January 17, 2012

The Cranston West Banner Can't be Required to Just Disappear

Carroll Andrew Morse

If the Cranston West banner has to be destroyed or removed, or if certain words have to be redacted from it, to comply with Judge Ronald Lagueux's Federal Court decision, there is no reason why a Soviet-style disappearance from history without explanation must occur, or that the public should not be informed that they are looking at a version 2 of the banner or at the space where the banner used to be.

If the minimum-modification option is pursued, various utilizations of the space on top or to the side of the banner are possible for displaying an explanation that would respect the history and original message of the banner, without violating any Supreme Court "endorsement of religion" tests.

Here's one proposal...

In 1963, David Bradley and the Cranston West community chose the imperative mood, to express a message they believed would help people live and grow together.

In 2012, Judge Ronald Lagueux ruled that the state forbids mentioning to whom or to what the requests are addressed.

Judge Lagueux's ruling should not prevent anyone's lifelong consideration of all of the reasons why we aspire to be better on our next day than on our last,

nor imply that the state can decide the answer to this question for us.

*** ******** *******
Grant us each day the 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.

In the meantime, a note should be added to the tarp covering the present banner saying "The Federal Government forbids you from seeing what is behind this covering".

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Way too much attention being given to this matter.
All the publicity has gotten this evil little w*** over $20,000 in donations. How long will it be before her Warwick firefighter daddy "becomes disabled" from the stress?

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at January 17, 2012 1:57 PM

"Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win"

Why leave that part in? It is obvious that is one section in the banner that the students like to ignore!

Posted by: Jim Jebow at January 17, 2012 2:39 PM

The kid was right, take the thing down already and get on with things.

Posted by: michael at January 17, 2012 3:27 PM

Andrew, I think your idea is an excellent one, and would put it in the right historical context for future generations who may tend to notice the empty space on the wall or the absurd tarp covering it over. Being that you live in Cranston, you might want to directly bring it to the attention that the powers that be.

As for the girl and the atheists who support her (is her father really a Warwick firefighter... why would I not be surprised if there were a union connection?), we should do everything we can possibly do to not to put any attention on her personally, as she clearly feeds off of it. We don't need to create an atheist Paris Hilton who keeps trying to do the next big thing in order to stay in the news once the attention from this episode diminishes. Keep the focus of the attention on the idea of religious freedom and the inappropriate interference by the judiciary.

Posted by: Will at January 17, 2012 4:14 PM

I'm not an atheist and I support her. She was right. And, its a holiday Tree when its in a government building.

Posted by: michael at January 17, 2012 4:19 PM

I am not an atheist and I support the decision.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at January 17, 2012 9:43 PM

Frankly, your proposal comes across as petty and backhanded. Leave it to someone with some objectivity.

Also, people are going after her father? Really? Have you people no class?

Posted by: keddren at January 18, 2012 12:00 PM

Talk of evil on the part of any individual in this case is overheated. We are where we are on this issue because lots of people have unthinkingly bought into the idea that any mention of God or religion in public spaces is bad, but believing that doesn't make them evil.

Michael and OTL,
The explanatory note doesn't challenge the legal correctness of the ruling, and entirely disappearing the banner is a bigger violation of the Lemon test than is modifying it.

You seem to be using "petty and backhanded" as synonymous with "disagrees with my personal viewpoint". That's not correct usage.

Posted by: Andrew at January 18, 2012 12:29 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.