“A blanket ban on mention of God in government-controlled spaces does not automatically align with “the free passage of true religion” that Williams thought was a legitimate concern of civil government, nor allow opportunities for the “reverent esteem and honorable testimony” for religion that he favored.”
I understand that interesting writing requires the use of colorful rhetoric at times, but this is not an accurate characterization of First Amendment case law. In fact, it is the complete opposite of the actual legal standard. Far from a blanket ban on religion being in effect, if students or a private group had put up such a banner on their own in an equal opportunity manner, then the school would be prohibited from removing it due to its religious content. Schools are also prohibited from preventing students from praying, preventing bible study on school grounds, or preventing students from speaking freely about God. The only thing not allowed is some kind of official public endorsement of religion – which the banner clearly was. Of course, public officials are still free to express their personal views on the subject with students in an unofficial capacity.
Why government “needs” to be or “should” be a pusher of religion and it cannot simply be done privately, I will never understand. Another of the many differences between libertarians and conservatives.

Under current Supreme Court “law” the banner must go.
Can we please stop giving this scummy family of self promoting grifters the attention they are thriving on?
Let’s meditate on the fact that if we abolished the NEA/AFT schools in favor of a voucher system this problem, along with the exponentially expanding costs, go away. Permanently.
Think about it…

“Libertarians believe that their vision of government must be imposed in a blanket across the nation.”
That’s a riot. I could make a fairly appropriate comparison to “freedom is slavery” doublespeak, most often employed by progressives justifying use of force toward their own ends. The real libertarian position is to privatize schools so that this won’t be an issue in the first place. But assuming the situation at hand, I think your idea of who is coercing whom through government is a bit reversed. Conservatives are the ones pushing affirmative government action in this scenario – the erection of a religious banner by public employees in their official capacity to be specific. Libertarians are advocating against the use of government in this manner and prefer a neutral stance by the state that neither advances nor restricts religious expression by private parties. In other words, we want a world in which nothing is “imposed” on anyone except a prohibition on “imposing” on others. That is the liberty-oriented position.
I still don’t understand why government “has” to be involved in such a private matter as religion. Are you afraid that the ideas can’t succeed on their own merits?

The discussion should be about more than just the propriety of the Cranston School Committee’s maintenance of a banner reflecting religious ideas. A far more important question is the propriety of the courts’ interference in that discussion. The courts derive their legitimacy from the law. If there is nothing in the federal or state constitutions that pertains to the banner, then Lageux has overstepped his boundaries in forcing its removal. Exercising power without legal authority is the very definition of tyranny. It is shortsighted indeed to pursue libertarian objectives through despotic means.

David and Justin – I’ve explained many times that I feel the Constitution should be more explicitly protective of individual liberties from government intrusion than it is. The original idea was that enumerating a long list of liberties would lead to them being exclusive, but we now know that what was not explicitly included is quickly forgotten in the sands of time. So now what we have is a short list of liberties left and activist judges all over the f-ing place, doing some things we like and a lot we don’t like. This is in the category of one of the things I like. There are plenty I do not like, such as Federal drug laws based on a completely bogus construction of the Commerce Clause. If we look at the plain language of the Constitution, we clearly see that this type of thing is not prohibited – I just think it should be, objectively speaking.
Justin – In either scenario, we are still talking about a specific affirmative action taken by local government. Whether the action is evaluated ex post or ex ante is irrelevant to the merits of the action. I am surprised that somebody as intelligent as you is struggling with this basic concept that any judge – liberal or conservative – would agree with. Saying that taking the banner down is government imposition is like saying that shutting down HUD would be taking an affirmative government action and thus anti-libertarian.

A MOUSE one day found his way to the Fountain of knowledge. Whoever drinks from it may have his heart’s desire and one extra wish.
The mouse drank, and he wished that he could understand the speech of men, if men had speech. When he had spent some time listening to what men said he used his extra wish to banish his new power.
The other mice said to him: ‘What was so horrible about the speech of men? At first he could not bring himself even to think of it again, but they pressed him so much that he said: ‘I do not think that you will believe me, but what I say is true. Men actually imagine that God is like them, with human, not mouselike, attributes!’
The mouse audience was shocked to the core. When some intellectuals among them had recovered their indignation, they asked: ‘But are there none who think otherwise?’ ‘There are some, but their theories are as abominable as the rest. ‘Tell us, just the same,’ clamored the thinkers, so that we may have the fullest information on this amazing matter.’ ‘Well, then; for instance there are those who imagine that religious terms are in reality derived from states of mind. ‘Enough!’ cried some of the assembled mice, ‘such insanity could cause an epidemic of madness. Even the Mouse-god might not be able to protect us from it.’ ‘Enough!’ exclaimed others, ‘for this might give mouseolators a chance to revive that nonsense called religion, pretending that it has a functional origin.
I told you all at the beginning that it was horrible, said the mouse who had found his way to the Fountain of Knowledge.
The Magic Monastery, Idres Shah, pp 88-89.