Teen Atheist threatened after winning lawsuit against school (meaning, believe, delusion)

[orogenicman]

NYT: Atheist teen forces school to remove prayer - US news - The New York Times - msnbc.com

CRANSTON, R.I. — She is 16, the daughter of a firefighter and a nurse, a self-proclaimed nerd who loves Harry Potter and Facebook. But Jessica Ahlquist is also an outspoken atheist who has incensed this heavily Roman Catholic city with a successful lawsuit to get a prayer removed from the wall of her high school auditorium, where it has hung for 49 years.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.
Moderator cut: article shortened, copyright protection

[baystater]

Not all that shocking. I think something similar to this would happen in Massachusetts (on a lower level/pitch) Outside of the city of Boston a lot of Baystaters (The liberal boogiemen of the religious right) are still religious or at least believe in some type of deity.

Living where she does. I think this girl is pretty safe overall, and the threats are mostly a bunch of hot air or steam being blown off by bad losers. Long-term this will be forgotten and this girl.....like rest of us.......will move on with her life.

[orogenicman]

I hope you are right.

[Bideshi]

Times have changed so much from when I was young. No one ever "went to court" in those days and differences were settled in the old fashioned way, person to person. It's funny how people don't think there will be any repercussions from court action, and if the law is "on their side" they are immune to consequences. It's a real shame that adults with agendas used this young girl as a proxy to fight their battle for them, and to take the heat for them.

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

Times have changed so much from when I was young. No one ever "went to court" in those days and differences were settled in the old fashioned way. It's funny how people don't think there will be any repercussions from court action, and if the law is "on their side" they are immune to consequences. It's a real shame that adults with agendas used this young girl as their proxy to fight their battle for them, and to take the heat for them.

I'm no spring chicken, but remind us what the "old fashioned way" entails.

I for one hope there are repurcussions from this court action. I for one hope that religious folk start accepting the law and stop thinking they are special and above it. That said, I'm not holding my breath.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by orogenicman

I for one hope that religious folk start accepting the law and stop thinking they are special and above it.

This is what is most frightening about religion for sure; their intense desire, indeed imagined social mandate, to have it all their way, by edict, legislative decree or CrystalNacht-style collective proceedings.

And why not? They have such a special handle on The One Great Truth, after all..

"said Donald Fox, a 1985 graduate of Cranston West. “The prayer banner espouses nothing more than those values which we all hope for our children, no matter what school they attend or which religious background they hail from."

Hmmm.. Not quite so, IMHO. Wonder what the Religious right undt Special Christian Coalition might say if we hung The Atheist's Ceed (whatever that is... ) or better yet, a good set of Qu'Ranic phrases, up on that same wall. Hmmm?

[MysticPhD]

There is no right to freedom FROM religion . . . only freedom OF religion. Ascribing government establishment of religion to such mundane and parochial issues (especially in education . . . which should not be government-run anyway) is just grandstanding and rabble-rousing. Pretending to elevate such nonsense to Constitutional issues perverts the courts and the judges who must rule on them, and takes respect and stature away from serious Constitutional issues by parodying the Constitution. The absurdity of equating mere feelings within a human being to actual violations and infringements on rights is worse than a parody . . . it belittles the entire concept of rights violations. Political correctness has fostered this perversion of our freedoms and has been the single most powerful movement toward a "thought police state."

[jdaelectro]

Sounds like a disturbed little girl. I can't imagine what kind of home life she has. If an object that could easily be avoided by not looking at it, can cause such emotional distress, I think there are deeper issues at hand. So much for a free country any more. Same goes for if any religion wants to make a prayer as a gift, there should not be such an uproar about displaying it. People will find any excuse to complain though. The threats are a bit ridiculous to.

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

There is no right to freedom FROM religion . . . only freedom OF religion. Ascribing government establishment of religion to such mundane and parochial issues (especially in education . . . which should not be government-run anyway) is just grandstanding and rabble-rousing. Pretending to elevate such nonsense to Constitutional issues perverts the courts and the judges who must rule on them, and takes respect and stature away from serious Constitutional issues by parodying the Constitution. The absurdity of equating mere feelings within a human being to actual violations and infringements on rights is worse than a parody . . . it belittles the entire concept of rights violations. Political correctness has fostered this perversion of our freedoms and has been the single most powerful movement toward a "thought police state."

This court case is not about freedom from religion. It is about the establishment clause. The supreme court has ruled in several cases on this issue:

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Engel v. Vitale | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

[axemanjoe]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

There is no right to freedom FROM religion . . . only freedom OF religion. Ascribing government establishment of religion to such mundane and parochial issues (especially in education . . . which should not be government-run anyway) is just grandstanding and rabble-rousing. Pretending to elevate such nonsense to Constitutional issues perverts the courts and the judges who must rule on them, and takes respect and stature away from serious Constitutional issues by parodying the Constitution. The absurdity of equating mere feelings within a human being to actual violations and infringements on rights is worse than a parody . . . it belittles the entire concept of rights violations. Political correctness has fostered this perversion of our freedoms and has been the single most powerful movement toward a "thought police state."

Freedom of religion means just, free to take it or not. The founding fathers decided that they did not want to force any religion on anyone, meaning any particular denomination or any religion at all. You delusionalists need to accept the fact that the constitution prevents the government from recognizing religion at all, that means not recognizing it per se. As far as government, religion does not exist. It is up to the individual citizen(s) to partake in religion or not. But the government cannot be involved in religion in any way shape or form and no government funds or property can be used to further or perpuate religion. What don't you understand.