Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Church-of-What's-Happenin'-Now holds prayer vigil defending litigious atheist schoolgirl

(Dissociated Press) A group of local Rhode Island liberals clergy held a public prayer vigil today to defend Cranston High School student Jessica Ahlquist, the sixteen year old atheist used as bait by the ACLU to censor Christians inexplicably embroiled in controversy over her lawsuit to remove a prayer mural in her school.

Rev. Ima Quisling, leader of a group of progressive clergy called 'Vicars of Vichy', opened the vigil by reminding the assembled reporters that "for progressive Christians, kneeling in submission is the most profitable response to worldly power". After several opening prayers, she lead the assembled reporters in the popular hymn "Barak of Ages" followed by a solemn acapella version of "Were You There, When They Fired Keith-Ol-ber-mann?"

Reverend Quisling then proceeded with a solemn homily on the Apostle's Creed entitled "Womynpriests and Choice-- the Legislative Outlook".

Ushers then passed around collection plates labeled "(Hope and) Change", as Reverend Quisling asked people to open their hearts and contribute "as much of other people's money as you can afford".

With the end of the liturgy of the Word, the liturgy of the eucharist began.

To prepare for the sacraments, the Reverend lit four incense-treated prayer murals.

In the soft light of the flickering flames, the parishoners lined up to recieve the sacrament. Reverend Quisling passed a plastic fetus to each, who in turn dumped it in the incinerator on the altar. "The bread of life(style)... ", she intoned, which each immolation.

At the conclusion of communion, Rev. Qusiling, winking at both of her wives in the front row, raised her arms in benediction: "Holy Mother, please protect little Jennifer-- um-- Justina-- umm--- Jessica from violations of her rights. 

The Reverend walked through the congregation, shaking hands with all three parishoners and several hundred reporters.

On her way to her Prius, she warned of the Lord's wrath if Jessica is forced to look upon differing beliefs.

"North America has suffered annual cycles of warming and cooling, as well as almost daily fluctuations of light and dark, since the Republican victory in the 2010 mid-term elections", she has observed pointedly, "and by this summer portions of the Northern Hemisphere will be as much as fifty degrees warmer than now"

"Gaia is already angry about the Tea Party. Prayers on t-shirts will only inflame Her Righteous Fury".

"We cannot deny Her Holy Injunctions much longer" she warned, pointing out that a recent drought in Madagascar coincided with Rick Santorum's victory in the Iowa caucauses.

"Our Holy Mother will not be mocked. She led her people out of slavery. She will lead her people out of school auditoriums with prayer murals."

"We womyn and men and transgendered must protect innocent life. Jessica has already passed through the birth canal, so she too is a human being in God's eyes."

Reverend Quisling paused, her eyes welling with tears.

"Please defend little Justina from seeing things she doesn't like"


  1. Michael,

    You really are an idiot with your halfwitted humor. It's amazing how you manage to include so many of your pet hobby horses in the one thread. The Cranston High mural (yet again for about the 20th plus time), liberal churches (or at least churches that aren't as batshit crazy as you are), Prius drivers, global warming, abortion, etc.

    I had a look at your links. Only one seems to be on topic (such as it is). What the list of Obama quotes or the New York Times home page have to do with the topic is probably only to you in your little mind.

    1. Oops,

      Left out 'obvious' in last sentence '... Is probably obvious only to you in your little mind'

  2. @bach:

    You're perplexed, so I'll help.

    Many progressive Christians worship leftist politics more than God. Their politics is their God. This bunch of leftie "people of faith" who came out in support of censorship are a run of the mill bunch of liberals who push liberal ideology, including state power, which is the core of leftist ideology. They don't defend fellow Christians who are being censored.

    Qusilings is the appropriate term.

    1. "They don't defend fellow Christians who are being censored."

      They disagree with your fringe interpretation of the Constitution and don't think anyone is being censored. But since they disagree with you they must be heretics, and thus don't know how to properly worship God like you. How very wonderful it must be for you to know exactly what is in the mind of God and thus know the proper way to worship and to make fun of those who would worship differently than you.

  3. Christians who want other Christians to refrain from violent threats and thuggery, Oh the horror! They’re not real Christians, why I bet they don’t even know who Saul Alinsky is!

    “They don't defend fellow Christians who are being censored”

    Since when is a public school a fellow Christian? You really have gone off the deep end.

    How you could be so consistently hateful and yet imagine yourself on the path to heaven is beyond me.


  4. Mike,
    Don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel! :P

    LMAO @ "On her way to her Prius..."

    I hear where you are coming from with regards to the sycophancy and appeasement.
    "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" is only the first part of that most famous line (Matthew 22:21).
    One could very easily argue the part being forgotten by so many is "...and unto God the things that are God's."
    What I mean by this can be best expressed by way of a contrasting inquiry.
    Are your rights of expression (religious or otherwise) as an American within powers of Caesar (an earthly ruler) that he may give and take away, or are they 'endowed' by some sort of 'creator'.
    Admittedly this is Christian lens, as all secularism is.
    But humour me, and follow this simple reasoning.
    If your rights of expression is the realm of Caesar , then the banner farce becomes a silly little legal battle. Caesar and his ministers will decide.
    If so, then all this talk is pointless, just as the (neo)'secularists' insist. If the law is as it says, then we should all have KNOWN the outcome of the decision in relation to secular power. The justice MUST occasionally exercise his power in order to justify it and set precedence. The fact he COULD exert his power here meant he MUST in that view.

    If, however, these rights are 'endowed' by a divine truth, then they must be defended - even FROM the little Caesars of the courts. If they are a gift of God, then no judge should be allowed to quash them.
    So, if we are to buy (even legally) that these rights are 'endowed', then the banner had every right to hang as it did, with consent of local authority and the Justice was WRONG to over-step his license and rule over these people with punitive censorship.
    If 'endowed', those rights of expression are the rights of the Human creators of the banner and of the people of cultural authority who established it's place - and they are not a matter of debate with the authorities (Caesar).
    So the real question of interest in my mind becomes:Does the law mention if these rights are 'endowed' by any sort of divine force?
    Or are they merely secular humanist legal subjectivism that may (and WILL) be reinterpreted regularly in order to reaffirm dominance by ruling elites?
    That is what the debate boils down to.
    The NATURE of the rights of expression.
    The NATURE of the guarantees of those rights.
    This seems to be the magnetic thread behind the whole polarization in US politics, in a nutshell.

    Hope that makes some sort of sense.

  5. @crus:

    I believe you are exactly right.

    This is fundamentally a battle about the source of rights. If God is the Source, then man may never exert supreme power over man. If man is the source, than we really have no rights, just privileges, which can be revoked if doing so serves the interests of those in power.

    The interests backing the removal of the prayer mural are asserting power. The lawsuit is a slap across the face to those who kneel to God, and an insistence that they kneel to secular power.

  6. “This is fundamentally a battle about the source of rights. If God is the Source, then man may never exert supreme power over man. If man is the source, than we really have no rights, just privileges, which can be revoked if doing so serves the interests of those in power.”

    This is pure metaphysical bullshit that does nothing but confuse the issue. There is no God given right to hang a giant prayer banner wherever you want. Just try to hang a giant prayer banner on the side of my house and see how far your God given rights get you. Paint a giant Jesus mural on the side of your employers building and tell me how your God given rights protect you. You have the right to display virtually any message you want on private property, but have no right, God given or otherwise, to force the government to display your religious message.


    1. @KW:

      The only force involved is on your side. The display of the mural in the school was a decision made by the elected representatives of the citizens, in accordance with the views of the majority. That's how government works in a democracy.

      Removal of the prayer is the use of force by a bunch of minority thugs who use bullshit interpretations of the Constitution to force others to comply with their bigotry.

    2. “The display of the mural in the school was a decision made by the elected representatives of the citizens, in accordance with the views of the majority. That's how government works in a democracy.”

      One moment you argue that we have God given rights, and in the next moment you argue that we have no rights at all. Our rights are what protect us from the tyranny of 50%+1. One of our rights is to worship or not worship as we see fit, and it’s been properly determined that overtly religious displays in public schools infringe on this right.


  7. To some degree you must “kneel to secular power” or run the risk of a Christian Fundamentalist equivalent of the Taliban enforcing a strict Christian morality and destroying our religious liberty.


    1. @KW:

      The Taliban is famous for the destruction of religious symbols they hate. (

      You are the Taliban, asshole.

    2. @mregnor: Nothing is being destroyed, despite your wild-eyed hysteria on the subject.

      Keep posting on this subject. It just exposes how unhinged you are, and just how far out on the lunatic fringe you are.

    3. The Taliban are even more famous for brutally forcing their religion on minorities, dickhead.


    4. @KW:

      Actually, the Taliban force their religion on majorities. The Taliban are a fringe bunch of fundamentalists-- a minority-- who erase all public vestiges of religious expression except their own.

      Atheists are the American Taliban.

    5. Its funny how you are always saying it is atheists who are pushing to keep religion out of public school and out of government, and yet the majority of those who support these policies are people who self-identify as religious. They just don't happen to be part of the religious fringe that you adhere to.

  8. @Anon:

    [Nothing is being destroyed, despite your wild-eyed hysteria on the subject.]

    Oh, you mean we can take the tarp off of the prayer?

    [Keep posting on this subject. It just exposes how unhinged you are, and just how far out on the lunatic fringe you are.]

    I may be a bit unhinged, but I don't fall to pieces when I see a prayer, and I don't sue in federal court to shut people up.

    1. "Oh, you mean we can take the tarp off of the prayer?"

      So covering something up is "destroying" it? Moving it off of government property is "destroying" it?

      Your hysteria is showing.

      "I may be a bit unhinged, but I don't fall to pieces when I see a prayer, and I don't sue in federal court to shut people up."

      No, you just want to trample the rights of everyone else so that you can have your faith given special treatment by the government.

      Your Taliban sympathies are showing.

    2. "So covering something up is "destroying" it? Moving it off of government property is "destroying" it?"

      No, it's just a black mark of censorship.

      "No, you just want to trample the rights of everyone else so that you can have your faith given special treatment by the government."

      And once again, we're back to the right not to see things that are religious, the right never to hear something you don't believe. Until you abandon the indefensible idea that this is your "right", you will never understand that no one is trampling on your "rights".


  9. Michael,

    Muslims don't believe in depicting god or humans in art. The giant statues of Buddha were in danger jfrom the Taliban just because they were statues of a man. It was a tragedy, because the statues were very old and never to be replaced once destroyed. A similar tragedy would be the destruction of the Roman Colliseum, the Athens Pantheon, any number of European cathedrals or Istanbul mosques.

    The Cranston High mural isn't old or historic, and any number of copies can and have been made.

    I don't feel bad calling you an idiot, when you happily throw around words such as 'asshole'. Charming, aren't you?

  10. @bach:

    You destroy religious symbols you hate, and have no respect for religious pluralism in civic life.

    Atheists are the American Taliban.

    1. "You destroy religious symbols you hate, and have no respect for religious pluralism in civic life."

      Its awfully funny that so many religious groups disagree with you on this.

      "Atheists are the American Taliban."

      Tell that to those who submitted amicus briefs in cases like Engel v. Vitale. Oh wait. Those weren't atheists.

    2. Michael,

      Golly, you are irrational. I value religious symbols and I respect religious pluralism in society. I love the architecture of medieval cathedrals and mosques (I'm not so keen on Tibetan temples; they look too much like fortresses). I even leave the copy of Gideon bibles in hotel rooms instead of throwing them in the bin.

      You're the one who is against religious pluralism. You're the one who wrote a not very funny parody of a liberal Christian church in this very thread. You're the one who has written many diatribes against Islam.

      You're quite happy with religion in society provided it's your bizarre distorted version of Catholicism.

    3. Atheists are the American Taliban

      Build a giant Church on the best piece of real-estate you can buy, Go to church 10 times a week, sing praise to Jesus wearing a giant fucking pope hat while you prance down the street, and teach your kids whatever fucked up supernatural crap you want. I don’t care, and I (and the ACLU) will argue vigorously in your defense. Does that sound Like the Taliban to you? What I object to is you fighting to have your religious displays in the most important and influential government institution in my impressionable child’s life.


    4. You have an impressionable child at home.

      I think I hear what you're saying KW. You don't mind if other people teach their children what they want, just as long as they don't try to teach your children.

      I think that's our point as well. The public schools are NOT neutral territory. They are hostile to what we believe. You want to teach your kids that boys sleeping with boys is okay? Fine. Do it at your kitchen table. Do not assume that your ideas are universal. Keep them out of my school. Same with your condoms, your state atheism, your revisionist history, your Marxism. Keep it to your self. Teach your kids that crap, not mine, not anyone else's.

      It might be a stretch to call atheists the American Taliban. But do you recall when the Taliban destroyed that giant statue of Buddha because it offended them? Sound like any atheist groups you know?

      They would argue that they aren't anti-religion, they just want to uphold the Constitution. That's bullshit for a number of reasons, but the primary reason is that the Constitution doesn't say what they say it is says. Good news! You don't have to go around expunging religious expression any more. You can relax, the Constitution isn't threatened by crosses on public property. It's threatened by an out-of-control president who doesn't understand checks and balances, but not Cranston High School.

      And let's be honest. You DO hate religion. See your post above--"teach your kids whatever fucked up supernatural crap you want." Stop lying to me and to yourself.

      The idea that you're fine with religion so long as it stays off of government property is baloney. You hate religion (mine in particular) and use the Constitution as a pretext to destroy it. It's not even a good pretext.

      Oh, and another thing? If you care so much about the Constitution, where are you on the Tenth Amendment?


    5. Bachfiend is tolerant of religious pluralism because:

      1) He likes beautiful architecture from an aesthetic standpoint

      2) He resists the urge to destroy private property, in this case, a Bible.

      Way to go Bachfiend.

      The Torch

  11. Here is another 'case' in the works.

     So far, despite having filed complaints, the Atheist Agitators in this situation have failed to produce anything but outrage and contempt....

    Check out how 'Forest Service Says Jesus Can Stay' in Montana....
    Let's hope a war memorial gets more respect than a high-school banner.

    1. "Let's hope a war memorial gets more respect than a high-school banner."

      Don't be surprised when the courts rule against the Forestry Service on this. Because it is highly likely they will.

    2. Oh, I would NOT be surprised if the Federal courts ruled to remove Jesus from a War Memorial in the modern USA, especially in the Northern States.
      I live next door to them and travel into them quite frequently.
      This kind of censorship and revisionism is becoming more and more overt/naked, and gaining legal momentum.
      But, so is the grass roots opposition at an EXPONENTIAL level of force.
      I won't be surprised by the blowback either.

  12. @Anon:

    [Tell that to those who submitted amicus briefs in cases like Engel v. Vitale. Oh wait. Those weren't atheists.]

    Anti-Christian hate is not restricted to atheists. It's not even restricted to non-Christians.

    1. So Christans are now anti-Christian bigots? Do you even listen to youself or are you too busy fuming with hatred to realize that you are mmaking no sense?

      When you start decrying others for having beliefs different than yours, then you are in Taliban territory. That's where you are. And its why your ideology loses. And continues to lose.

    2. The definition of "Christian" is so amorphous that yes, Christians can be anti-Christian.

      It's also true that whenever someone feels like using state power to censor Christian speech, to sandblast our Christian heritage from every corner of the earth, they know they can shield themselves from the obvious accusation of anti-Christian bigotry by saying "But I AM a Christian!" If I had a dime for every time I heard that.

      Is that so hard to believe?

      Look, Christianity is nothing if not a belief structure. Yes, that means that if your beliefs don't match up, you can't really call yourself a Christian. At least not with a straight face.

      What if I told you I was a liberal? I'm a pro-life liberal. I'm for strong national defense. I think taxes are too high and I don't really care for public broadcasting. I oppose the redefinition of marriage. I'm a proud gun owner and I don't want the government to touch my guns. I think school vouchers are a good idea. I think we need to drill more in our own country.

      But I'm a liberal because I say I'm a liberal. And every time you accuse me of hating liberals, I'm going to tell you that it's quite impossible to hate liberals because I am one.

      Words mean something. Insisting on their definition don't make you the Taliban. Get a new insult. That one's worn out.

      The Torch

    3. hey Anonymous,

      If Dr. Egnor is is Taliban territory, does that mean that you want to surrender to him as quickly as possible and hand him the country on a platter?

      The Torch

  13. I know you folks are not totally serious and I hate to piss on the parade , but having spent years in SWA fighting the Taliban, Haqqani, and the 'allied tribes' - I can verify with authority: NONE of you are in Taliban Territory!
    Not even CLOSE.
    None of you have the TOTAL ideological commitment to violence.
    None of you exhibit the resolve/wickedness/'strength' needed to commit the acts that the Taliban do, on a daily basis; and only some of you exhibit the religious fervour (atheists included) required to temper that resolve.
    As for whether any of you possess that total/sum potential, only you yourselves know that. Only you can FEEL that.
    Look, one of the scariest aspects of looking your enemy in the eye (and loving him) is to see your own reflection.
    Everyone here will find SOMETHING that they agree with the Taliban on - whether isolated issues, or to principle in a lesser degree - but that does not make us into them.
    They are still ALL our enemies, by their OWN definition.
    While we argue about which utopian ideal is better in theory and on paper, and who can say what about God where; the Taliban are instituting - with their allies worldwide - a very real, very attainable dystopia.
    Hell, their civilian counterparts are setting up shop in your backyards while 'civil liberties' groups are being used to PUSH that agenda and censor 'prayer banners'....
    We will wake up eventually. (As a civilization)
    We will HAVE to wake up, if only to die and be reborn.

  14. @crus:

    It is certainly true that no one in this debate is quite like the Taliban.

    But, it is undeniable that state atheism rivals the Taliban (I would say state atheism exceeds it) in intolerance and violence.

    Atheists in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, N. Korea, etc have achieved oppression that exceeds anything Mullah Omar dreamed up.

    What we are seeing in the US is handcuffed atheism. Our Christian traditions of tolerance and rule of law and our Constitution are the handcuffs.

    Atheists are filing away at their restraints.

  15. Just thought I'd let everyone know:

    Obama is now quoting the Bible to raise our taxes. He thinks we need to keep our values in government. He mentioned this at the National Prayer Breakfast.

    Obama: "But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’ teaching that, ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be require.'"

    Obama:“We can’t leave our values at the door. If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union.”

    This guy is the Christian Taliban! He wants to legislate his morality! He wants to supplant our Constitution with the Bible!

    Well, except for two things. First of all everyone knows he's an atheist, and second of all his interpretation of scripture is completely wrong.

    But all you atheists better beat feet down to the White House and treat him the way you treat Dr. Egnor.


    1. "First of all everyone knows he's an atheist, and second of all his interpretation of scripture is completely wrong. "

      Nice to see you out yourself as being entirely detached from reality if you really think that Obama is an atheist.

      Also nice to know that you are the arbiter of correct scriptural interpretation.

  16. Here's my take on this whole issue. You can choose not to believe all you want. That's your right.

    You do not have the right to live in a God-free zone. Not on public property, on private property, or anywhere else. You need to grow up and learn how to live with other people. Your rights are not being violated.


  17. @Trish:

    Good points all.

    Another interesting observation is the utter lack of support for the right of free religious expression on the part of atheists. For example, consider the Christian groups who have come out in support of Jessica Ahlquist. Regardless of whether one thinks they are right or wrong, they are evidence of considerable plurality in the Christian community.

    Where are the corresponding atheists standing up for keeping the prayer mural? Not a single one has spoken out, that I know of. You see the same thing with the Darwinism debate in schools. Not a single atheist/Darwinist that I know of has spoken out publicly in favor of the right to teach intelligent design.

    The unanimity of atheists on matters of rights is extraordinary. Why?