Atheist intolerance?

[Nakosis]

Yeah. And Rosa Parks harrassed the Montgomery City Fathers.

Back in the late 40s a white man married a black woman and they were forced to leave their state. They harrassed the heck out of officialdom... all the way to the Supreme Court.

So I'm glad that our atheist friend is harrassing the supervisory board. Evildoers should be harrassed, don't you agree?

I wouldn't exactly call them evildoers. Maybe people with conflicting agendas. And, I'll admit, her actions have gotten people to re-examine their own bigotry. I expected the Church leadership to be less tolerant. I guess I'm glad I was wrong about them.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Ok, then just a difference of opinion.

Nothing objectionable to me. I bash Christians sometimes. I guess I don't see a prayer on the wall as anything significant enough to cause the animosity that has been caused. I think she's cause more problems for herself then benefited from it's removal. But I also suspect she enjoys it.

"Bashing Christians".

But here's the thing: she didn't cause the animosity. It was their choice to react the way they did. Did she expect some animosity? Probably. But it doesn't change the fact that it was their choice to behave in an unChristianlike manner in response.

 

[Antiochian]

I support Jessica 100%, and I'm not an atheist.

Funny that the people who are angry the prayer is being removed didn't even notice it before. It was obviously not important to the Christian students up to that point.

That prayer doesn't belong in a public school any more than a prayer to Isis or to Ahura Mazda would belong there.

And people can say this is a Christian country all they want, and I'd disagree with that. The point is, not all in this country are Christian.

 

[K.Venugopal]

If Cranston High School puts up different banners supporting, say, its basketball team:

"Good wishes to Cranston High"

"Bless Cranston High"

"Pray for Cranston High"

Would all the banners be seen as violation of church-state separation law or only the last two because of the words "bless" and "pray"? Or would it be considered that none of the banners violate the law? Maybe a judgement ought to be on the basis of the spirit and not the word.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If Cranston High School puts up different banners supporting, say, its basketball team:

"Good wishes to Cranston High"

"Bless Cranston High"

"Pray for Cranston High"

Would all the banners be seen as violation of church-state separation law or only the last two because of the words "bless" and "pray"? Or would it be considered that none of the banners violate the law? Maybe a judgement ought to be on the basis of the spirit and not the word.

In the current political climate, I would see the spirit behind the last two as attempts to affiliate the school with a particular set of religious beliefs. They woukd be objectionable both in the spirit and the letter of the law.

 

[waitasec]

If Cranston High School puts up different banners supporting, say, its basketball team:

"Good wishes to Cranston High"

"Bless Cranston High"

"Pray for Cranston High"

Would all the banners be seen as violation of church-state separation law or only the last two because of the words "bless" and "pray"? Or would it be considered that none of the banners violate the law? Maybe a judgement ought to be on the basis of the spirit and not the word.

the spirit of the words are
bless suggests being shown favoritism from god...sorry tebow
praying suggest seeking favoritism from god...sorry tebow
:sorry1: had to do it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I wouldn't exactly call them evildoers. Maybe people with conflicting agendas.

Yeah, that was just a bit of fun hyperbole.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, that was just a bit of fun hyperbole.

Yes, I know. I'm having a bit of fun with this too, if you couldn't tell.

 

[Nakosis]

But here's the thing: she didn't cause the animosity. It was their choice to react the way they did. Did she expect some animosity? Probably. But it doesn't change the fact that it was their choice to behave in an unChristianlike manner in response.

Well I think she did cause it and she expected it. She wanted to make a point.

I expected it too, which is why I at first thought this would only cause a lager gap between the Christian/Atheist groups. I'm more the type who'd look to setting aside differences.

So from that POV I didn't see any real benefit in her action. However I now think I was wrong in that. There seems to be more tolerance from the Christian community then I expected. So while maybe they don't agree with her actions, they agree with her rights to take action.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Well I think she did cause it and she expected it. She wanted to make a point.

Yes, she expected animosity but no, she didn't cause it. That's not how human interplay works. If someone spits in your face, you have the option to strike back or to forgive. Saying she caused the animosity and the ensuing uproar would suggest that those who reacted negatively couldn't have reacted any other way and it also suggests that everyone in favor of leaving the banner up would have reacted negatively. If that were the case then we can just chuck the whole idea of forgiveness, tolerance and what-would-Jesus-do? out the window since we would be incapable of forgiveness anyway.

But as you noted yourself, some of them were more forgiving and dismissive about the whole thing which can mean only one thing; the ones who reacted negatively were not caused to do so, they chose to do so.

I understand where you're coming from though. It was a given that there was going to be some negative reactions over this. But it was only a given in that human behavior is predictable.

 

[Falvlun]

The prayer, written by a student of the same school, reads as follows:

Our Heavenly Father,

Grant us each day the desire to do our best,
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically,
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers,
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others,
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win,
Teach us the value of true friendship,
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

Amen

It's a lovely sentiment, though I doubt it would be so cherished if it had read Dear Vishnu, or Earth Mother, or Allah.

Why not just reword it so it doesn't ask a deity for these things, but honors those values in and of themselves?

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

It's a lovely sentiment, though I doubt it would be so cherished if it had read Dear Vishnu, or Earth Mother, or Allah.

Why not just reword it so it doesn't ask a deity for these things, but honors those values in and of themselves?

Because we're in America, not India, Druidia, or Saudi Arabia.

 

[Falvlun]

Because we're in America, not India, Druidia, or Saudi Arabia.

Last I checked, Americans don't all belong to the same religion.

 

[Willamena]

Because we're in America, not India, Druidia, or Saudi Arabia.

I choked on my water.

 

[cablescavenger]

I find your equating a legal argument for the removal of a banner with threats of violence and bullying more than a little distasteful. Whatever the rights and wrongs of her campaign, the is absolutely no excuse for any form of violence.

There is certainly an argument of tolerance on an "is it worth the bother" basis and personally, the answer would almost certainly be no. For this particular girl though, the answer was yes and I can somewhat understand her position too.

I think the fundamental legal position is fairly clear. It's ridiculous to suggest the banner isn't religious just because it doesn't quite scripture and it was donated to the school by the student (many decades ago) so it is now clearly the school displaying it.

This is really a nothing case in itself but is just one example of a fundamental contraction in the American psyche which talks about equality, freedom and secularism while in practice strongly favours Christianity and, to a lesser extent, Judaism.

Sorry, who are you speaking to? it isn't clear, but I think you might mean me.

If it is me, then I maybe haven't made myself clear. I am firmly supporting Jessica, and totally against the idiots picking on her. I am saying she was quite within her rights to have it removed, and the school should have done it before this happened.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because we're in America, not India, Druidia, or Saudi Arabia.

Well, if you want something American, there are plenty of Native American belief systems that could be used.

Or Scientology - it was actually created in the United States, unlike some Middle Eastern religions I could mention.

 

[Nakosis]

It's a lovely sentiment, though I doubt it would be so cherished if it had read Dear Vishnu, or Earth Mother, or Allah.

Why not just reword it so it doesn't ask a deity for these things, but honors those values in and of themselves?

Because many people need/want to believe in a higher power to assist them.

Why honor/value these things if there's no "spiritual" authority to value these things in us.

Why grow morally or be helpful or be honest with others. Why care about being a true friend.

Why not go through life becoming materialistic and getting out of life whatever you can get away with? Sometimes people need a father figure to try to impress/please to motivate them to be better individuals. Take that away and don't replace it with anything then what is the motivation.

 

[Me Myself]

Sounds to me like the prayer banner is painted on school property, and therefore the upkeep of this banner is probably paid for by the school (murals have to be repainted). Or it may be cloth, but if so, it's bound to be pretty tattered by now, since it's from 1963.

I guess my question would be this: What would the reaction of the parents, other students, or the public in that area be if there was a Shinto or a Muslim prayer hanging there and maintained by the school?

That's always the question I ask, because the people protesting the policy (or in this case, the people angry at the girl) are demanding tolerance for differing beliefs. If they are going to demand tolerance, they damn sure better BE tolerant.

Exactly!

 

[Falvlun]

Because many people need/want to believe in a higher power to assist them.

Why honor/value these things if there's no "spiritual" authority to value these things in us.

Why grow morally or be helpful or be honest with others. Why care about being a true friend.

Why not go through life becoming materialistic and getting out of life whatever you can get away with? Sometimes people need a father figure to try to impress/please to motivate them to be better individuals. Take that away and don't replace it with anything then what is the motivation.

I can't tell whether you are being serious or playing devil's advocate.

Actually, I thought that was actually one of the problems with the original banner: It makes those virtues something that God has to give you, rather than something you need to cultivate on your own.

If motivation is needed, then society itself should reinforce them: You'll go further and likely have a happier life if you are a kind person, attend to your studies, develop friendships, etc. And nobody likes sore losers or sore winners, and many sports have rules against poor sportsmanship. How's that not motivation?

And if you are of the religious bent, and feel that God's blessing and aid is necessary for you to obtain those things, then nobody is stopping you from praying for them yourself.

 

[Nakosis]

I understand where you're coming from though. It was a given that there was going to be some negative reactions over this. But it was only a given in that human behavior is predictable.

Yes, ask me about freewill.

I guess I find people so predictable that I take full responsibility for how they react to me. If I spat in someone's face and they hit me, I would blame myself.

If they didn't hit me I'd be impress by their ability to analyze the situation. People who think instead of react. While I suppose you think this is common for humans to be able to do this, I find in a majority of people I deal with this not to be true.

So maybe I'm crediting her with more intelligence then I should and expecting less analytical capability from the Christians then I should have.

Actually it's not intelligence, it's wisdom. She's young so I'm sure she will become wiser when she gets older. I'm actually seeing more wisdom from the Christian leadership then I expected.

The people who threaten her, that's what I expected. That's how I expected most people to react. That's why I didn't see her actions as a good idea.