Christians bombard teen activist with hate and abuse. (http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-atlanta/christians-bombard-teen-activist-with-hate-and-abuse)
QuoteIt's not really news that Christians are often hateful and abusive towards secular activists. We've seen it enough times now. As with reports of pedophile priests, closet homosexual pastors, and abortions by anti-abortionists, we've gotten to the point where we almost shrug off new instances of Christian hate. It's the status quo, and it's what we expect.
Even though it's "old news," we should sometimes take a minute to step back and reflect on the broader context of this kind of abuse. The current example comes from a high school in Rhode Island, where a secular teen had the unmitigated gall to request equal treatment under the law. She fought her school's display of a sectarian prayer banner and won. Now, the poor Christians in this humble Rhode Island town only have their churches, their homes, their radio stations, TV stations, pamphlets, jewelry, T-shirts, money, congressmen, and seven out of ten people in the U.S. to remind them that they love Jesus. The repression burns.
In response to having to take down a single banner at one lowly school, the Christians have brought the holy rage of their lord and savior:
May that little, evil atheist teenage girl and that judge BURN IN HEL!
she just destroyed a piece of cranston west's history. hope you're happy stupidbitch!
why the f**k does it matter? it's basically history. just don't look at it. Bitch
If this banner comes down, hell I hope the school burns down with it!
You little brainless idiot, hope you will be punished, you have not win sh*t. Stupid little brainless skunk!
How does it feel to be the most hated person in RI right now? Your a puke and a disgrace to the human race.
shes not human shes garbage
I think everyone should just fight this girl
F**k Jessica alquist I'll drop anchor on her face
definetly laying it down on this atheist tomorrow anyone else?
im sabotaging her site on fb lets just say its going to be nuts you need in on dat dawg?
Let's all jump that girl who did the banner
But for real somebody should jump this girl
Hmm jess is in my bio class, she's gonna get some sh*t thrown at her
I want to punch the girl in the face
I hope there's lots of banners in hell when your rotting in there you atheist f**k
jessicaalquist is gonna get punched in the face
i hope you go to hell i honestly do youre a sh***y person
gods going to f**k your *ss with that banner you scumbag
if I wasn't 18 and wouldn't go to jail I'd beat the sh*t out of her idk how she got away with not getting beat up yet
Brb ima go drown that atheist in holy water.
You can check out THIS WEB SITE (http://jesusfetusfajitafishsticks.blogspot.com/2012/01/ahlquist-screenshots-if-by-christian.html) for screen captures of these and many more abusive comments by "good Christians."
A very brave person indeed. Worthy of all the support we can give her.
EDIT: Activated link to article.
Quote
May that little, evil atheist teenage girl and that judge BURN IN HELL!
She just destroyed a piece of Cranston West's history. Hope you're happy, stupid_bitch!
why the f**k does it matter? it's basically history. just don't look at it. Bitch Drama and emphasis is good and well, but is there not a relation between short sentences and the lack of IQ?
If this banner comes down, hell I hope the school burns down with it!
You little brainless idiot, hope you will be punished, you have not won sh*t. Stupid little brainless skunk!
How does it feel to be the most hated person in RI right now? You're a puke and a disgrace to the human race.
she's not human--she's garbage
I think everyone should just fight this girl
F**k Jessica Alquist! I'll drop anchor on her face
definetly -lol laying it down on this atheist tomorrow_?_anyone else?
i'm sabotaging her site on FB. Lets just say its going to be nuts you need in on dat dawg? -It's "Want in on that, dawg?", dawg.
Let's all jump that girl who did the banner -Uh... Interesting wording.
But for real somebody should jump this girl
Hmm jess is in my bio class, she's gonna get some sh*t thrown at her
I want to punch the girl in the face
I hope there's lots of banners in hell when your rotting in there you atheist f**k
jessicaalquist is gonna get punched in the face
i hope you go to hell i honestly do youre a sh***y person
gods going to f**k your *ss with that banner you scumbag
if I wasn't 18 and wouldn't go to jail I'd beat the sh*t out of her idk how she got away with not getting beat up yet
Brb ima go drown that atheist in holy water.
Bleh! My red ink ran out.
These people can't even tie three fucking words together properly. Potentially dangerous, yes, but still pathetic.
Some people reject god because god doesn't live up to the idea of what he should be, maybe he lets a loved one die.
I didn't find the god botherer community an attractive group largely because they didn't live up to what god was supposed to be asking of them, they were so hypocritical. That forgiveness idea lets people get away with too much.
Hate crime is so ugly.
If only christians actually cared what Jesus supposedly said.....
Lots of loving thine enemy and cheek turning going on here.
The sad thing is, I worry for this girl's safety. People with stones that big are needed in the States right now.
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 14, 2012, 11:36:14 AM
If only christians actually cared what Jesus supposedly said.....
Lots of loving thine enemy and cheek turning going on here.
The sad thing is, I worry for this girl's safety. People with stones that big are needed in the States right now.
Except they tend to get stoned with their own stones, if in a more metaphorical fashion than in Mohammedstans
Nothing like Christianity + the seemingly inherent tendencry of some high schoolers to be bullies to create some serious ugliness.
I'll never forget in my high school government class, we were talking about a case where a girl (with an obvious Jewish last name) was suing because a teacher was handing out bibles and encouraging bible studies in his classes. We were debating whether or not that was constitutional. I wasn't even totally an atheist yet then, but even then I knew that was wrong. I'll never forget some of the arguments that people were throwing out; they weren't even about whether or not it was constitutional, it was things like "She's just mad because she probably has a big nose." (!!!!) Disgusting. But I learned something interesting about group dynamics that day. The way the teacher had us do it, everyone who thought it was constitutional had to line up on one side of the room, and everyone who thought it wasn't had to line up on the other side of the room. When you changed your mind, you crossed the room to to join the other side. The people who were arguing against bibles being handed out in school were citing the Establishment Clause, and using examples like "Would it be okay if the teacher was a Satanist and handing out Satanist Bibles and encouraging Satanist Bible Study (I doubt any of us knew anything about Satanism at that point, we just knew it was EVIL.) The uglier the people on the side FOR bibles got ("She's just mad because she's ugly and doesn't have any friends") the more people crossed over to their side, even though the arguments were completely rubbish. I think they just didn't want to be associated with the idea that people who object to bibles in school must be ugly and not have any friends, you know? The teacher finally stopped it when it was just me on the side against bibles, and I refused to budge because a) I knew it was wrong and b) I was so disgusted by the other side's arguments that they could have set my side of the room on fire and I still wouldn't have crossed.
Afterwards, several people came up to me and told me that they agreed with me and they thought it was cool that I wouldn't back down. My thought was "Well why the f*ck didn't you stand with me then?"
Anyhoo, yes, this girl is brave and needs our support. I think I'll donate something to her college fund. :)
@ Ali
If a teacher allowed a situation like that to happen in the UK, specifically the abuse of a person due to their physical appearance, they would probably get disciplined if not sacked!
Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2012, 03:58:28 PM
@ Ali
If a teacher allowed a situation like that to happen in the UK, specifically the abuse of a person due to their physical appearance, they would probably get disciplined if not sacked!
I don't know if this matters, but the girl they were abusing wasn't actually there in my class, we just read an article about the case and then debated it.
But yeah, it definitely got ugly. And so freaking stupid, too!
This s bullying alright...
And isn't there any legal action she can take? This is so horrible. How can anyone call themselves a good person, but treat another human being like that?
Quote from: Ali on January 14, 2012, 04:11:45 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2012, 03:58:28 PM
@ Ali
If a teacher allowed a situation like that to happen in the UK, specifically the abuse of a person due to their physical appearance, they would probably get disciplined if not sacked!
I don't know if this matters, but the girl they were abusing wasn't actually there in my class, we just read an article about the case and then debated it.
But yeah, it definitely got ugly. And so freaking stupid, too!
Even if the subject were not in the classroom then the attitude displayed by the 'anti' kids would have been stopped and corrected. If the teacher failed to do this I think they would be in serious trouble.
I am honestly worried for this girl's safety. We see what the students and other citizens of Rhode Island think, but what does the faculty of the school have to say?
Quote from: Budhorse4 on January 14, 2012, 05:42:36 PM
I am honestly worried for this girl's safety. We see what the students and other citizens of Rhode Island think, but what does the faculty of the school have to say?
According to the articles, at least some of them fought the decision.
Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2012, 08:29:41 AM
Quote why the f**k does it matter? it's basically history. just don't look at it. Bitch
A very brave person indeed. Worthy of all the support we can give her.
Agreed. The fight to keep church and state separate is the most important one I can think of. And it just floors me when people try to defend the tradition of mixing the two with such things as "why does it matter?" that they aren't kept apart. That is so dishonest -- if it truly didn't matter it wouldn't be causing this kind of a reaction.
Quote from: Budhorse4 on January 14, 2012, 05:42:36 PM
I am honestly worried for this girl's safety. We see what the students and other citizens of Rhode Island think, but what does the faculty of the school have to say?
I'm worried for her too. But she seems like she standing up for herself quite well. A couple of other links, including her own blog:
http://jessicaahlquist.com/
http://cranston.patch.com/articles/ahlquist-fight-over-mural-despite-harrassment-threats-worth-it
Really impressive. I wish I had been as brave as she is, especially at her age. I'll probably post a message of support on her blog, because I'm sure she needs it. I wonder if we should mention this forum too? Or would this community prefer to remain under the radar to avoid possible spamming by others? I'm still fairly new, so I don't know how people here feel about that.
Quote from: Firebird on January 14, 2012, 09:42:41 PM
Quote from: Budhorse4 on January 14, 2012, 05:42:36 PM
I am honestly worried for this girl's safety. We see what the students and other citizens of Rhode Island think, but what does the faculty of the school have to say?
I'm worried for her too. But she seems like she standing up for herself quite well. A couple of other links, including her own blog:
http://jessicaahlquist.com/
http://cranston.patch.com/articles/ahlquist-fight-over-mural-despite-harrassment-threats-worth-it
Really impressive. I wish I had been as brave as she is, especially at her age. I'll probably post a message of support on her blog, because I'm sure she needs it. I wonder if we should mention this forum too? Or would this community prefer to remain under the radar to avoid possible spamming by others? I'm still fairly new, so I don't know how people here feel about that.
New members are always welcome so you can mention thisplaceif it's approprite tothe subject, wouldn't want to be a spammer :D
If we get some arseholes join hey won't last for long.
So wait, that quote you put up in the OP was an actual quote from the Christian community? Or just one f***ing moron?
Quote from: Ransom on January 15, 2012, 10:36:02 PM
So wait, that quote you put up in the OP was an actual quote from the Christian community? Or just one f***ing moron?
It was a whole bunch of morons, many of whom go to school with her
Quote from: Firebird on January 15, 2012, 10:53:00 PM
many of whom go to school with her
One must wonder why, because developing proper writing skills does not seem part of it :P
She's very brave, there should be more like her.
Quote from: Ransom on January 15, 2012, 10:36:02 PM
So wait, that quote you put up in the OP was an actual quote from the Christian community? Or just one f***ing moron?
No true Scotsman!
Quote from: Tank on January 16, 2012, 07:56:37 AM
No true Scotsman!
'Cause I'm the Saddam, yes I'm the real Saddam, and you other Saddams an all kiss my bottom
/Eminem
Guess what? She's Swedish!
Now who do we know who's a 16yo Swedish atheist? ::) ;D
Quote from: Tank on January 16, 2012, 08:14:36 AM
Guess what? She's Swedish!
Now how do we know who's a 16yo Swedish atheist? ::) ;D
We have one in The Asmo's Infernal Fan Club.
And, as we all know, Asmos corrupt. ;D
Quote from: Ransom on January 15, 2012, 10:36:02 PMSo wait, that quote you put up in the OP was an actual quote from the Christian community? Or just one f***ing moron?
Hello
Ransom. Are you ever going to bother to respond to the replies in the most recent thread you started (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9087.0)?
Alright, I think I got it figured out now. So here's my conclusion as a Christian: 1) The people who were ciber-bullying Jessica are 50% pricks, 50% justifiably angry. Jessica Ahlquist is a typical Atheist, and pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit. I deeply suspect that the founding fathers (who were mostly Christian) would have been fine with a simple prayer on a wall. I wanna' know how in the hell this thing violated anybody's first amendment rights?! She said it was "offensive" OK... how was it "offensive?" I thought Atheists were supposed to be "tolerant." Why do any of you give a shit about what a banner says? It wasn't dissing anyone. It actually had a good message on it. Jessica Ahlquist isn't a defender of the first amendment. She's a offender who should be jailed for "hate crimes." Sorry, I couldn't resist putting in the hate crimes part.
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:09:56 PM
Alright, I think I got it figured out now. So here's my conclusion as a Christian: 1) The people who were ciber-bullying Jessica are 50% pricks, 50% justifiably angry. Jessica Ahlquist is a typical Atheist, and pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit. I deeply suspect that the founding fathers (who were mostly Christian) would have been fine with a simple prayer on a wall. I wanna' know how in the hell this thing violated anybody's first amendment rights?! She said it was "offensive" OK... how was it "offensive?" I thought Atheists were supposed to be "tolerant." Why do any of you give a shit about what a banner says? It wasn't dissing anyone. It actually had a good message on it. Jessica Ahlquist isn't a defender of the first amendment. She's a offender who should be jailed for "hate crimes." Sorry, I couldn't resist putting in the hate crimes part.
If no one should give a shit about what a banner says, then why are Christians (including you) so upset about it being taken down?
LOL about that "pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit." People just loooooove the Constitution until it gets in the way of their personal agenda, don't they?
Here's some Truth about the Founding Fathers - if they had really wanted this nation to be a Christian nation - they had their chance. But that's not what they did, huh? In fact, the very first line of the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights sets up the separation of church and state. Seems like they thought that was kind of important, like maybe it was first and foremost in their minds, seeing as how that's the very first thing they did.
She should be jailed for hate crimes? What "crime" did she commit exactly? Please point to where it says that it's against the law to file (and WIN!) a lawsuit? Think of this - seeing as how she won, I'm thinking that keener legal minds than yours agreed that it was a violation of the first amendment.
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 04:26:47 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:09:56 PM
Alright, I think I got it figured out now. So here's my conclusion as a Christian: 1) The people who were ciber-bullying Jessica are 50% pricks, 50% justifiably angry. Jessica Ahlquist is a typical Atheist, and pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit. I deeply suspect that the founding fathers (who were mostly Christian) would have been fine with a simple prayer on a wall. I wanna' know how in the hell this thing violated anybody's first amendment rights?! She said it was "offensive" OK... how was it "offensive?" I thought Atheists were supposed to be "tolerant." Why do any of you give a shit about what a banner says? It wasn't dissing anyone. It actually had a good message on it. Jessica Ahlquist isn't a defender of the first amendment. She's a offender who should be jailed for "hate crimes." Sorry, I couldn't resist putting in the hate crimes part.
If no one should give a shit about what a banner says, then why are Christians (including you) so upset about it being taken down?
LOL about that "pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit." People just loooooove the Constitution until it gets in the way of their personal agenda, don't they?
Here's some Truth about the Founding Fathers - if they had really wanted this nation to be a Christian nation - they had their chance. But that's not what they did, huh? In fact, the very first line of the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights sets up the separation of church and state. Seems like they thought that was kind of important, like maybe it was first and foremost in their minds, seeing as how that's the very first thing they did.
She should be jailed for hate crimes? What "crime" did she commit exactly? Please point to where it says that it's against the law to file (and WIN!) a lawsuit? Think of this - seeing as how she won, I'm thinking that keener legal minds than yours agreed that it was a violation of the first amendment.
You misunderstood the hate crimes part. I was joking about that. That's why I apologized. Why shouldn't they be mad about it being pulled down? There was no reason. You also failed to answer the question genius.
HOW was it a violation of the constitution? The sign was anything but offensive. I doubt you even looked at it. If you did, and still thought it was against the constitution, I pity you. Tell me what you find so "offensive" about this evil piece of bigotry.
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS304&biw=1280&bih=899&tbm=isch&tbnid=T9eYogdC1pYHoM:&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085964/School-ordered-remove-religious-banner-tells-pupils-kind.html&docid=mFiFndSBq-tjrM&imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/12/article-2085964-0F70039C00000578-561_468x430.jpg&w=468&h=430&ei=m0IUT_jQNsX1ggek7eD8Aw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=316&sig=102105732015175175316&page=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=163&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=71&ty=79
You're a POE, right?
If not then you're what you get when the old status quo is shriveling up and dying...
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:38:51 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 04:26:47 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:09:56 PM
Alright, I think I got it figured out now. So here's my conclusion as a Christian: 1) The people who were ciber-bullying Jessica are 50% pricks, 50% justifiably angry. Jessica Ahlquist is a typical Atheist, and pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit. I deeply suspect that the founding fathers (who were mostly Christian) would have been fine with a simple prayer on a wall. I wanna' know how in the hell this thing violated anybody's first amendment rights?! She said it was "offensive" OK... how was it "offensive?" I thought Atheists were supposed to be "tolerant." Why do any of you give a shit about what a banner says? It wasn't dissing anyone. It actually had a good message on it. Jessica Ahlquist isn't a defender of the first amendment. She's a offender who should be jailed for "hate crimes." Sorry, I couldn't resist putting in the hate crimes part.
If no one should give a shit about what a banner says, then why are Christians (including you) so upset about it being taken down?
LOL about that "pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit." People just loooooove the Constitution until it gets in the way of their personal agenda, don't they?
Here's some Truth about the Founding Fathers - if they had really wanted this nation to be a Christian nation - they had their chance. But that's not what they did, huh? In fact, the very first line of the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights sets up the separation of church and state. Seems like they thought that was kind of important, like maybe it was first and foremost in their minds, seeing as how that's the very first thing they did.
She should be jailed for hate crimes? What "crime" did she commit exactly? Please point to where it says that it's against the law to file (and WIN!) a lawsuit? Think of this - seeing as how she won, I'm thinking that keener legal minds than yours agreed that it was a violation of the first amendment.
You misunderstood the hate crimes part. I was joking about that. That's why I apologized. Why shouldn't they be mad about it being pulled down? There was no reason. You also failed to answer the question genius. HOW was it a violation of the constitution? The sign was anything but offensive. I doubt you even looked at it. If you did, and still thought it was against the constitution, I pity you. Tell me what you find so "offensive" about this evil piece of bigotry.
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS304&biw=1280&bih=899&tbm=isch&tbnid=T9eYogdC1pYHoM:&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085964/School-ordered-remove-religious-banner-tells-pupils-kind.html&docid=mFiFndSBq-tjrM&imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/12/article-2085964-0F70039C00000578-561_468x430.jpg&w=468&h=430&ei=m0IUT_jQNsX1ggek7eD8Aw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=316&sig=102105732015175175316&page=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=163&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=71&ty=79
Why SHOULD you be mad about it being pulled down? Do you really need a banner put up in a public place for you to remember to practice your own religion? Surely Christians can pray without banners? Also, you are free to hang prayer banners in your homes, in your church, in your vans (if you happen to own vans), any private property at all. Just not on public property (such as a public school) because that property does not belong to Christians alone, but belongs to all of us.
I don't find the banner particularly "offensive" (I'm thicker skinned than that) but it is COMPLETELY a violation of the first amendment.
First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In plain English, this means that the government (and government run institutions, such as public schools) cannot favor one belief system over another. Having the prayer banner favored male, monotheistic religions over those religions that are polytheistic and or worship a female deity, as well as those of us who do not worship a deity at all. As such, it violated the first amendment. And you don't have to take my word for it; you can read up on what the judge who ruled on the decision had to say about it. Again, keener legal minds than yours (or mine) decided it was unconstitutional.
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 04:46:06 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:38:51 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 04:26:47 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:09:56 PM
Alright, I think I got it figured out now. So here's my conclusion as a Christian: 1) The people who were ciber-bullying Jessica are 50% pricks, 50% justifiably angry. Jessica Ahlquist is a typical Atheist, and pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit. I deeply suspect that the founding fathers (who were mostly Christian) would have been fine with a simple prayer on a wall. I wanna' know how in the hell this thing violated anybody's first amendment rights?! She said it was "offensive" OK... how was it "offensive?" I thought Atheists were supposed to be "tolerant." Why do any of you give a shit about what a banner says? It wasn't dissing anyone. It actually had a good message on it. Jessica Ahlquist isn't a defender of the first amendment. She's a offender who should be jailed for "hate crimes." Sorry, I couldn't resist putting in the hate crimes part.
If no one should give a shit about what a banner says, then why are Christians (including you) so upset about it being taken down?
LOL about that "pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit." People just loooooove the Constitution until it gets in the way of their personal agenda, don't they?
Here's some Truth about the Founding Fathers - if they had really wanted this nation to be a Christian nation - they had their chance. But that's not what they did, huh? In fact, the very first line of the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights sets up the separation of church and state. Seems like they thought that was kind of important, like maybe it was first and foremost in their minds, seeing as how that's the very first thing they did.
She should be jailed for hate crimes? What "crime" did she commit exactly? Please point to where it says that it's against the law to file (and WIN!) a lawsuit? Think of this - seeing as how she won, I'm thinking that keener legal minds than yours agreed that it was a violation of the first amendment.
You misunderstood the hate crimes part. I was joking about that. That's why I apologized. Why shouldn't they be mad about it being pulled down? There was no reason. You also failed to answer the question genius. HOW was it a violation of the constitution? The sign was anything but offensive. I doubt you even looked at it. If you did, and still thought it was against the constitution, I pity you. Tell me what you find so "offensive" about this evil piece of bigotry.
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS304&biw=1280&bih=899&tbm=isch&tbnid=T9eYogdC1pYHoM:&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085964/School-ordered-remove-religious-banner-tells-pupils-kind.html&docid=mFiFndSBq-tjrM&imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/12/article-2085964-0F70039C00000578-561_468x430.jpg&w=468&h=430&ei=m0IUT_jQNsX1ggek7eD8Aw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=316&sig=102105732015175175316&page=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=163&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=71&ty=79
Why SHOULD you be mad about it being pulled down? Do you really need a banner put up in a public place for you to remember to practice your own religion? Surely Christians can pray without banners? Also, you are free to hang prayer banners in your homes, in your church, in your vans (if you happen to own vans), any private property at all. Just not on public property (such as a public school) because that property does not belong to Christians alone, but belongs to all of us.
I don't find the banner particularly "offensive" (I'm thicker skinned than that) but it is COMPLETELY a violation of the first amendment.
First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In plain English, this means that the government (and government run institutions, such as public schools) cannot favor one belief system over another. Having the prayer banner favored male, monotheistic religions over those religions that are polytheistic and or worship a female deity, as well as those of us who do not worship a deity at all. As such, it violated the first amendment. And you don't have to take my word for it; you can read up on what the judge who ruled on the decision had to say about it. Again, keener legal minds than yours (or mine) decided it was unconstitutional.
So she thought it should be taken down because it offended the Buddhists? I realize that it must of course be some horrible crime or summat to offend other people, but ya' know what? That's life. The reality is that Jessica is a hater of the Christian God and wanted it taken down on account of that. If it had been something about Hinduism or Atheism I doubt much would have happened.
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:54:38 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 04:46:06 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:38:51 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 04:26:47 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:09:56 PM
Alright, I think I got it figured out now. So here's my conclusion as a Christian: 1) The people who were ciber-bullying Jessica are 50% pricks, 50% justifiably angry. Jessica Ahlquist is a typical Atheist, and pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit. I deeply suspect that the founding fathers (who were mostly Christian) would have been fine with a simple prayer on a wall. I wanna' know how in the hell this thing violated anybody's first amendment rights?! She said it was "offensive" OK... how was it "offensive?" I thought Atheists were supposed to be "tolerant." Why do any of you give a shit about what a banner says? It wasn't dissing anyone. It actually had a good message on it. Jessica Ahlquist isn't a defender of the first amendment. She's a offender who should be jailed for "hate crimes." Sorry, I couldn't resist putting in the hate crimes part.
If no one should give a shit about what a banner says, then why are Christians (including you) so upset about it being taken down?
LOL about that "pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit." People just loooooove the Constitution until it gets in the way of their personal agenda, don't they?
Here's some Truth about the Founding Fathers - if they had really wanted this nation to be a Christian nation - they had their chance. But that's not what they did, huh? In fact, the very first line of the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights sets up the separation of church and state. Seems like they thought that was kind of important, like maybe it was first and foremost in their minds, seeing as how that's the very first thing they did.
She should be jailed for hate crimes? What "crime" did she commit exactly? Please point to where it says that it's against the law to file (and WIN!) a lawsuit? Think of this - seeing as how she won, I'm thinking that keener legal minds than yours agreed that it was a violation of the first amendment.
You misunderstood the hate crimes part. I was joking about that. That's why I apologized. Why shouldn't they be mad about it being pulled down? There was no reason. You also failed to answer the question genius. HOW was it a violation of the constitution? The sign was anything but offensive. I doubt you even looked at it. If you did, and still thought it was against the constitution, I pity you. Tell me what you find so "offensive" about this evil piece of bigotry.
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS304&biw=1280&bih=899&tbm=isch&tbnid=T9eYogdC1pYHoM:&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085964/School-ordered-remove-religious-banner-tells-pupils-kind.html&docid=mFiFndSBq-tjrM&imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/12/article-2085964-0F70039C00000578-561_468x430.jpg&w=468&h=430&ei=m0IUT_jQNsX1ggek7eD8Aw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=316&sig=102105732015175175316&page=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=163&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=71&ty=79
Why SHOULD you be mad about it being pulled down? Do you really need a banner put up in a public place for you to remember to practice your own religion? Surely Christians can pray without banners? Also, you are free to hang prayer banners in your homes, in your church, in your vans (if you happen to own vans), any private property at all. Just not on public property (such as a public school) because that property does not belong to Christians alone, but belongs to all of us.
I don't find the banner particularly "offensive" (I'm thicker skinned than that) but it is COMPLETELY a violation of the first amendment.
First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In plain English, this means that the government (and government run institutions, such as public schools) cannot favor one belief system over another. Having the prayer banner favored male, monotheistic religions over those religions that are polytheistic and or worship a female deity, as well as those of us who do not worship a deity at all. As such, it violated the first amendment. And you don't have to take my word for it; you can read up on what the judge who ruled on the decision had to say about it. Again, keener legal minds than yours (or mine) decided it was unconstitutional.
So she thought it should be taken down because it offended the Buddhists? I realize that it must of course be some horrible crime or summat to offend other people, but ya' know what? That's life. The reality is that Jessica is a hater of the Christian God and wanted it taken down on account of that. If it had been something about Hinduism or Atheism I doubt much would have happened.
She wanted it taken down because it had no place on the wall of a public building. Again, that pesky constitution, getting in the way of your personal agenda. Sucks, huh?
I think it's hysterical that you think that because she's a atheist she must hate the Christian god. Personally, I don't hate the Christian god. What's the point of hating something that doesn't exist? Do you hate unicorns?
I hate the tooth fairy with a passion.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 05:23:45 PM
I hate the tooth fairy with a passion.
Never understood the creature's tooth fetish... Is just weird :P
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 05:25:49 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 05:23:45 PM
I hate the tooth fairy with a passion.
Never understood the creature's tooth fetish... Is just weird :P
Aw come on Asmo, you know you would loot teeth if you found them ;)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 05:27:37 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 05:25:49 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 05:23:45 PM
I hate the tooth fairy with a passion.
Never understood the creature's tooth fetish... Is just weird :P
Aw come on Asmo, you know you would loot teeth if you found them ;)
Well, yes. Fake prosthetics can fetch some shiney coin on the interwebs ;D
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:54:38 PM
So she thought it should be taken down because it offended the Buddhists? I realize that it must of course be some horrible crime or summat to offend other people, but ya' know what? That's life. The reality is that Jessica is a hater of the Christian God and wanted it taken down on account of that.
It's amazing that you got "it offended Buddhists" out of that, since I saw "violates separation of church and state" written all over the place. If you go to her blog, that's also her primary concern, if not her only concern.
QuoteIf it had been something about Hinduism or Atheism I doubt much would have happened.
Oh, I think gentle, loving Xtains would have had a few things to say and do about it.
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 05:02:07 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:54:38 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 04:46:06 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:38:51 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 04:26:47 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:09:56 PM
Alright, I think I got it figured out now. So here's my conclusion as a Christian: 1) The people who were ciber-bullying Jessica are 50% pricks, 50% justifiably angry. Jessica Ahlquist is a typical Atheist, and pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit. I deeply suspect that the founding fathers (who were mostly Christian) would have been fine with a simple prayer on a wall. I wanna' know how in the hell this thing violated anybody's first amendment rights?! She said it was "offensive" OK... how was it "offensive?" I thought Atheists were supposed to be "tolerant." Why do any of you give a shit about what a banner says? It wasn't dissing anyone. It actually had a good message on it. Jessica Ahlquist isn't a defender of the first amendment. She's a offender who should be jailed for "hate crimes." Sorry, I couldn't resist putting in the hate crimes part.
If no one should give a shit about what a banner says, then why are Christians (including you) so upset about it being taken down?
LOL about that "pulled the ol' "It's against the constitution" shit." People just loooooove the Constitution until it gets in the way of their personal agenda, don't they?
Here's some Truth about the Founding Fathers - if they had really wanted this nation to be a Christian nation - they had their chance. But that's not what they did, huh? In fact, the very first line of the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights sets up the separation of church and state. Seems like they thought that was kind of important, like maybe it was first and foremost in their minds, seeing as how that's the very first thing they did.
She should be jailed for hate crimes? What "crime" did she commit exactly? Please point to where it says that it's against the law to file (and WIN!) a lawsuit? Think of this - seeing as how she won, I'm thinking that keener legal minds than yours agreed that it was a violation of the first amendment.
You misunderstood the hate crimes part. I was joking about that. That's why I apologized. Why shouldn't they be mad about it being pulled down? There was no reason. You also failed to answer the question genius. HOW was it a violation of the constitution? The sign was anything but offensive. I doubt you even looked at it. If you did, and still thought it was against the constitution, I pity you. Tell me what you find so "offensive" about this evil piece of bigotry.
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS304&biw=1280&bih=899&tbm=isch&tbnid=T9eYogdC1pYHoM:&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085964/School-ordered-remove-religious-banner-tells-pupils-kind.html&docid=mFiFndSBq-tjrM&imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/12/article-2085964-0F70039C00000578-561_468x430.jpg&w=468&h=430&ei=m0IUT_jQNsX1ggek7eD8Aw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=316&sig=102105732015175175316&page=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=163&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=71&ty=79
Why SHOULD you be mad about it being pulled down? Do you really need a banner put up in a public place for you to remember to practice your own religion? Surely Christians can pray without banners? Also, you are free to hang prayer banners in your homes, in your church, in your vans (if you happen to own vans), any private property at all. Just not on public property (such as a public school) because that property does not belong to Christians alone, but belongs to all of us.
I don't find the banner particularly "offensive" (I'm thicker skinned than that) but it is COMPLETELY a violation of the first amendment.
First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In plain English, this means that the government (and government run institutions, such as public schools) cannot favor one belief system over another. Having the prayer banner favored male, monotheistic religions over those religions that are polytheistic and or worship a female deity, as well as those of us who do not worship a deity at all. As such, it violated the first amendment. And you don't have to take my word for it; you can read up on what the judge who ruled on the decision had to say about it. Again, keener legal minds than yours (or mine) decided it was unconstitutional.
So she thought it should be taken down because it offended the Buddhists? I realize that it must of course be some horrible crime or summat to offend other people, but ya' know what? That's life. The reality is that Jessica is a hater of the Christian God and wanted it taken down on account of that. If it had been something about Hinduism or Atheism I doubt much would have happened.
She wanted it taken down because it had no place on the wall of a public building.
They used to say a prayer everyday in Public Schools. That's how it started out leastways. Now their so fricking PC that they've banned the pledge of allegiance in some schools (if not all) because it mentions "God"
QuoteDo you hate unicorns?
Yes
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 04:54:38 PM
So she thought it should be taken down because it offended the Buddhists? I realize that it must of course be some horrible crime or summat to offend other people, but ya' know what? That's life. The reality is that Jessica is a hater of the Christian God and wanted it taken down on account of that. If it had been something about Hinduism or Atheism I doubt much would have happened.
No Ransom, you still don't understand. She thought it should be taken down because having it up there implied that the school favored one religion or belief system over another, and that is what's inappropriate in a public school setting. This nation may be majority Christian, but it is not a Christian nation. The founders even explicitly said this was not a Christian nation in the Treaty of Tripoli (look it up if you don't believe me). Civil rights are not a popularity contest; they're about protecting the rights of the minority. That's the reason we have the constitution and the courts to uphold said rights even if they're not popular. If we had left everything up to popular opinion, then blacks and whites would probably still not be able to marry. In this particular case, that minority includes Atheists, Buddhists, and anyone else who does not believe in the Abrahamic version of a monotheistic god, of which there are plenty.
Let's be honest here: if there had been a specifically atheist or Buddhist banner up there, then someone else in the school would have probably protested that instead of her. And you know what? I would have been fine with that. The whole point is that matters of religion and faith should remain a private matter. If you believe in god, great. Just don't shove it in my face, especially when my tax dollars are paying for it.
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 05:41:33 PM
They used to say a prayer everyday in Public Schools. That's how it started out leastways. Now their so fricking PC that they've banned the pledge of allegiance in some schools (if not all) because it mentions "God" QuoteDo you hate unicorns?
Yes
Do you know how incredibly weak your religion sounds, if you believe that you NEED public schools to try to enforce it on our children? Like, if your kids won't pray unless the teacher makes them, it sounds to me like your kids just don't want to pray. Oh well.
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 05:41:33 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 05:02:07 PMDo you hate unicorns?
Yes
I do, they killed my parents. It was back in '62, before I was born. In the previous future, I became the leader of the Unicorn Meat Products Corp. so they sent a robot unicorn back in time to kill my parents before I was born. After that it starts to get very complicated. Because I was never born, they had to send a robot unicorn back to kill the parents of the new future president... which made me the future president of the company again... after a few hundred times, I just decided to not become a president of the company. Anyway, that's why I don't like them.
Well, I'll be taking a leaf out of her book when they start praying in Indiana schools. :-\
I assume putting it up in the first place cost some money.
And while it was up, I assume it required some sort of maintaining. Washing, sewing, whatever...
And where would the money for that come from. Tax payer money. Including the tax payer money of all the tax payers who do not believe in the abrahamic god.
Probably not a great deal of money, but it is the principle of the thing.....
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 05:50:30 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 05:41:33 PM
They used to say a prayer everyday in Public Schools. That's how it started out leastways. Now their so fricking PC that they've banned the pledge of allegiance in some schools (if not all) because it mentions "God" QuoteDo you hate unicorns?
Yes
Do you know how incredibly weak your religion sounds, if you believe that you NEED public schools to try to enforce it on our children? Like, if your kids won't pray unless the teacher makes them, it sounds to me like your kids just don't want to pray. Oh well.
Do you know how incredibly weak your... uh... (is atheism a religion?) sounds, if you believe that you can't even have the American pledge of Allegiance just because it mentions a God? Let's ban
There's a wocket in my pocket by Dr. Seuss since it mentions something that even though it doesn't exist, the book assumes that people who don't believe in wockets are wrong.
I think this guy is a POE.
I mean there's just no way! ;D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 08:15:54 PM
I think this guy is a POE.
I mean there's just no way! ;D
I'm sorry, but I don't quite know the definition of a POE. Could you enlighten? Thanks.
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 05:41:33 PMThey used to say a prayer everyday in Public Schools. That's how it started out leastways. Now their so fricking PC that they've banned the pledge of allegiance in some schools (if not all) because it mentions "God"
In which schools have they banned the Pledge of Allegiance,
Ransom? I don't want to hear about "a school in Massachusetts." There was a decision in Massachusetts to no longer make it mandatory for students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and there was a (NO) vote on an article which had been proposed which would have banned the Pledge of Allegiance late last year (http://brookline.patch.com/articles/town-meeting-upholds-school-committee-pledge-of-allegiance-policy), but I am unaware of any public school district in the US which has actually banned the Pledge of Allegiance. If you know of any, then I would appreciate it if you would provide a citation from a reputable source to back up your assertion.
Feel free to ignore this post, just as you have my earlier post in this thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9134.msg146684#msg146684). Doing so is evidence that you're not here for honest dialog.
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 16, 2012, 08:05:32 PM
Probably not a great deal of money, but it is the principle of the thing.....
This is one of those cases when it really is the principle of the thing. No publickly funded organization should appear to favor any religion over another, and I'd prefer if they just step out of the religion business altogether by not putting up any religious displays. No point in giving theocracy even the slightest toe-hold, and whatever worship the kids need to do can be done on their own time and/or at home.
And that's one thing I've always wondered when Xtian parents (and it is mainly Xtians) complain about kids not praying in school -- don't they pray at home with their parents and isn't that enough? And why does every kid at the school need to be compelled to follow Xtian religious practices while on campus? If prayer needs that much peer reinforcement I think the problem is in the religious home, not the public school.
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 08:10:40 PM
Do you know how incredibly weak your... uh... (is atheism a religion?) sounds, if you believe that you can't even have the American pledge of Allegiance just because it mentions a God?
I'm all for the Pledge of Allegiance, I just prefer the original one that doesn't mention "under god" -- wording that was added in 1954 as part of the national disgrace of the communist witch hunts.
QuoteLet's ban There's a wocket in my pocket by Dr. Seuss since it mentions something that even though it doesn't exist, the book assumes that people who don't believe in wockets are wrong.
Do you truly not understand that the separation of church and state does not involve separation of church and society?
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 08:20:13 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 08:15:54 PM
I think this guy is a POE.
I mean there's just no way! ;D
I'm sorry, but I don't quite know the definition of a POE. Could you enlighten? Thanks.
Poe's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 08:10:40 PM
Do you know how incredibly weak your... uh... (is atheism a religion?) sounds, if you believe that you can't even have the American pledge of Allegiance just because it mentions a God? Let's ban There's a wocket in my pocket by Dr. Seuss since it mentions something that even though it doesn't exist, the book assumes that people who don't believe in wockets are wrong.
LOL!!! You're silly. I am not opposed to anyone saying anything at all that they want in a book. What someone writes in a book and what they post in a public space that belongs to all of us are two completely different issues.
The Pledge of Allegiance doesn't threaten my atheism, I just don't believe that it's the government's place to show preference for one belief system over another. I don't want the pledge to say "One nation, under NO god." I just want them to leave god out of it all together so that we can all be equal.
Try and imagine that the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine that atheists were the majority in this country, and we wanted to hang signs that say "There is no god" all over public buildings, and make believers say "One nation, with no god" if they want to pledge allegiance to their country. Would that be constitutional? Or would you feel that we should hang our "There is no God" signs in our own houses and say "There is no god" on our own time?
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 08:46:25 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 08:10:40 PM
Do you know how incredibly weak your... uh... (is atheism a religion?) sounds, if you believe that you can't even have the American pledge of Allegiance just because it mentions a God? Let's ban There's a wocket in my pocket by Dr. Seuss since it mentions something that even though it doesn't exist, the book assumes that people who don't believe in wockets are wrong.
LOL!!! You're silly. I am not opposed to anyone saying anything at all that they want in a book. What someone writes in a book and what they post in a public space that belongs to all of us are two completely different issues.
The Pledge of Allegiance doesn't threaten my atheism, I just don't believe that it's the government's place to show preference for one belief system over another. I don't want the pledge to say "One nation, under NO god." I just want them to leave god out of it all together so that we can all be equal.
Try and imagine that the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine that atheists were the majority in this country, and we wanted to hang signs that say "There is no god" all over public buildings, and make believers say "One nation, with no god" if they want to pledge allegiance to their country. Would that be constitutional? Or would you feel that we should hang our "There is no God" signs in our own houses and say "There is no god" on our own time?
It wouldn't matter anyway. The way things are today, you could more than likely get away with it.
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 08:10:40 PM
Do you know how incredibly weak your... uh... (is atheism a religion?) sounds, if you believe that you can't even have the American pledge of Allegiance just because it mentions a God? Let's ban There's a wocket in my pocket by Dr. Seuss since it mentions something that even though it doesn't exist, the book assumes that people who don't believe in wockets are wrong.
Would you be willing to pledge one nation under Satan? I doubt it. I'm sure you'd put up a pretty big fuss if all schools were reciting that pledge in the morning.
The REAL pledge doesn't even mention God...god was added in the 50s during the red scare.
Not to mention that I'm unaware of any school that has banned saying the pledge...it's just not legally permissible to force students to recite it.
If schools start forcing kids to recite Dr. Seuss despite religious objection then we can discuss it...otherwise that's just a red herring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 09:30:58 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 08:46:25 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 08:10:40 PM
Do you know how incredibly weak your... uh... (is atheism a religion?) sounds, if you believe that you can't even have the American pledge of Allegiance just because it mentions a God? Let's ban There's a wocket in my pocket by Dr. Seuss since it mentions something that even though it doesn't exist, the book assumes that people who don't believe in wockets are wrong.
LOL!!! You're silly. I am not opposed to anyone saying anything at all that they want in a book. What someone writes in a book and what they post in a public space that belongs to all of us are two completely different issues.
The Pledge of Allegiance doesn't threaten my atheism, I just don't believe that it's the government's place to show preference for one belief system over another. I don't want the pledge to say "One nation, under NO god." I just want them to leave god out of it all together so that we can all be equal.
Try and imagine that the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine that atheists were the majority in this country, and we wanted to hang signs that say "There is no god" all over public buildings, and make believers say "One nation, with no god" if they want to pledge allegiance to their country. Would that be constitutional? Or would you feel that we should hang our "There is no God" signs in our own houses and say "There is no god" on our own time?
It wouldn't matter anyway. The way things are today, you could more than likely get away with it.
I'll take that to mean that you concede that it wouldn't be constitutional or right if it were the other way around (after all "getting away with it" implies that you are doing something wrong.) Nice doing business with you!
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 09:30:58 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 08:46:25 PM
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 08:10:40 PM
Do you know how incredibly weak your... uh... (is atheism a religion?) sounds, if you believe that you can't even have the American pledge of Allegiance just because it mentions a God? Let's ban There's a wocket in my pocket by Dr. Seuss since it mentions something that even though it doesn't exist, the book assumes that people who don't believe in wockets are wrong.
LOL!!! You're silly. I am not opposed to anyone saying anything at all that they want in a book. What someone writes in a book and what they post in a public space that belongs to all of us are two completely different issues.
The Pledge of Allegiance doesn't threaten my atheism, I just don't believe that it's the government's place to show preference for one belief system over another. I don't want the pledge to say "One nation, under NO god." I just want them to leave god out of it all together so that we can all be equal.
Try and imagine that the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine that atheists were the majority in this country, and we wanted to hang signs that say "There is no god" all over public buildings, and make believers say "One nation, with no god" if they want to pledge allegiance to their country. Would that be constitutional? Or would you feel that we should hang our "There is no God" signs in our own houses and say "There is no god" on our own time?
It wouldn't matter anyway. The way things are today, you could more than likely get away with it.
If that's the best you can come back with it illustrates your incapability to rationally support your position.
Quote from: Ransom on January 16, 2012, 09:30:58 PM
The way things are today...
I don't understand why you say this like you don't already have things your way, the nation is predominately undereducated (read Christian) so you get laws your way, you get to discriminate freely without being chastised by your peers and you get to be complete dick because your Savior has already and will always absolve your dickish sinful nature.
So it sounds like the world is your oyster... why do you flag your post with such disdain for people whom merely want the freedom you already have, do we not all deserve freedom?
o_O
Now people who really should know better demonstrate their sickening religion fulled bigotry.
R.I. State Rep calls teen atheist 'evil little thing' - secular America responds (http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-national/r-i-state-rep-calls-teen-atheist-evil-little-thing-secular-america-responds)
QuoteIn what many find to be an open display of bigotry, Rhode Island State Representative Peter Palumbo recently referred to teen atheist Jessica Ahlquist as "an evil little thing."
In addition to calling Ahlquist an "evil little thing," Palumbo also made the claim that "she (Ahlquist) is being coerced by evil people;" the implication being that atheists and other secular Americans are "evil."
Palumbo made his offensive and insulting remarks late last week on the John DePetro Radio Show, a Rhode Island talk radio program.
Palumbo's wholesale slander of an entire community is being challenged by atheists, freethinkers and other secular Americans. This weekend an intense campaign of protest began to register complaint and disgust with Palumbo's derogatory and disrespectful remarks...
Quote from: Tank on January 16, 2012, 11:23:27 PM
Now people who really should know better demonstrate their sickening religion fulled bigotry.
R.I. State Rep calls teen atheist 'evil little thing' - secular America responds (http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-national/r-i-state-rep-calls-teen-atheist-evil-little-thing-secular-america-responds)
QuoteIn what many find to be an open display of bigotry, Rhode Island State Representative Peter Palumbo recently referred to teen atheist Jessica Ahlquist as "an evil little thing."
In addition to calling Ahlquist an "evil little thing," Palumbo also made the claim that "she (Ahlquist) is being coerced by evil people;" the implication being that atheists and other secular Americans are "evil."
Palumbo made his offensive and insulting remarks late last week on the John DePetro Radio Show, a Rhode Island talk radio program.
Palumbo's wholesale slander of an entire community is being challenged by atheists, freethinkers and other secular Americans. This weekend an intense campaign of protest began to register complaint and disgust with Palumbo's derogatory and disrespectful remarks...
Wow, and people wonder why groups of people other than Christians are starting to fight for things >_>
Quote from: superfes on January 16, 2012, 11:34:31 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 16, 2012, 11:23:27 PM
Now people who really should know better demonstrate their sickening religion fulled bigotry.
R.I. State Rep calls teen atheist 'evil little thing' - secular America responds (http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-national/r-i-state-rep-calls-teen-atheist-evil-little-thing-secular-america-responds)
QuoteIn what many find to be an open display of bigotry, Rhode Island State Representative Peter Palumbo recently referred to teen atheist Jessica Ahlquist as "an evil little thing."
In addition to calling Ahlquist an "evil little thing," Palumbo also made the claim that "she (Ahlquist) is being coerced by evil people;" the implication being that atheists and other secular Americans are "evil."
Palumbo made his offensive and insulting remarks late last week on the John DePetro Radio Show, a Rhode Island talk radio program.
Palumbo's wholesale slander of an entire community is being challenged by atheists, freethinkers and other secular Americans. This weekend an intense campaign of protest began to register complaint and disgust with Palumbo's derogatory and disrespectful remarks...
Wow, and people wonder why groups of people other than Christians are starting to fight for things >_>
They don't want their right to discriminate and remain unchallenged taken away from them. They absolutley hate it when the abuse they spew out is turned on them. Of course. ::)
The way I see it, some people should really grow some thicker skins.
Jessica Ahlquist is incredibly brave because she stands up to people like those Christians who find it so easy to make those kind of remarks. Moral courage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_courage), you know.
I wrote Rep. Palumbo a short little note to tell him what I think of state representatives who think that upholding the US Constitution is "evil." I hope he gets absolutely inundated with little notes like that.... ;)
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 12:12:44 AM
I wrote Rep. Palumbo a short little note to tell him what I think of state representatives who think that upholding the US Constitution is "evil." I hope he gets absolutely inundated with little notes like that.... ;)
Maybe someone should set up a web site that facilitates this sort of action... o_O
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 11:56:17 PM
The way I see it, some people should really grow some thicker skins.
Or better still some mutual respect and manners.
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 12:12:44 AM
I wrote Rep. Palumbo a short little note to tell him what I think of state representatives who think that upholding the US Constitution is "evil." I hope he gets absolutely inundated with little notes like that.... ;)
Good for you!
Evil Little Thing now has a YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc-ROXgCuxE
Quote from: Tank on January 17, 2012, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 11:56:17 PM
The way I see it, some people should really grow some thicker skins.
Or better still some mutual respect and manners.
That too ;D