I am not Christian (I am Muslim) so does not matter to me (even though I know you were trying to be a condescending jackass, just entertaining you with a response). What exactly did I say which was wrong? All I said was "it is only offensive to people who cringe when the hear the word God." Am I incorrect with that statement? Who else is it possibly offensive towards? SweetLou is an Atheist who was not offended by it (because he is accepting of others beliefs)
For the record, I really don't give a **** about this case. Sign up, fine Sign down, fine I am just wondering why it is so offensive to people. It has an overall very positive message. My theory is that the ones who are offended are intolerant. Instead I get called names and people don't even say where I went wrong (well BetterThanI who is r****ded as **** said why but what he said was completely inaccurate).
I am an atheist and I can tell you this is PC b.s. It's not a matter of the rights of Christians. Legally, yes, you can make the case why it should be taken down. But in reality, atheists have to learn to be less rigid as well. It just gives our lot a bad name for no reason. There are far more other important battles to fight.
The best analogy I can think of is those douchebags that drive around with their windows down and their sterio turned all the way up. The music itself can be annoying to various degrees, but that isn't what annoys me the most. The big problem is that.these douchebags are so boorishly insensitive that they either don't care or don't realize they are forcing their music on everybody around them. Or maybe they even think they are doing everyone a favor by spreading 'good music'. It's just plain poor manners, and the benefit gained relative to the assumption it makes of others shows incredible selfish narcissism. I'm happy for you that you've found some music that you.like enough that you want to share, but keep it to yourself in public. If you really need to share it, invite someone to your home or business or other non-public place and do it there with their consent.
The separation of church and state got mentioned by a few posts here. I think this line of reasoning is susceptible to criticism. Indeed, from that angle, it's hard to argue that a banner hung at corner of school gym by an 8 year old with an overtone of inspiration drawn from a spiritual belief in a higher nature is hardly the sort of danger contemplated by the framers when setting forth separation of church and state in the constitution. The point of this ruling does not so much underlies the principle of the separation of church and state. However, what is at stake in this case is little Jessica's constitutional right to her freedom of religion. The constitution guarantees her the right of personal liberty/autonomy of non-religious belief, free from government's intrusion. That right of hers is above any other's interests including those of majority. Whether you like or not, or however adverse social effects it might have, little Jessica is entitled to uphold this right of hers free from government's intrusion. The constitution, on the other hand, does not provide right for government sponsored religious or non-religious beliefs. To that end, the constitution is neutral. Now, is it reasonable for her to feel her liberty of being non-religious encroached upon by the banner in violation of her constitutional right? I think so because however slight and innocuous the religious implication might there be in the banner, such a banner chosen by the school and hung in the gym rightly represents coercion of religion to a non-religious person. I would feel the same way. Government, in this case the school, is the authority -e.g. Government tells us to pay tax, we pay tax; The school tells kids to do something, kids are obligated to do so at school's instruction. As little Jessica put it she feels the banner tells her if you don't believe, you don't belong here. In this case, the court agreed with Jessica. Again, there is no constitutional right for such a banner to be hung and on the flip side there is no constitutional right to hang a banner embodying an atheist's belief. Thus, this ruling strikes a good and sensible balance to maintain the status quo provided by the constitution.
I think religion has no business in school at all. I remember when I was in Choir for a semester in high school, and the choir director made us sing all these gospel songs. I felt very uncomfortable since I was raised Buddhist.
Being agnostic/atheist, I agree religion has no part of the education system. That being said, atheists are getting more and more intolerant to a point where they/we are more annoying than the hard core relgious. We just need to let stuff be. As long as it's not singling out anyone, making someone feel uncomfortable, or being forced to participate, just leave it alone. Kinda like 'in god we trust.' Just deal with it, fellow athiests. The constant b****ing by atheists only makes them seem childish. Take the higher road.
If it was a religious satanic prayer that was 8 feet tall don't you think a lot of people in Rhode Island, given a lot of it's Catholic citizens, would want it torn down? It would have just as much right to be in a public school setting as that prayer does. None.
This is a dangerous line of thinking. How many times have you seen posters use "in god we trust" as justification/precedent for the government endorsing religion? I'm certain the same argument happened back in the 1950's... "what's the big deal?"... now you see how this stuff can manifest itself in the future and create bigger problems down the road. This has nothing to do with tolerance of religion, christianity, etc. It has everything to do with respecting the laws and founding principles of the United States of America. I'm not offended by people promoting their religion or proselytizing through the use of their own means, I *am* offended at people breaking the law to do it. I would not be allowed to have my views on religion endorsed or promoted by the state, so why should anybody else?
My argument was, unless someone is being persecuted for NOT believing or that religion was being used as a justification for some purpose, leave it alone. The basis of this article is someone promoting their own personal views on others. Many religions attempts to promote and push their belilefs on others, something athiests should be above doing. The sign wasn't hurting anyone. Leave it alone and save your fight for something worth fighting for. This just makes the teen look like a petty attention w****.
Why? Would you guys tell Rosa Park quit complaining because its just bus and it would make a much bigger cause look bad? The constitution says govt should stay neutral on this type of prayer. Had the prayer been on a student shirt or backpack, it would not have been Jessica's businesses. But she is not complaining about that, she is complaining that school choose to hang it for every student to see. Lets be clear with the extent and scope of this whole thing.o
It is not your place to tell someone else whether or not they should feel harassed, isolated, intimidated, mistreated, or otherwise persecuted. In fact, that isn't really even the point. What "belief" is she pushing onto others? It's not about how *she* feels. They're not taking it down because it makes her feel uncomfortable (just as it would to me), they're taking it down because it violates the Constitution. The only people who look petty are the ones telling her to get over it and calling her an attention w**** (or worse). She has every right to be doing this, and it's extremely important that all of us, Abrahamic followers, Buddhists, Hindus, skeptic, gnostic atheists, and beyond, remain vigilant in enforcing the separation of Church and State to ensure that everyone maintains absolute control over their spiritual or theological purpose.
I don't think the girl is brave. She sued a school to remove something that had no effect on her. Should we ban FCA from schools because they are Christians? Nobody is forcing anybody to participate. Should we disallow prayer clubs at schools, which nobody is forced to participate? It was a banner donated to the school. I think it would be different if the school had actually paid for it. I don't consider myself to be any religion, but am not an atheist. You want something stupid, my fine state of GA, changing the license plates from the county name to "In God We Trust" last year. There was no need to change it, and it is really disappointing that the voters chose something that would cause controversy. http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/11/georgia-bill-will-put-in-god-we-trust-on-all-license-plates/
This thread has turned to make Jessica Ahlquist the villain here but I am wondering what those criticizing her think about the response that she has gotten? I personally find that she has been threatened and called evil not just by kids but by adults who are elected officials and requires police protection very disturbing. If we are going to talk about intolerance I think the backlash that she is getting shows a deeper intolerance than her by seeking to get the prayer removed.
