in a few points, is no reason to turn around and personally attack me indirectly via badmouthing me to other commentors on this thread.

Just keep that in mind. Ive at least shown you that much rspect. The next time, Ill just delete your posts and not acknowledge you.
Thanks.

the only points you've proven, is that you don't read or think. You just make noise and words and hope that you're right; and when you're wrong, you argue until the other person gives up. That's not winning, or proving anything. That's just showing that you're intellectually, a lost cause.

mmmhmm.. Again, proving my point.

Lets see what have you accomplished in this discussion?

1. Assumption.
2. Assumption.
3. Assumption.
4. Blatant miseducation of US Laws
5. Assumption
6. Insult.


So, no, saying that you're intellectually a lost cause is not an insult. It's an obvious observation your ineptitude in carrying a conversation that is an exchange of ideas or information. You downright refuse to learn anything. Even when the sources are in front of you -- then you result to saying "liberals this and that."

No, sweety. You're just not equipped for this arena, and nothing more.

no, i was responding at the bottom, because the page jumped and I wasn't going to scroll all the back up to the OP.

There's a point where the separation of Church and State can be overkill.

For one thing, the mural does not violate an Athiest's Right not to believe in God.

With Brett on this one.

"That's the problem with some religions.. they completely throw proper education out the window and breed intolerance and ignorance."

Oh you mean like the intolerance this girl and her athiest kin are doing every time they sue because someone even mentions the word God in public?

hyperbole, Juan is weak.


Nobody sues someone for mentioning god in public and you know it.. or do you.. you didn't know china was dominantly christian, so I need to make sure...

Good for Jessica Ahlquist (and her dad, Mark), and good for the ACLU!

This seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of the Establishment Clause, and unless something really weird happens, I think it's pretty clear that the school and the city are going to lose.

I'm pretty sure that not long ago the Cranston School District was complaining that it didn't have enough funding, and had to drop some music, art and sports programs. But there's money to defend what seems to be a pretty obvious violation of the law?

As I understand it, the school's defense is that the prayer is a "historical document" and should be kept because it's part of the school's history. I'm a history buff and I can understand the value of preserving historical artifacts, but it seems to me that the school's argument in this case makes about as much sense as insisting that "Whites Only" signs be kept posted due to their historical value.

I think it's important to remember the past, but not in ways that continue to violate peoples' rights in the present.

It certainly does represent their and our history. It shows the prayer that used to be said, it was presented by the first graduating class - a class that, just like everyone else, had to stop saying the prayer because of one atheist in the 60s.

The only reason schools back down from what's right is that the ACLU has so much money behind them. I wish schools understood that there are at least 3 Christian groups of attorneys that will take these cases for free and they usually win.

Did you realize, Wil, that the Courts support teaching students about the religious aspects of Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter? Or that the U.S. Department of Education has clarified students' religious liberties (and educators can teach about them!)? Or that most states actually have guidelines of what is SUPPOSED to be taught about religion and our history and it's not being taught?

Here's some of what Christian organizations and attorneys are doing to protect our kids' right of freely expressing their faith, even in school:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980661638

"It certainly does represent their and our history."

As I pointed out, so do the "Whites Only" signs, but I don't think those should be kept up everywhere, either.

"It shows the prayer that used to be said, it was presented by the first graduating class - a class that, just like everyone else, had to stop saying the prayer because of one atheist in the 60s."

The students didn't have to stop saying the prayer. The schools had to stop trying to force the students to say the prayer.

"Did you realize, Wil, that the Courts support teaching students about the religious aspects of Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter?"

I realize that the courts have ruled that schools can teach about religion, but can't promote particular religious beliefs or activities.

Do you realize that the ACLU of Nebraska recently opposed a school policy that would've banned wearing rosaries at school?

And that the ACLU of Colorado opposed a policy that would've banned wearing religious symbols such as crosses or rosaries unless they were hidden under other clothing?

And that the ACLU of Virginia fought for the rights of Christian students to put copies of the Ten Commandments on their lockers? And that it also sued a nearby school district for requiring copies of the Ten Commandments to be placed in every school?

"I wish schools understood that there are at least 3 Christian groups of attorneys that will take these cases for free and they usually win."

I wish more schools understood that they don't usually win when they're violating the constitutional rights of their students.