Well, she was successful, and in my opinion, delivered a strategic setback to secularism. Jessica Ahlquist, a student at Cranston High School in Rhode Island filed a law suit with the ACLU to have a banner that has hung in her high school’s auditorium for the last 50 years, immediately removed. Apparently this story was quite the sensation in Rhode Island, although I was not aware of it until this week. You can get some quick background on it here and the update here and the original link from the Huffington Post here.
Why do I think she lost by winning? Look into the details. First, look at her age. She is sixteen. Fine. But, she says she knew she was an atheist at age 10. Nowhere though is there any support for this claim. Really? I would think there would at least be a mention of what changed her mind. Age ten is VERY young to be making any concrete decisions about any part of your life. Maybe it is possible. I’ll even grant that it is true. But, I would expect that as such it would be clearly defined as to what brought it about. The statement is very definite as to the age, not given as “…around age ten…” or “…when I was about 10…” so by her own words a decision break is implied. What was it?
Then there is the banner itself. There is no indication it was ever read from as an active prayer in the school. It simply hung in the auditorium as a passive decoration, much like any other sports pennant, a gift from former students, not anybody connected with the school or government or any church. Outside of the first three words, and the Amen at the end, the text of the entire “prayer” is secular in context. Instead of removing the entire banner, it would have much more educational to cover the first three and last words. Then instead of being a slap at the class of 1963, and being lost on future students, it could have been a great teaching tool. Social Studies and Government classes alike could have used it as the starting point for discussions of why we have separation of church and state, and how it has evolved over time. I was not really surprised but rather disappointed when I read where the court “…had supported the Constitutions wall between church and state. …”. There is no such statement in the Constitution, just as there is no right to vote for president in the Constitution. The courts have interpreted the intent and that interpretation has evolved over time. This chance to extend teaching on these points has no been lost.
Then, I question her understanding of Atheism itself. If she were truly Atheist, I would expect her to raise the constitutional question in class, mentioning the banner, but not to be offended by it. It was existing in totally a passive state. A true Atheist would treat it as something from fifty years ago, and ignore it, much the same as the Valentine’s Day. Just because I don’t believe in Cupid, I don’t go around ripping down hearts in February. Her position by her own words is more anti-christian, and if you read far enough back into the story, you find she only brought it up after she found out that another unnamed parent had complained.
The only result, other than removing a fifty year old banner, has been negative social media directed at this girl, and an increase in the animosity on both sides between Atheists and Believers. So, although Jessica won her case, she damaged the position of Humanism in the area.
Peolpe you are trying to win to your position by persuasion and puppies are much the same. You don’t get them to follow you home by kicking them first.
#1 by Ken McKnight on January 27, 2012 - 11:11 pm
Get your facts straight. There was an attempt to strip the banner of its religious trappings and keep the basic message, but the school board flatly refused to consider it.
#2 by Edward V. on January 27, 2012 - 11:29 pm
First, it has been mentioned in numerous sources that the impetus for Jessica’s atheism was her mother’s illness, although I don’t think it should matter why she became an atheist. It’s not as if we’re testing her qualifications.
Next, Jessica did suggest that the banner not be removed, just that the explicitly religious language be covered up. She was insulted and jeered at by the citizens of Cranston and the school board, who refused to comply. They were the ones who necessitated the court case, not Jessica Ahlquist.
Jessica didn’t ask for the removal of the banner because she was “offended.” She did it because it violated the establishment clause of the Constitution. You’re right that the exact phrase “separation of church and state” does not exist in the Constitution; you’re wrong, however, that that means that church and state should not be separated. The phrase “separation of church and state” is a convenient shorthand to refer to the religion clauses of the First Amendment, which do state in essence that church and state should remain separate.
One final point: You state that “Just because I don’t believe in Cupid, I don’t go around ripping down hearts in February.” This is a false equivalence. If Cupid were a figure of religious worship and if monuments or prayers to Cupid were placed on property belonging to an arm of the federal government, such as a public school (for example, Cranston HS), then and only then would this statement be a legitimate equivalence to what occurred in this case.
#3 by Greg du Pille on January 27, 2012 - 11:30 pm
Yes, you have come to this late. The answers to some of the questions you are unaware of have been well known for some time, such as the reason for the loss of Ms Ahlquist’s faith (her mother’s illness with no answer to prayer). It is interesting to me that you appear to think that atheists are too young to make their own minds up at such tender ages, but apparently are fine with the idea of much younger children, lacking capacity and experience to tell falsehoods from truth, being shipped off on a weekly basis to Sunday School.
As regards the sequence of events, I suggest instead of relying on the HuffPo for your source (which references very biased media outlets such as WPRO for its data and has donelittle if no research of its own), perhaps you could take a look over at one of the many support groups Ms Ahlquist has on facebook, for example http://www.facebook.com/groups/179298715436387/.
And concerning raising the issue in class, in fact, the matter was first raised by another parent with the school, who responded by raising a sub-committee to examine the issue. Jessica became interested and attended all these meetings and speaking there,identifying herself as an atheist She explained then that the School Prayer was probably illegal (both on account of the words you noted and because it appeals to a higher power). Jessica thought that as adults, they would realise that what she said was true. Instead, someone hissed under her breath at her “witch!”. She was not offended by the sentiments in the prayer, but felt ostracized and excluded.
Before the whole thing came to trial, the ACLU and Jessica offered a compromise, which involved deleting a few words and a small reworking of others. This was refused by the board, who wanted to keep the original religious message. It was only then that the suit was filed.
I don’t think you are fair to characterize the suit as anti-Christian. The whole point was to identify a constitutional infraction and request that it should be corrected. As you may know, this took incredible bravery and Ms Ahlquist has suffered much hateful vilification as a result. The conservative, Republican-appointed judge agreed with her on what was rather an easy case for him. I suggest that you read his 40 page judgement to give you a much better picture of what went on, and why he ruled as he did. Then you will be in a much better position to opine on the matter.
http://www.rid.uscourts.gov/menu/judges/opinions/recent/01112012_1-11CV0138L_AHLQUIST_V_CRANSTON_P.pdf
#4 by DJ-DOUG-DJ on January 27, 2012 - 11:50 pm
Obviously Jessica Ahlquist has a much higher I.Q. and than this writer.
#5 by Carl on January 30, 2012 - 7:49 pm
That may be true…. I try….
#6 by David Corpus on January 28, 2012 - 2:48 am
I’m sad that you feel this way, but perhaps it is because you weren’t very familiar with the case at the time of writing this.
I don’t agree that she “damaged the position of humanism” or caused a “setback to secularism.” Separation of church and state is an important matter. This prayer banner was on the wall of a public school and endorsed by the school. It should never have been allowed to be displayed in this manner- not 50 years ago, and not today. Asking for it to be removed is honorable. Atheists and Humanists who simply and firmly ask that the line in the sand be respected are doing the right thing. (She didn’t vandalize it or “rip down cupid hearts.”) If anyone damaged their position, it was the school board for wasting their money to defend the issue. Their own legal counsel advised them to simply take it down because they had no legal basis. They agreed with you regarding “anti-Christian” and thus were unable to back down without offending the Christian community.
You asked what her decision break was at age ten. It was her mother’s illness.
Link: http://a-bright-blog.blogspot.com/2011/09/bright-blog-interview-jessica-ahlquist.html
I’m not sure why her decision or her age was an issue for you. We are all born atheists and may or may not be indoctrinated at the choice of parents and/or community. At what age are bar mitzvahs and confirmations? I agree that such a young age is too young to make a decision to accept something based on no evidence, but I don’t think it is too young to reject something that isn’t working for you.
Thank you for sharing your views on this matter. Since I landed on your page and others will as well, I do hope you will approve my comment to allow others to click the link I have provided to read it in her own words.
#7 by Grammar Merchant on January 28, 2012 - 3:09 am
I can only speak for myself here, but I knew I didn’t believe in God when I was ten years old. I had been to church, I had been taught to pray, and I had known devout relatives, but I was fortunate enough not to be raised in a heavily religious family. The stories just didn’t make sense to me. It’s not unheard of. Many of my friends who are atheists tell me they recognized their own unbelief at around the ages of 10-14. I’m not really sure why you’re so incredulous about that point.
#8 by Rob on January 28, 2012 - 4:20 am
OH, but for a comma in the last paragraph
#9 by Tangie Miner on January 28, 2012 - 7:53 am
This never should have been an atheist vs. believer issue. The media turned it into that. This is an issue of religious neutrality in public schools. Nobody’s prayer or dogma should be on the walls of a public school. Not yours, not mine, not Jessica’s.
Those of us close to the family and the issue have been following this case for its entirety. Your blog post is full of logical fallacies (i.e. No true Scotsman, poisoning the well), and is missing important facts….such as, Jessica and the ACLU initially sought to have the school modify the banner by eliminating “O Heavenly Father” and “Amen.” The school committee refused. That is why it went to court.
Please remember that Jessica did not insist on the banner’s removal. Judge Lagueux did. Jessica did not file the lawsuit to have the banner removed. She filed the lawsuit because it promotes religion and the Powers That Be would not secularize it.
#10 by kafoodie on January 28, 2012 - 8:09 am
Did you do any research into this issue at all? I don’t think so. If you had, you’d know that Jessica initially suggested the option of taking the religious references from the prayer and leaving it up in a secular form. The school board refused.
Why does she have to explain to anybody why she became an atheist at age 10…and why does her knowing the exact age make any difference at all. I became an atheist at age 13. I remember the moment of clarity well. So what?
And who are you to determine how “a true atheist” would act. Atheists are individuals who simply share a disbelief in the existence of god(s). Any two of them could react in very different ways to the same situation. She wanted it removed because it was illegal…I think I’m a “true atheist” and I would have reacted in the same way.
Your analogy regarding persuading puppies by being nice is deeply flawed. No minority group in history has ever gained acceptance and equal rights by asking for them nicely. Rosa Parks and Nellie McClung spring to mind…
#11 by HumanistDad on January 28, 2012 - 8:14 am
The thing about the internet is that everyone can post their opinions, even if they are misinformed and poorly researched.
#12 by Matt Penfold on January 28, 2012 - 8:48 am
Jessica Ahlquist has been quite clear about what led her to become an atheist, so to say she offered no evidence to support he decision is simply wrong. Maybe you did not know the reason, but a little research would have provided you with the answer. I suspect though that you did not want facts to get in the way of your rant.
#13 by Liz Cosgrove on January 28, 2012 - 9:51 am
16 is too young? Perhaps a lot of religions need to rethink their “coming of age” ceremonies. to wit: Bar/Bat Mitzvah (Judaism) 13/12, Confirmation (Roman Catholicism) varies, but usually 8th/9th grade (13-14) – And the data on confirmation is particularly pertinent as RI is a majority Catholic state. So if the religious can say their faithful are adults in the religious sense of the word by 14 or even earlier, then why can’t a young woman determine she is an atheist by then? In 1963, the banner was a fico (fill in your favourite rude gesture) to the US Federal Courts who had just ruled that reciting the “Lord’s Prayer” was unconstitutional in public schools. This was meant to be a more ecumenical alternative to the “Lord’s Prayer”. It failed, as it is clearly Christian and is titled “Prayer”, therefore it, too, is and from its inception WAS, unconstitutional. At one point the ACLU had approached a Jewish family to be a plaintiff in the case, they declined.
#14 by Brian Westley on January 28, 2012 - 6:34 pm
“Then, I question her understanding of Atheism itself. If she were truly Atheist, I would expect her to raise the constitutional question in class, mentioning the banner, but not to be offended by it. It was existing in totally a passive state. A true Atheist would treat it as something from fifty years ago, and ignore it, much the same as the Valentine’s Day.”
Sorry, you don’t get to define someone else’s atheism. I would’ve sued to remove such a banner if one were in my school, too. Making public schools adhere to the law instead of bending it to the advantage of the local Christian majority is far better in the long run, in my opinion.
#15 by dougindeap on January 28, 2012 - 6:37 pm
This is not about atheism or humanism, but rather about constraining the government to act in keeping with the Constitution. Why you would direct your ire at someone who seeks to uphold the Constitution, rather than those flouting it is not apparent.
A word should be added about the common canard that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–regardless of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives–small government conservatives–should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with “standing” (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government’s failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.
#16 by NotAScientist on January 30, 2012 - 3:40 pm
“has been negative social media directed at this girl,”
And massive amounts of positive social media, from both atheists and moderate religious groups.
#17 by Carl on January 30, 2012 - 8:03 pm
I would at this point like to thank you all for taking the time to read my posting. I will admit I didn’t go into researching this story as deep as i should have, Happily, I have been able to approve all but one comment. My friend ( http://kestalusrealm.wordpress.com/ ) and I had quite the discussion in person about my blog posting over the weekend. I was hoping to ‘stir the pot’ a little with my post. I got what I was looking for.
#18 by Daniel Ciora on January 30, 2012 - 10:09 pm
This is an illogical opinion piece; the writer failed to do any research.
When the prayer banner was first put up they would recite it in school for a few years.
How old was the writer when the writer first believed in God?
How is Jessica Ahlquist’s age when she first realized that she is an aethist relevant?
Why does the writer arbitrarily decide not to believe her?
In what way is taking a religious public school prayer off of the wall a “setback for secularism”?
The writer’s claim to the defense if public school secularism is disingenuous.
#19 by Daniel Ciora on January 30, 2012 - 10:17 pm
I also wanted to mention that when I was Thirteen years old I struggled with the issue of the existence of God; on the eve of my bar mitzva I concluded that I don’t believe in God.
I had this realization when I was 13; my mother promised me that if I get bar mitzvaed then I’ll never have to go back to temple. So I agreed.
#20 by Carl on February 2, 2012 - 11:02 am
I’m going to take your statements in order….
Line 1: FALSE. I did do research, all of the pieces I read were sensationalizing the verdict as a repudiation of the ‘evangelical movement’ in the election. None of them quoted of otherwise gave any background other than a link to the Huffington Post. I already stated that I didn’t do ENOUGH research. Please read the complete posting before commenting. Do as you preach.
Line 2: ??? You are the only person to have mentioned this, of course that was wrong if it happened. Source?
Line 3: NOT VALID. I never mentioned if I believe in any deity or not.
Line 4: In the stories I read, a specific date of realization was implied with no background. This implies a ‘break event’. No such event was mentioned. I was questioning if she was actually an atheist, or maybe only thought she was. Similar to high school girls commonly referred to as “LUGs”, lesbians until graduation. Such ideas with young girls (and boys) are well documented, start with the Salem Witch Trials.
Line 5: Belief or disbelief was not an issue. I was questioning the situation as any good skeptic should, key evidence was not making sense from what I read.
Line 6: The tone of the responses are my proof of this still occuring. This comment from you is a good example. In the first line you commit a false personal attack, in the face of evidence to the contrary and explanations existing within the scope of this very piece and its comments. These are the type of actions the right wing uses to justify the same actions against secularists and simply discount anything said contrary to their beliefs. You have kicked the puppy.
Line 7: ???
Thank you for reading and taking the time to reply however….
#21 by George on January 31, 2012 - 11:57 am
I’m not an atheist, but I appreciate what Jessica Ahlquist did in standing up for religious freedom. There were no prayers posted in any public school I attended, for good reason. The judge ruled wisely.
#22 by Greg du Pille on February 2, 2012 - 12:02 pm
From the Judge’s decision:
“In 1960, after the School Prayer was adopted by Cranston West’s student council and approved by the school’s administration, then it was recited in homeroom or over the public address system each day, instead of the Lord’s Prayer. Around 1962, this practice was discontinued and replaced by a moment of silence, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261 (1962), which held prayer in public schools to be constitutionally impermissible.”
So, the School Prayer banner was not just a unique thing dreamed up by some student in 1963. It was an already-established School Prayer, which when outlawed in 1962, was then memorialized as a Banner by a student at the Administration’s instigation, and endorsed by them when they agreed to put it on the wall. And why wouldn’t they, if it was the self-same prayer that they had been forcing students to recite for some two years before? To say that no student was ever forced to say the prayer is incorrect.
Having said that, I cannot find the source confirmig the statement “they would recite it for a few years”. However, having just put up the banner in a place of honor, and it being an already-established prayer said over the tannoy for two years previously, I would find it incredible that it would not have been said, for example when the banner was first presented, and later at “appropriate” moments during school assembly.
#23 by Carl on February 2, 2012 - 9:40 pm
Thanks for the citation…..