NEWS RELEASE
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Judge Rules Cranston School Prayer Mural Unconstitutional
The Rhode Island ACLU today applauded a decision issued by U.S. District Judge Ronald Lagueux in the ACLU’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a prayer mural addressed to “Our Heavenly Father” that is displayed in the auditorium of a Cranston public high school. In a 40-page opinion, the court found the display to violate the First Amendment and ordered its immediate removal. The lawsuit, filed last April by RI ACLU volunteer attorneys Lynette Labinger and Thomas Bender, was on behalf of Jessica Ahlquist, now a junior at Cranston High School West, who in the past year has spoken out vigorously against her school’s prayer display.
In his decision, the judge stated: “No amount of debate can make the School Prayer anything other than a prayer.” While acknowledging that “the Prayer espouses values of honesty, kindness, friendship and sportsmanship…. the reliance on God’s intervention as the way to achieve those goals is not consistent with a secular purpose.”
In July of 2010, after learning of the prayer display, the ACLU wrote to school officials asking that it be removed. In the hope of avoiding the need for litigation, the Affiliate waited eight months for the school committee to determine what to do. By a 4-3 vote last March, however, after a public hearing that the judge said “at times resembled a religious revival,” the school committee decided to keep the prayer. In fact, a day after the school committee vote, Jessica was allowed to leave class early in response to concerns for her safety arising out of her opposition to the prayer. Reviewing the hostility that Jessica has faced in the community for challenging the display, Judge Lagueux called her “a courageous young woman who took a brave stand.”
The prayer mural is approximately eight feet high and four feet wide and has been on display in the auditorium since 1963. Noting that Jessica is an atheist who indicated that the prayer mural made her feel “ostracized and out of place,” the court ruled that she had standing to challenge the display, despite attempts by the school district to argue she was not really harmed by it in any way.
Although some school officials sought to minimize the display’s clear religious message, instead calling it “historic” and “artistic,” the judge made clear that the school committee’s decision to maintain the prayer “endorsed the position of those who believe that it is acceptable to use Christian prayer to instill values in public schoolchildren.”
The U.S. Supreme Court first ruled government-sponsored prayer in the public schools unconstitutional in 1962. Thirty years later, in a case handled by the RI ACLU, the Supreme Court also ruled unconstitutional the recitation of prayers at public school graduation ceremonies.
Jessica Ahlquist said today: “When Steven Brown called me last night to give me the good news, I cried with happiness and relief. I’m so glad and proud that the right decision was made and the constitution was upheld. I am thankful for all that the ACLU and attorneys Lynette Labinger, Thomas Bender and my supportive friends and family have done to help with this case. I am hopeful that this case can be looked back on in the future and encourage others to stand up for their rights as well. It has been a very long and difficult year and a half for me, but it was absolutely worth it.”
ACLU volunteer attorney Lynette Labinger remarked: “Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island colony, opposed government-sanctioned or mandated expressions of religious piety as denigrating true religious beliefs. Ironically, in order to present their argument in favor of the continued display of the School Prayer, the City of Cranston argued to the Court that there was no religious significance to the School Prayer, attempting to reject and trivialize the religious message in order to preserve it. The district court carefully reviewed the record to conclude, as we had argued, that the School Prayer was installed to convey a religious message and the decision to maintain it in 2011 was infused with a religious purpose. The controversy which developed in this case demonstrated the rancor and divisiveness that often accompanies challenges to the majority view of religion. In the United States, because of our heritage, our core beliefs and the First Amendment, that argument is thankfully fought with words and lawsuits. There are many places throughout the world where that is not the case. The court's vindication of Jessica's rights is a vital reminder of the importance of this principle.”
RI ACLU executive director Steven Brown added: “The ruling issued in this case is a victory for religious freedom. The First Amendment was designed not only to protect religious minorities and those of no religion from the heavy hand of government, but to protect the religious majority from it as well. When school officials publicly proclaim that a mural labeled ‘School Prayer’ has no religious significance, the value to all of keeping the government out of religion can be seen very clearly. We applaud the court’s decision and thank Jessica Ahlquist for her courage in pursuing this case in the face of nasty name-calling and hostility from some members of the community.”
When the lawsuit was first filed last year, the Rev. Don Anderson, a Baptist minister and alumnus of Cranston High School West, said at the time: “Any prayer adopted by a government agency crosses the line to state sponsored religion. Baptists, Quakers and other religious dissidents came to the colony of Rhode Island because here there was no state sponsored religion. This is not the time to be defending a prayer on the walls of the Cranston West auditorium. This is the time to work together to enhance Rhode Island’s rich tradition of religious diversity and a climate where all religious traditions are welcome.”
EXCERPTS FROM THE COURT’S RULING
IN AHLQUIST V. CITY OF CRANSTON
On Jessica’s standing to bring the lawsuit: “Like the student in Lee v. Weisman [the RI ACLU’s successful lawsuit against public school graduation prayers], she is a captive audience. Beyond that, Plaintiff has stated that the presence of a Christian prayer on the wall of her school has made her feel ostracized and out of place. She has also stated that she doesn’t find the text of the Prayer to be offensive. The Court fails to find these statements inconsistent. It is possible to object to the presence of the Prayer Mural without having to find its goals of academic achievement and good sportsmanship offensive. While her injuries might be characterized as abstract, those injuries are consistent with the injuries
complained of by other plaintiffs in Establishment Clause litigation.”
On the merits of the case: “No amount of debate can make the School Prayer anything other than a prayer, and a Christian one at that. Its opening, calling upon the ‘Heavenly Father,’ is an exclusively Christian formulation of a monotheistic deity, leaving out, inter alia, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists alike. The Prayer concludes with the indisputably religious closing: ‘Amen;’ a Hebrew word used by Jews, Christians and Muslims to conclude prayers. In between, the Prayer espouses values of honesty, kindness, friendship and sportsmanship. While these goals are commendable, the reliance on God’s intervention as the way to achieve those goals is not consistent with a secular purpose.”
“While all agree that some traditions should be honored, others must be put to rest as our national values and notions of tolerance and diversity evolve. At any rate, no amount of history and tradition can cure a constitutional infraction. The Court concludes that Cranston’s purposes in installing and, more recently, voting to retain the Prayer Mural are not clearly secular.”
“The Prayer Mural espouses important moral values, yet it does so in the context of religious supplication. The retention of the Prayer Mural is no doubt a nod to Cranston West’s tradition and history, yet that nod reflects the nostalgia felt by some members of the community who remember fondly when the community was sufficiently homogeneous that the religion of its majority could be practiced in public schools with impunity.”
“When the Prayer Mural was hung in 1963, a reasonable observer would no doubt have concluded that Cranston West endorsed its message, and approved its installation in a place of prominence in the new auditorium. While the Prayer was authored by a student, and the Mural was paid for by a group of graduates, the School would never have permitted the exhibition of a message of which it did not approve. During the forty-five-plus years that the Prayer Mural has hung in the auditorium, an observer would probably have been puzzled by the Prayer Mural. Clearly it is ‘old-looking’ as Committee member Lombardi observed, and yet it is still maintained and located in a place of honor to the right of the stage, next to the clock. However, if that puzzled observer had sat in on the March 7, 2011, School Committee meeting, his or her confusion would have ended. At that meeting, the School Committee endorsed the position of those who believe that it is acceptable to use Christian prayer to instill values in public schoolchildren; a decision that clearly placed the ‘nonadherents’ outside of the political community.”
“It remains for this Court to attempt to soothe those who may believe that this decision represents a harsh result over a minor Constitutional infraction. The Supreme Court offers two pertinent lessons. First, the Supreme Court urges us to remember that ‘insistence upon neutrality, vital as it surely is for untrammeled religious liberty, may appear to border upon religious hostility. But in the long view the independence of both church and state in their respective spheres will be better served by close adherence to the neutrality principle.’ Second [the Supreme Court has addressed] where, as here, the complaints of a few overcame the beliefs and desires of the majority: ‘Nor did it matter that few children had complained of the practice, for the measure of the seriousness of a breach of the Establishment Clause has never been thought to be the number of people who complain of it.’ Plaintiff is clearly an articulate and courageous young woman, who took a brave stand, particularly in light of the hostile response she has received from her community.”
Providence, RI 02903