Video: Rhode Island Public School Paints Over Student Mural of "Offensive" Traditional Family


Via NBC 10 Breaking News:

WARWICK, R.I. -- ...Elizabeth Bierenday, a junior at Pilgrim High School in Warwick, was asked to create a mural for the school.She sketched a mural that showed the growth of a boy into adulthood. The last image showed a man with a woman and child and wedding rings over their heads.

Bierenday showed the school's assistant principal the sketches, which were approved.

Bierenday said she started to paint the mural last week, when an assistant principal came to her with a problem.

Some people at the school felt the mural didn't accurately represent many students at Pilgrim and school officials decided to paint over the right side.

Warwick Superintendent Peter Horoschak said he just found out about the issue on Thursday and sided with Bierenday saying she should be allowed to paint her original design.

NBC 10 spoke with a few parents and they agreed with the superintendent.

On Friday, Bierenday spoke with John DePetro on WPRO-AM about the mural and said she was told that her original design may be offensive or a religious symbol.

A final decision about the mural is scheduled to be made after the weekend.

Here is the video report:


  1. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    "Don't worry, redefining marriage and indoctrinating children into the gay lifestyle won't have any negative consequences for society."
    Marriage Redefinition Advocates

  2. Phil
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    It's offensive because it's not representative of everybody's life experience at the school? By that logic(or lack thereof), the image of the boy playing guitar or actually graduating(unless this public school somehow has a hundred % graduation rate) should also be "offensive". This is pure politically correct insanity.

  3. ResistSSA
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    This is another example of how the radical homosexual movement destroys marriage. Theoretically, the mural would have been easily approved if it showed two guys with a kid, because two guys would not considered a religious union.

  4. Rich
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    I support SSM and think this controversy is's obvious she was not trying to make a political statement. There are all kinds of symbols over the young man's head as the mural progresses...the rings are just one of them.

  5. Ash
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    So now a depiction of a young man growing up, getting married, and having kids, is an offensive, religious message.

  6. Leo
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    This is sooooooooooo ridiculous! This is serious stuff people! Brainwashing agenda by the SSM crowd on display...NOM should get an interview with the girl..
    I would like to meet her just to say thinks for nature view on life...

  7. ResistSSA
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Robert -

    Yes, there are radical gay people involved here. Why would anyone fear that the depiction of a male-female marriage would be offensive if there were not a non-male-female alternative (i.e. so-called same-sex "marriage") that would be offended by it?

    We know that the homosexual radicals are responsible for the anti-bullying non-issue in public schools as a means for forcing people to tolerate homosexuals. They're also one of the primary groups attacking religion, particularly Christianity, because it deems their behavior immoral and their orientation as disordered.

    This is all about fear of offending homosexuals.

  8. Roberto
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

    Resist, we should avoid offending homosexuals. And heterosexuals. Something as prominent as a mural ought to be inclusive. Christianity deems a lot of behaviors immoral or prohibited, but Christians only seem to want to monitor gay peoples' behavior. Straight people who have pre-marital sex, commit adultery, or get divorced are never socially condemned.

  9. ResistSSA
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    No, Robert. Some behaviors are better than other behaviors. Heterosexual sex leads to the creation of children; this fact has enormous consequences for our society and is worthy of special treatment. Homosexual sex leads to nothing but disease.

    If that offends you, that's too bad. But to suggest that it is wrong for people to accept the fact that same-sex couples are different from male-female couples and that the latter are preferable for the stability and perpetuation of society is ridiculous.

    The Catholic Church condemns premarital sex, adultery and divorce; what the hell are you talking about?

  10. Louis E.
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    Roberto,I'm not a Christian.But the proper and necessary exclusion of same-sex sexual relationships from any depiction of idealized life is no more an attack on people afflicted by the irrational desire for such relationships than the lack of depiction of drunkenness is a personal attack on alcoholics.

  11. Allan Smith
    Posted April 12, 2012 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    I wholeheartedly agree with this mural being requested to be painted over. It's advertising one path as the right path. It's saying to a lot of impressionable people 'This is the path you should take' which I do not agree with. People should be free to chose their own path with information they learn.

    If this had been a mural depicting the advocated same sex marriage, I do not doubt that there would be an even bigger uproar... Saying that, I doubt it would even receive approval.

    You have no right to condemn the actions of others because they are not the actions of yours. For the very simple reason that would they do the same to you, there would be a far bigger furor.

    And on another point, marriage isn't the only relationship option. There could be children who's parents have split, and are no longer together, and seeing this displayed as the proper option for people to take would cause an amount of pain in them. By all means, freedom of expression, but why intended to cause hurt just because you have the option to do so?

  12. ResistSSA
    Posted April 13, 2012 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    Allan - Your thinking is everything that is wrong with this country. There are good paths and bad paths in life. The clowns who believe otherwise are usually the people I end up having to support because they end up choosing bad paths, stupid paths. Think single moms, people who choose to pursue "educations" in worthless fields (like women's studies), and all of the losers trying to make a go of it in the entertainment industry because they think they are so talented.

    Marriage with children is a proven thousands-year-old path to economic independence, an ideal environment for children, freedom from government, and the perpetuation of civilization. Schools should be required to teach this fact. No one should be forced to participate in marriage, but no one should be denied the knowledge that marriage is a time-proven path for improving one's lot in life, particularly childrens'.

  13. Posted April 13, 2012 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    Allan said, "By all means, freedom of expression, but why intended to cause hurt just because you have the option to do so?"

    There was no intention to cause hurt, but there are many who exercise their option to take offense.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.