Thursday, January 26, 2012

A schoolgirl as a human shield...

Atheists employ a panopoly of strategies to suppress dissent-- gulags and firing squads where they actually run things, and professional destruction, fake invocations of "consensus", insistence that critics 'just follow instructions', and lawsuits to shut people up when they lack the levers of absolute power.

 In the Cranston High School lawsuit, atheists use a schoolgirl as a human shield.

To wit, from commentor 23cal:

You mock Mr. Eberhard for realizing that the situation has nuances.
I didn't mean to mock him. I meant to say that he is a totalitarian thug.
As he noted "The students sued, the school won." He said, "When I was told about the possibility of students all wearing these shirts on the same day I initially said there was nothing wrong with it......I still don’t care if the students wear the shirts individually, but I’ve changed my mind about how the administration should react to a mass event like that. They should stop it."
Totalitarian thug.
In spite of his initial "free speech" reaction, Mr. Eberhard apparently realized there is both a legal and a safety factor involved.....as the court decision pointed out.
Why put free speech in scare quotes?

Atheists' initial reaction to free speech is to endorse it generally.

Atheists' final reaction to free speech is to deny it specifically. "We believe in free speech, but..."

Regulating speech is indispensable to atheists' agenda. Musn't have too much dissent. Everywhere that atheism has ascended to state power, freedom of speech is the first right under the atheist boot. The prayer mural case and the emerging move to censor the students' t-shirts is a microcosm of a century of atheist politics.

"Free speech", except...
He obviously isn't as cavalier about the safety of kids as yourself.
I wouldn't use a teen-aged girl as blow-back-bait in a lawsuit.
Of course, for you, displaying some atheist hate and harassment is leagues more important than a little student safety, especially if the student whose safety is in question doesn't subscribe to your preferred religion.
Atheist concern for Jessica's safety begins oddly after the court ruling.

The godless were delighted to use the little tool to litigate the hell out of the citizens of Cranston, cynically shoving the 16 year old into the midst of a highly charged federal lawsuit, luring the teen with flattery and fame and press conferences and awards and a scholarship fund.

When the innocent citizens on the receiving end of the lawsuit got pissed, atheists howled "student safety!". Can't you see she's an innocent child? How dare you question our motives and tactics? Don't you dare say anything that will upset her. Are you threatening her? Brutes!

In one appeal case, the decision included, “the district judge will be required to strike a careful balance between the limited constitutional right of a high-school student to campaign inside the school..... and the school’s interest in maintaining an atmosphere in which students are not distracted from their studies by wrenching debates over issues of personal identity.”
The only person distracted by the prayer was Jessica. So perhaps she can find it within herself to ignore the t-shirts, unable as she was to ignore the mural.

The Constitutional rights of the students and citizens in Cranston apparently depend on just what Jessica is capable of ignoring. Such a responsibility for her to bear...
"...the courts are struggling to define just where the expression of hostile views becomes harassment. And so far, even when they have allowed ... speech, the courts have shown some sympathy to the needs of.... students to be protected against harassment."
"Free speech", except... . Now you're beginning to see why atheists use the scare quotes. Free speech is ok, unless atheists start to feel harassed.
In your "burn them at the stake" attitude, there is no recognition of "the needs of atheist students to be protected against harassment." As a matter of fact, you clearly do not want them protected at all.
Protected from prayers on t-shirts?
Your uncaring and short-sighted statement, "When I was a kid, bullying meant that someone beat you up" illustrates this very well.
I never grasped the "prayer" kind of bullying. And I was an atheist when I was a kid. I thought prayers were boring, but I never got chased home from school by one.
Under your definition, stealing your lunch money through intimidation or being pushed around in a circle of kids isn't bullying, because you weren't actually beaten up. The concept is absurd.
Stealing and pushing are theft and assault. Both are crimes.

Is wearing a prayer on a t-shirt a crime?
The courts have used whether "wearing the shirts would cause “substantial disruption” in ruling about mass wearing of T-shirts.
Jessica again gets to decide on the rights of others. If she is 'substantially disrupted' by the sight of t-shirt prayers, the feds move in. If she manages the stress with equanimity, students get to keep their First Amendment rights. Let's hope she's in a good mood.
You are welcome to your opinion on this, but you refuse to recognize that others, such as Mr. Eberhard, are also welcome to their opinion.
I welcome Mr. Eberhard's opinion, unless he writes it on a mural or on a t-shirt, or makes me feel bad, in which case I'll sue.
To label his position of "for safety, for legal precedent, against disruption" as being against free speech, is a gross misrepresentation, especially when he says in the quote of his that you provided that he considered both and felt one outweighed the other.
"Free speech", except...
I happen to agree that it is acceptable for the students to wear T-shirts bearing the prayer en masse;
That's big of you. We Christians will consult you again next time we want to speak.
however, I also recognize the POTENTIAL for disruption and harassment to which you turn a blind eye.
"Free speech", except.. except... except...
When you consider the existing bullying, harassment, ostracism, threats of assault, rape, and death from a number of these very same students who no doubt will be in the vanguard of those wearing these T-shirts, anyone but a fool can see the very real POTENTIAL for disruption, harassment, and violence.
Bullying and threats of assault, rape and death are crimes, proscribed in statutory law.

Jessica dragged a prayer into court, so the punctilious little gumshoe will certainly bring her putative assailants and rapists and murderers to justice. Please let me know when she files charges with the police and starts formal legal proceedings.

In the unlikely event that the teen prayer prosecutor shows less interest in prosecuting threats to her person and life than she did to prosecuting prayer, it might lead a cynic to wonder if the "bullying and threats of assault, rape..." is a rhetorical ploy, not a credible allegation that would withstand legal scrutiny. 'How dare you Christians assert your First Amendment rights! Just look at what those monsters are doing to Jessica!' 'At long last have you Christians no sense of decency!'
Although I agree it is acceptable to have a mass wearing of the shirts, it is incumbent upon the administration to closely monitor the situation and to send home students if safety and disruption become issues.
The school could install video camera surveillance for prayer crimes.
I do not agree with Mr. Eberhard's revised opinion, but am fair enough to see it has an important and valid base.
Quite base. Hiding behind a teenaged girl in order to secure a legal imprimatur on your anti-Christian bigotry is about as base as it gets.
Too bad your ravening lust to go after atheists blinds you to the danger to an innocent 16 year old girl.
 "Lust" isn't the world I'd use for going after atheists. It's a grim job really.
Your callous disregard for the safety of kids in order to push your preferred ideology puts you in a poor light, Sir.

I've never used a kid as a human shield. I don't hide behind schoolgirls. Throwing this kid into a concocted public maelstrom in order to secure a judicial imprimatur on anti-Christian hate is a tactic ladled from the moral cesspool that is atheism.

What kind of people hate and censor their friends and neighbors, and send out kids to take the flack?

55 comments:

  1. Welcome to episode 73 of Hateful Christian Turd Polishing, where hate, threats, and vitriol are celebrated as free speech, and prayers are used to communicate scorn and loathing.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awww look, KW is concerned for our souls!
      God bless him.

      Delete
  2. Best post on the subject yet, Doctor.
    I will admit the legal obscurities of another country can be tedious, but this is the aspect of this 'banner farce' that actually grabs me.
    This Jessica kid, is just a kid.
    The banner is just a banner.
    There must be children and teens all over the USA that are irritated by various banners and plaques they feel do not represent them. Some of those perceived misrepresentations must be based religious and/or ideological objections.
    Why don't ALL these kids sue?
    Maybe girls or boys are more important to them than lawsuits? Maybe a sport or line of study holds their attention? Maybe they have real issues at home?
    There will be many diverse answers as to 'why not sue your school in federal court', but one will show up time and again:
    'Because I am a kid, and I still have a lot to learn'.
    So does Jessica.
    Apparently a HELL of a lot.
    USING her like she has is an extremely cynical move on the part of legal team. They KNEW there would be blowback (I have been predicting it in these posts for weeks - and I am no lawyer) and they WANTED that kid to be the target.
    Why? To GENERATE further controversy and draw attention to their 'cause'.
    To Evangelize their Positivism? Maybe a happy side effect. But the real reason was to enlarge their personal wealth and reputation. That is obvious.
    They knew they could land a judgement in their favour, they knew there would be blowback (TV, publications!), they knew there would be appeals and activism (more $$$), they knew when this went national there would be kooks and crazy people - REAL danger - and STILL they chose to put this child in the centre of it ALL.
    A grieving child, no less.
    The psychic LEECHES dropped attached themselves to a child who had just lost her mother. They took that grief and PUSHED it into stage 2 (anger/rage) and USED it for their political/media game.
    Full speed ahead for the good ship Jessica, torpedoes be damned. After all the lawyers can BAIL. They can quit. They can even change sides.
    Jessica is still just Jessica, and when the 'fame' has worn off but the infamy has not, she will realize that...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CNTD
      THAT aspect is what grabs me. The constitutional stuff I trust my American neighbour (ie the vast majority) to work out. The HUMAN element is the one hits home for me. There is no escaping it.
      As for the threats and bullying, that much of it that is real should be investigated and halted. If there has been any attempts by Jessica and their team to defame anyone in that way, then that also should be investigated and stopped.
      If bullying was the issue, that is what we would be talking about and that is what Jessica's lawyers would have made suit about. It was not.
      She sought some sort of revenge against the popular kids by .... going after the School Banner.
      Instead they went after an innocuous school motto banner from the 60's and it's almost PC prayer line.
      In order to 'get back' at people who had 'been really mean' to her - she filed suit to have the School's Motto removed due a religious reference, by a FEDERAL judge. That'll piss off those preppies and jocks! (and everyone else that is not a lonely nerdy outcast!)
      This is/was a little girl's precocious squabble with there friends turned foes over identity.
      Secularism? Establishment clauses?
      Right. Sure. Okay.
      These kids don't really give a shit about ANY of that. For them EVERYTHING is personal.
      Again: They are KIDS.
      How about what is REALLY going on here?
      Lets get that fat ugly naked truth out in the light of day and hose it down, shall we?
      This WHOLE farce is about childish bullshit transformed by a cynical legal team into a crass attempt at censoring and disenfranchising a community with FEDERAL law and facilitating Justice who takes little girl's grudges (and little girls in general) far too seriously.
      That is what I, and MILLIONS like me, see this FARCE as.
      Spoiled brats fighting it out, but not with Daddy's money - with Uncle Sam's...and not about the car or a boy, but about the collective culture and history of a State.
      DISCIPLINE would have stopped this WHOLE circus.
      Discipline of Jessica by her father.
      Discipline of the loud mouthed popular girls who marginalized her and helped push her into the arms of the people who are currently using her.

      Delete
    2. There must be children and teens all over the USA that are irritated by various banners and plaques they feel do not represent them. Some of those perceived misrepresentations must be based religious and/or ideological objections.
      Why don't ALL these kids sue?


      Many of them do. Which is why there are many precedents in this area, and why anyone who had any understanding of the law at all knew that the Cranston school board would lose this case.

      Delete
    3. Sorry typos and spell check 'things'.
      I am on a new tablet, and I made the mistake of attempting to use an editor :P
      The reader will get the gist, I am sure.

      Delete
    4. Secularism? Establishment clauses?
      Right. Sure. Okay.
      These kids don't really give a shit about ANY of that. For them EVERYTHING is personal.


      I'm glad to see you can read the mind of a girl you've never met and determine what her motivations are.

      Delete
    5. "Many of them do. Which is why there are many precedents in this area,"
      Really? Maybe you should start letting adults run the courts, then? Children filing suit? What a joke!
      Don't they have parents?!

      "....why anyone who had any understanding of the law at all knew that the Cranston school board would lose this case."
      Surely. The lawyers knew exactly what to expect for Jessica and her case. My point exactly. She was a tool for cynical adults who can now bail ship for another 'fight' and leave Jessica to the mess they have created.

      Delete
    6. Really? Maybe you should start letting adults run the courts, then? Children filing suit? What a joke!
      Don't they have parents?!


      Do you really think these suits are filed without the consent of the parents? In many cases they are filed by parents acting for their children.

      "Surely. The lawyers knew exactly what to expect for Jessica and her case. My point exactly."

      So your take is that people should just let laws be broken because standing up for their rights might be unpopular. You're a very cowardly man. You pose as a tough soldier, but you're really a simpering coward at heart.

      Delete
    7. "So your take is that people should just let laws be broken because standing up for their rights might be unpopular. "
      Let laws be broken? What the FUCK does that mean?
      Breaking the law is a metaphorical term. Nothing is actually shattered or fractured. It is an ideal that has been violated and hence 'caused an offence' to be made.
      The ONLY offence in this case is a lonely little girl miffed at her social status. The 'offence' was an invented one, and the 'law' has been invoked to create a false equilibrium where one was clearly NOT needed.



      "You're a very cowardly man. You pose as a tough soldier, but you're really a simpering coward at heart."
      Fuck you too, kid. I don't like you either.
      Truth is, I don't know anything about you but your posts - and what I do see sure sucks. I feel bad for your Dad, right now. But maybe all that piss and vinegar will transform into intelligence and leadership one day. Dad may be able to see that potential. I hope he does.
      As for me: Your attempts to get under my skin, or upset me by attacking my ego and pride are futile.
      I have had MUCH braver and more determined men than you bring on a REAL hate en mass.
      I am the one still here.
      Your little tantrums? Sticks and stones, kid.

      Delete
    8. "The ONLY offence in this case is a lonely little girl miffed at her social status. The 'offence' was an invented one, and the 'law' has been invoked to create a false equilibrium where one was clearly NOT needed."

      The Establishment clause was violated. But I guess that doesn't matter, because teenage girls are only concerned with makeup and cute boys. They couldn't possibly be thoughtful or care about anything but who has the coolest shoes.

      Let's paraphrase Kennedy: "She saw a wrong and tried to right it". And she did right it. But you don't think she could have done that. She's just an empty headed little girl in your misogynistic world. And little girls can't have ideas of their own that don't revolve around the approved topics you've decided girls must think about.

      Fuck you too, kid. I don't like you either.

      This doesn't change the fact that your posts reek of cowardice. You pose tough, but the content of your posts reveal you to be full of braggadocio and nothing more. Inside you are a trembling, faint-hearted coward whose mantra is "keep your head down, don't cause trouble, and they'll leave you alone".

      Delete
    9. "The Establishment clause was violated. But I guess that doesn't matter, because teenage girls are only concerned with makeup and cute boys. They couldn't possibly be thoughtful or care about anything but who has the coolest shoes."
      A total and DELIBERATE misrepresentation of my position.

      "Let's paraphrase Kennedy"
      Let's not. Kennedy and his legend bore the piss out of me.

      "But you don't think she could have done that."
      I don't think she did it on her own. Do you?
      I think she was used.

      "She's just an empty headed little girl..."
      Your words, not mine. I suggested she was a teenager/child who is being used by cynical adults.

      "...in your misogynistic world. "
      Sure. The world I live in is dripping with all types sexism, racism, and xenophobia.
      Like the type that builds 'clinics' to clitoridectomize six year old girls, in order to save them from 'lust'. Like the type that makes it okay to put a teenage kid in the centre of a culture battle were she will surely be targetted for open scorn by wack jobs, and marked for 'fair game' for all sorts of cynical con artists.
      My world is full of nasty shit like misogyny.
      I take yours is not?
      Either that, or you are just insulting me again.
      This time I am a male-chauvinist pig... and I haven't even had a drink!
      LOL
      Oh well.
      Consider the source, as they say.

      "This doesn't change the fact that your posts reek of cowardice. "
      Hmmm. This is a strange situation. Your screen should not 'reek' of anything - and that is where you read my comments on Mike's posts.
      So what could this 'reek' be? And why 'cowardice'? Well the latter is obviously some sort of mental connection. The smell makes you remember cowardly moments, and you are thus repulsed. But the former may be one of many identifiable things, and it could solve your problem.
      I would suggest it is probably organic in nature. Probably something you secrete in small amounts, say from your pores or a duct of some sort. It is probably in a state of decay, hence the 'reek'.
      What it actually is etc is of no concern to us here. What is, is a solution: Wash your screen...and maybe your hands too. That should solve your problem with 'reeks' on the Egnorance pages - at least within the realm of physical reality.
      The 'other stuff' (cowardice etc) will have to be something you deal with, personally. If you find yourself seeing a sin/flaw like cowardice frequently it is often congruous with a personal episode of your own.
      Psychology calls this 'projection', but it is a much older and deeper concept than that.
      If I am frightened, I see more fear etc.
      Is the fear coming from me or to me?
      Good question!
      But there is a relation.
      So, if you are attaching the concept of fear and cowardice to odours... you should address what is making you afraid.
      Then the stink will just be a stink, and far more bearable.

      "Inside you are a trembling, faint-hearted... "
      I have not trembled since at least last night... but it was good while it was going down!
      Faint hearted? I just had a good physical (not my best - lost too much), but my cardio was fine. Just banging away in there. My heart has good company, you see.

      [a]"coward whose mantra is "keep your head down, don't cause trouble, and they'll leave you alone".
      Yeah, right. That's our motto. Here we go with the 'coward' bit again.

      I think I will go and see to the dogs.

      Delete
    10. I don't think she did it on her own. Do you?

      Other than your min-reading of a girl you've never met, there's no evidence she didn't. And from her statements, plenty of evidence that she did. The only argument you've made that she didn't is that she has to be a brainless girl who can't make up her own mind.

      That's all that you've said in your posts. That and apologia for cowardliness.

      Delete
    11. "Other than your min-reading of a girl you've never met, there's no evidence she didn't."

      Here we see Anon clearly state there is 'no evidence' that Jessica had adult input or assistance (or by deduction consent) when she filed a Federal Lawsuit to sue her school.

      "And from her statements, plenty of evidence that she did. "
      The fact she was able to file the papers clearly shows she was directed and helped in the effort by a LEGAL team.

      "The only argument you've made that she didn't is that she has to be a brainless girl who can't make up her own mind."
      You are either utterly illiterate or a consummate liar.
      I did not say she was brainless, nor that she could not make decisions. Those snide remarks are your own words.
      I stated that she was/is a CHILD.
      You have made NO counter argument that makes ANY sense.
      All you have done is made lame attempts at insulting me on a personal level.

      "That's all that you've said in your posts."
      That is all you were able to read into them.
      Take off your ideologgles.


      "That and apologia for cowardliness."

      @All,
      Any suggestions folks? I have tried cleaning it, rubbing it in wax, even playing backwards - but this damn record just keeps skipping away!

      Delete
    12. Want advice Rex? Stop embarrassing yourself further and put down your new tablet...

      Delete
  3. JT = exuberance w/o intellectual competence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting take, OBrien.
      You feel there was a lack of sobriety and wisdom in the decision, or that he simply falls short of the duty?

      Delete
  4. "I'm glad to see you can read the mind of a girl you've never met and determine what her motivations are."
    I deal with young minds on a daily basis professionally. I not only work in the COTC, but I am also used as a consultant for two local school districts on matters of security and discipline.
    I used to lecture in history at the local college, too.
    On top of that, I have raised one son to adult hood, have a newborn son in the home, several nieces and nephews that stay with WHOLE summers with me and my family, and I also train young people (teens - and their dogs) in survival courses.
    Add to all that I am not so old as to remember being that kid myself.
    I know how young minds work.
    I also know how certain legal minds work.
    I am an officer in the branch and see many of the TONNES of lawsuits that come before the Forces. I see the opportunism and the crass, careless nature they pursue their agenda's with little of NO regard for their clients or the outcome - only a 'victory' or 'deal'.
    I can discern between the concoction of angry, precocious child and that of a savvy legal shark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, so you know how all children think, and there couldn't possibly be one bright, well-spoken young woman in Rhode Island who thinks about anything but boys and Justin Bieber CDs.

      Good to know that all teenage girls are empty headed morons. Or maybe you are just an empty headed moron yourself, and you're just projecting.

      I think the second is more likely.

      Delete
    2. Hey!
      That last comment is a pretty good teenage girl imitation!
      A DAMN good one, actually.

      "Good to know that all teenage girls are empty headed morons."
      Empty headed morons? Why the histrionics?
      I am suggesting they are impulsive, sensuous, and quite selfish. They can be VERY sharp, very manipulative, and very scholarly - given the right incentives.

      "Or maybe you are just an empty headed moron yourself, and you're just projecting."
      now this just doesn't make sense. If I am 'empty headed' how can I project anything? If I am a moron, how can I be empty headed?

      "I think the second is more likely."
      Or maybe nobody said anything about morons until you did?
      Yeah..that's it.

      Delete
    3. I am suggesting they are impulsive, sensuous, and quite selfish. They can be VERY sharp, very manipulative, and very scholarly - given the right incentives.

      Yes, all children are exactly the same. None could possibly be concerned about anything other than the things you think they should be concerned about.

      Good to know you know everything there is to know about all teen-agers everywhere.

      Delete
    4. Anon,
      I assume you are being sarcastic when you say "Yes, all children are exactly the same."
      Funny. I get it.
      The thing is, your wit belies a basic misunderstanding. All children are not 'exactly the same', but they are the same in the sense that THEY ARE ALL CHILDREN.
      They all deserve the same protections, whether they are a smart kid or an utter dolt. Whether they are good or bad.
      They deserve that chance to be a kid.
      As a kid, I can imagine that is hard to see. It was a hard lesson for me as a young and often outspoken brat. No doubt Jessica herself would argue with me on the issues till she was blue in the face.
      She cannot help being what she is. Hers is not the true fault here. I have been saying that all along..since Mike began posting on the subject.
      Look, I wanted all the privileges and a fast track to adulthood, just like almost EVERY other teenager in our very well off civilization. I was lucky enough to have a family that helped me channel my own energies into something I can be happy with. I thank them for it now.
      But as a lad, I could not usually see the discipline for what it really was: GOOD.
      As a parent it is now crystal clear to me.
      It is this simple: The principle right of a child should be TO BE A CHILD.

      I, nor anyone else, needs to "know everything there is to know about all teen-agers everywhere" in order to understand they ARE teenagers, and that teenagers are NOT adults.
      If this same girl had engaged in a sexual relationship with one of the lawyers would that be okay? No, of course not.
      Why not?
      Because we know ENOUGH about her (being a teen) to know it is an unfair relationship. The older man would have too much power over such a young woman. To much influence over her every decision.
      So we forbid such relations as taboo, and with laws (state to state, province to province) on 'age of consent'.
      Teens are PROTECTED by these laws.
      You do understand that much don't you?

      Delete
    5. Interesting - you could have said something about Jessica not being able to drink, or not being able to sign a contract. But you chose a different example...

      Would you have picked that example if it were Jeremy Ahlquist rather than Jessica?

      Crus, for someone who so often reduces groups of people (atheists, teenagers, Muslims) to caricatures, you're VERY good at portraying yourself as a stereotype.

      Delete
    6. I am not even aware of what stereotype is being projected onto me, minute by minute by you and your autistic clique.
      As for caricatures, perhaps you would have the SPINE to step in say something about the STRINGS of personal attacks? No. Didn't think so.
      Like the pack animal you aspire to be, you just smell blood and join in.
      Hows that for a caricature?

      Delete
  5. "Stealing and pushing are theft and assault. Both are crimes."

    Pushing isn't assault. Pushing is battery.

    Threats are assault. Intimidation is assault. Assault is a crime. Is prosecuting people for assault or preventing an attempted assault censorship?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is assault on our books. So is spitting in someone's face.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous, don’t you see…she had to have been manipulated because it’s the only way they can rationalize death threats and bullying of an intelligent principled “child”. The threats aren’t against her you see, she’s just a victim forced to take the arrows meant for the vast atheist conspiracy that MUST be there somewhere.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. She's just being manipulated by the shadowy internationalists that crusadeREX thinks are out to steal his vital essences.

      Delete
    2. Funny stuff,
      General Ripper is being mocked by President Merkin Muffley and Ms. Scott.
      Actually, if your looking for a good jab at yours truly my own men sometime (semi) jokingly call me 'Capt (act Colonel) Kurtz' (Heart of Darkness, Apocalypse now).

      And BTW Gen Jack D Ripper is just about my favourite character in that film, so thanks :)
      Sterling Hayden (great in 'the killing' too) and Keenan Wynn (Col Bat Guano) should have won Oscars.
      Shit...the whole cast should have.
      Awesome flick. Just watched it and 'The Party' a while back.
      IMPORTANT NOTE: Your commie is not looking to steal your vital essence, only women do that.
      Your commie seeks to CONTAMINATE the purity of the essence - with fluoridation.
      Ever see a communist drinking water, Mandrake?

      Looking forward to Iron Sky this year. I hear it is a comparable style. Hope so.

      Delete
  7. Ahlquist said at school she has needed police protection the entire school day and is constantly being bullied by other students. “Even just in homeroom people screaming under God at me during the pledge of allegiance. It’s just a really hostile atmosphere. I’ve had police escorts to all of my classes all day. It is very difficult to concentrate on school in an atmosphere like that.”

    This isn’t the first time that Christians have screamed under God during the pledge to intimidate and harass non-believers. Keep it up and the courts will have to conclude under God in the pledge is not benign and represents excessive entanglement. I think we all know who would make the perfect plaintive.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She should leave that school. She should have in the first place.
      You only get one childhood, and spending fighting dad's ideological battle with his creator... is just a waste. She should be a kid while she is a kid.
      As for the 'billies', she literally asked for this attention with her suit.
      The police should offer a certain amount, then direct to the school board to relocate her. Just as they would do with any problem student.
      Shame.

      Delete
    2. "As for the 'billies', she literally asked for this attention with her suit."

      "Literally" huh? So if anyone in the minority gets uppity and asks that the law be enforced, and then a mob responds with threats, that's okay?

      "The police should offer a certain amount, then direct to the school board to relocate her. Just as they would do with any problem student."

      Yeah. Those problem students. Asking that the law be followed.

      Delete
    3. The First Amendment. The whining of people like Egnor doesn't change the fact that the law as applied clearly covers the prayer banner.

      Delete
    4. The first amendment?
      Okay... here it is, play by play.
      Humour me.

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
      Is the prayer banner a congressional declaration of a state Chruch, Temple, or Mosque? I just don't see how this section applies. But, if we expand the definition of 'religion' to include those beliefs held by Atheists then we DO see that with the lawsuit.

      "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
      Does the prayer banner prohibit the free exercise of any religious groups who attend that school? If so, WHO and HOW? Again, if we expand the meaning of religion, we can clearly see how the banner's removal could be seen in exactly this light.

      "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
      Does it prevent free speech, or press? Is it somehow more than a banner? No. But the lawsuit and decision did prevent the free expression of at least one Cranston Alumni, and silenced the opposition to that act.

      "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
      Did the banner somehow prevent the citizens of Cranston or Rhode Island from taking a position on a local or general election, the institution of a law, or upholding of one? Has it been used as a means to exclude people from the process? Again, we could see how the REVERSE could be seen to be true...

      Sorry...
      I just don't see how this charter amendment is violated by a banner in a high school. On the contrary. It seems the sentiment of the entire US constitution has been violated by this very silly ruling on school girls spat.
      I think you secularist folks have won a pyrrhic victory.

      Delete
    5. Is the prayer banner a congressional declaration of a state Chruch, Temple, or Mosque?

      By saying "is it a Congressional declaration" you reveal that you are a hundred and fifty years behind the Constitution and don't understand the impact of the 14th Amendment.

      "I just don't see how this section applies."

      Generations of Supreme Court Justices disagree with you.

      "I just don't see how this charter amendment is violated by a banner in a high school."

      Because you have not read the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court that explain the meaning given to the clause.

      "On the contrary. It seems the sentiment of the entire US constitution has been violated by this very silly ruling on school girls spat."

      Tell that the the Federal judges who have consistently ruled against your position.

      "I think you secularist folks have won a pyrrhic victory."

      Seventy years and running.

      Delete
  8. @megnor
    What kind of people hate and censor their friends and neighbors, and send out kids to take the flack?

    I would say KW, backfiend and other anonymouses!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pepe,

      That's libel. I'd never put anyone in physical or emotional danger. I really like a quiet life. The Internet is different. With more or less anonymous commenting, you can engage in robust debate, and ignore it if you want.

      Notice I haven't commented on the last 5 threads dealing with Michael's obsession with the Cranston High case. Michael seems to have OCD in addition to his paranoia and Geschwind syndrome.

      Delete
    2. I see you have evolved.

      You did not use the word IDIOT in your response.

      God loves you!

      Delete
  9. Perhaps the truth is that Christians simply prefer to bully 16 year old girls. It would be trivial to find out who these “manipulators” are, but instead the bulk of the threats and harassment is directed at this 16 year old girl. Ridiculous? Maybe, but by my reckoning, more likely than the conspiracy theory that the real atheists antagonists are simply using this girl.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow, how easily you reduce Jessica to a pawn, when every word she writes and every interview she gives demonstrate a swtiched-on, aware, caring, passionate young woman who is every bit in control of her own destiny.

    How easily you dismiss, Michael.

    How easily you dismiss the other clergy of Cranston who are now publicly standing against those that threaten and belittle Jessica Ahquist. How easily you dismiss our legal system. How easily you dismiss the judge's opinion, which rightly demonstrates that the defense of the banner was inextricably tangled up in the religious views of the school committee.

    What you fail to acknowledge is that these same laws work with equal or greater effectiveness in defending religious expression in appropriate venues. Shall I list some of the hundreds of cases the ACLU fights on behalf of religious freedom? Do you really think the ACLU needs "human shields"?

    You're on the wrong side of this, Michael. You've gone down a rabbit hole, leaving the American ideals of religious freedom and religious tolerance behind in your zeal to seek out and destroy atheism. And your little cadre has followed you right down the hole. I can practically see the flecks of froth at the corners of Crusader's mouth as he spits out his derision of young people.

    You've surrendered enough integrity and chipped off enough pieces of your soul on this issue. You've dug so far in that your pride won't let you see the truth. You've apparently forgotten that is behavior, not banners, that convincingly carries the good parts of the Christian message. Instead, you've aligned yourself with the same extremist views that Christian leaders are speaking out against.

    Take a breath and, if you can't re-orient yourself onto the right side of this issue, at minimum you can change the subject and avoid saying more things you'll regret one day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said. I was wondering where Michel went today, “busy” I guess.

      This really is a new low. This demonstrates how emotion laden religious zeal can not only warp rational thinking, but also undermine simple notions of common decency.

      An apology is in order.

      -KW

      Delete
  11. Today, “Five Democratic state senators in Missouri discovered large, orange crosshair stickers over their office nameplates on Tuesday in the Capitol Building in Jefferson. The targets included all four Democratic women in the state Senate, as well as the Democratic minority leader.”

    Is this free speech or thuggery? This sort of shit happens every week. Three days ago it was:

    “A cat belonging to an Arkansas Democratic campaign manager was found dead on Sunday night with the word "Liberal" spray-painted across its side,”

    This is the way conservative Christians roll. They are hate filled uncivil thugs using the most base, vile, and cowardly methods. There is simply no equivalent on the left.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  12. Such behaviour is horrible. Not an exercise of freedom of speech. Threats (of death) and the killing of a beloved pet are criminal acts.
    I don't care what faith or creed these people hold, who have done this, they should be in serious trouble.
    I'll not take the 'no true Scotsman' stance, as there is no such thing as a 'true Scotsman' anyway. Let's just agree that is not very 'Scottish' behaviour, and certainly does not represent the mainstream conservative or Christian approach - or even the liberal or secular approach. What you describe is a criminal, mafia style approach.
    Disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. REX wrote: "Let's just agree that is not very 'Scottish' behaviour, and certainly does not represent the mainstream conservative or Christian approach..."

      No, let's not agree to that... it seems to be an all too common 'Scottish' behavior these days... as the "good" Christians watch their priviledge circle the drain it's not surprising - just look at how their God deals with things when they don't go his way (cough)global_flood(cough).

      Delete
    2. I would suggest you pick up your tablet, and swallow it with a nice glass of cold water.
      Seems the kool aid did not do the trick.

      Delete
  13. "This is the way conservative Christians roll."

    No.

    "They are hate filled uncivil thugs using the most base, vile, and cowardly methods. There is simply no equivalent on the left."

    Yes there is, your lack of native intelligence notwithstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Does anyone else get the feeling that this "Dr." has a rather unhealthy obsession with JT? Very creepy...

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Does anyone else get the feeling that this 'Dr.' has a rather unhealthy obsession with JT?"

    No. I do, however, get the distinct impression that you are a moron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet it is the secularists who are angry and do nothing but hurl insults. :rolleyes:

      Delete
    2. Even the extremely ignorant get to have an opinion... you are welcome to yours.

      Delete
    3. @Anon:

      R_Obrien calls me a moron - and you think it's "secularists" who hurl the insults? Are you sure you're reading the same comments I am?

      Delete
    4. @Joe_Agnost: It was sarcastic. Hence the :rolleyes:

      Delete
    5. @Anon:

      Whoops! You'd think it was Monday morning with that lack of reading comprehension... my bad!

      Delete