Quite a few states actually had established religions well into the 19th century-- at least the early part. And check out this from the original MA state constitution. Emphasis added:
Oh but it’s quite ok for my taxes to go and support a school that offers no moral creed and teaches atheistic ideology that God does not exist?
So is the president being unconstitutional or not?
Now for a resounding chorus of Old Time Religion … 
i get glared at for singing Pete Seeger’s version instead of the normal one.
So do you agree that the banner is overtly Christian?
This is completely silly. If the banner is taken down, the school does not suddenly start teaching an atheist ideology (whatever that means) or saying that God does not exist. It just doesn’t have the “heavenly father” banner hanging anymore. I am not sure any school “offers a moral creed,” but are you suggesting that every school that doesn’t have this kind of banner is atheistic and amoral?They could put up a banner with the exact same wording except for the beginning and the end and nobody would object. And unless you live in Rhode Island, your taxes do not support the school.
He was the main lawyer in the case Engel vs. Vitali, the case which made school prayer in school illegal. Heh… this topic has me feeling rather sad right now actually. Great guy, loved Django Reinhardt’s music. Blargh.
No, schools cannot teach that God doesn’t exist. Public schools must be silent on the subject. Do you have a cite that public schools anywhere in the US teach that God does not exist?
Of course not. He’s expressing a personal belief. But even he can’t hang a banner in a public school such as the one described in the OP.
Cite for a school that teaches this, please?
Allah has 100 names. The 100th is unknown to man. The list is here Names of God in Islam - Wikipedia
None of them are “heavenly father”. That might be the 100th name though.
I ran into something that may be considered simular to the OP’s issue, and a lot goes to intent given and intent as taken. I was asked to say a blessing for a event, something I have been asked several times. I have ended the blessing every time by saying ‘in Jesus name - Amen’. One time I was approached by someone who asked me if I could not use the name of Jesus. He didn’t ask directly but through a 3rd person. He took my intent as promoting a religion that he was not part of.
However that was not my intent. I have not had the opportunity to talk with him directly on this, but because of the opportunity afforded to me in the blessing, was able to explain what I was doing and my intent to the group. My belief is that yes, by request, a supernatural blessing can be imparted to the meal and have real positive effects on people’s lives. My intent was to better people’s lives through the blessing through the best way I knew how. And the way I knew how personally that can most effectively have that blessing come true is to pray in the way I feel lead to pray, which in this case is in the Name of Jesus. So not praying in the name of Jesus would be doing less then my best and would probably result in less blessings because I did what I knew was less effective.
So it brings us to the reason and intent behind the school saying. If the intent was to impart a blessing to the best of their ability, by invoking their highest power they knew, that is not promoting religion as the intent - it is offering the best blessing they know how - they are wishing you the best - and that should be allowed but understood in context. But without context it can be easily taken as promoting a religion or it’s meaning can also be perverted to do that, so can be offensively taken by some.
Funny how the atheist view of the 1st admendment always slates in favor of the vocal minority of atheists instead of looking at the facts objectively. A banner in school does not equate to establishing an official religion. “Heavenly father” is ambigious and can apply to any faith that believes in a deity.
And yes, Christians are really tired of traditions being destroyed because a single atheist makes a big stink about it. What’s next? Are you going to fuss because Arlington National Cementary has crosses on the tombstones? Are you going to demand that the US Marines get rid of article VI from their code of conduct? After all, it doesn’t support the atheist belief that there are no God/gods.
I thought the 100th name was Al-Lan-Smithee.
I’m trying to imagine a Hindu student calling the goddess Lakshmi “heavenly father,” but my imagination is failing me. The phrase is used only by Christians and is not ambiguous at all.
Atheists are probably tired of having to keep silent about their views lest they be accused of things like destroying tradition or “destroying Christian rights” (a concept I am sure you will explain eventually).
If the student is Atheist, then it doesnt have to be specific. It is a prayer. Atheism doesnt target “a” religion.
In prayer form. Religion is taught in Sunday School, not Public School
This was Government Dollars supporting a prayer in school. Obtuse much?
The message is good, the delivery was in prayer and violated the law.
Youre grossly incorrect
This is true. They want their children to be allowed to go to schools that dont promote prayers. It is their right.
Incorrect. 1st Amendment prevents the Government from interfering in Freedom of Speech. Strawman much?
More strawman. Nobody is preventing worship. They are preventing it being taught in “Public School”
The fact is youre avoiding the true content of her actions to distribute Hate Speak towards Atheists.
Had the same banner read
Help us each day to desire to do our best.
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically.
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers.
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others.
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.
Teach us the value of true friendship.
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.
There would have been no problem.
Forgive my judgment Father…
Um, not all of the graves at Arlington have crosses. You know we’ve had Jewish, Muslim and GASP even atheist soldiers as well as others.
Why, just look at all the available flavors to choose from for your tombstone:
Make up your mind. If the banner doesn’t promote a specific religion, taking it down can’t be aimed at Christians, can it ?
The two are not antithetical.
There are also Wiccan represented
Well, actually… there’s kind of a fair bit of evidence that that’s exactly what the intention was, and it was definitely the majority interpretation for a long time. The concern, at the time the Amendments were passed, was that the federal government was being given too much power by the new Constitution; the states were seen as being closer to sovereigns, and the expectation, roughly, is that their own citizens would keep them in line to the extent they so desired.
“Incoporation” of the Bill of Rights against the states was a gradual process that happened in the courts, by means of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. (Whether it makes any sense to incorporate the Bill of Rights through the due process clause is a Great Debate for another thread; I’m explaining how it actually has went down so far.)
Bugger. I see that I’m not the first to get to this, but I’ve written it and feel that I’ve added a bit, so I’m leaving it. Note that I’m quite happy with the fact that the Bill of Rights has been incorporated against the states, even if I would argue that privileges and immunities makes a lot more sense than due process as the way to get there.
Broadly I agree with what mlees and John Mace posted. Or in other words, yes, I do. I’ve never seen any indication that the framers of the Constitution expected the First Amendment to interfere with the practice of state government working together with religion. I’ve certainly never seen any indication that they would want government buildings stripped of religious symbols or people censored when they try to pray at public events at any level of government. Throughout most of American history, government employees practiced religion freely, public schools taught the Bible and held prayers, and government property contianed religious symbols, and the federal government did not intervene. As far as I know, the notion that the federal government had to censor all of these things was made up my judges fairly recently.
How would you feel about a big banner in a school that said: “There is no god, we are all on our own, so figure out how to get along with each other without pretending there is an invisible man in the sky!”
Would that banner bother you? Would you think it was an appropriate message for a public school to display? If it was taken down would that be “destroying atheists’ rights?” Why, or why not?
Thanks!
Although, if “heavenly” means purity and holy, name number four covers “heavenly”.
Name number 60 (The Giver of Life) could be a stand in for “father”.
But there is no name that combines the two. 