It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)This makes me so angry.(169 posts)(169 posts)
(169 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 06, 2012
I think comparing her to Rosa Parks is an unbelievably poor and unfair analogy. I don't disagree that the school was doing something illegal. I don't disagree that she stood up for what she believed in. I don't disagree that the religious people ridiculing her now are being jerks. I DO disagree that she is a victim. She brought this on herself. I will say it again: Common sense! She just out of the blue decided to take action against something that had been there long before she was born, and will probably be there in a school storage room long after she dies. It had never hurt or offended anyone, and if it had, they did the smart thing and let it go. If the school suddenly decided to hold a prayer rally, or put up a huge cross in the foyer, or poster the ten commandments all over the walls, then yes, that is grounds for legal action. But context is everything, and this context is not in her favor. There might be other circumstances the article doesn't mention, but as it reads, I believe she made a poor decision.

And before you start quoting the law again, think: would you really put your family and the town in this much distress because of a fucking banner? I mean, do people even think for themselves anymore or do they just hide behind the constitution?

If you are so adamant to state that atheism is in no way a religion or a form of religious expression, then why does she get "religious freedom?" Shouldn't she have a religion for the first amendment to apply in this situation?
Post edited February 06, 2012 by TCMU2009
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: You're blaming someone for standing up to a bunch of bullies who actually were in the wrong and then have the gall to accuse me of not being open minded? Well pot, meet kettle it looks like we're both birds of a feather, then. The city chose to defend a case that when they knew they were wrong, they thought they could shut up a weak person by punching her enough times. She stood up to it, good for her!
This, thousand times over.

On the one hand, I agree that the girl is in the wrong for having taken up the issue so heavily in the first place. The prayer banner is unconstitutional, yes, but there was noone forcing her to look at it. It's not like she was being forced to engage in prayer sessions against her will or banned from practising her religion. She was certainly legally in the right, but whether she was morally in the right is questionable (and yes, I am an atheist, but I respect the beliefs of others in the same way I expect my beliefs to be respected).

On the other hand though, as soon as the school board and District of Rhode Island decided to try and bully her into submission, effectively ridiculing her for her beliefs, she was automatically put morally in the right as well. When Rhode Island decided to start fighting a hopeless case knowing that they were in the wrong just to make a point, the girl's fight suddenly became less about a mural on a wall and more about the right of every person to uphold the letter of the law.

So while I condemn her motivations for getting involved in this in the first place - it was doubtless little more than an excuse to rage against religion - I do applaud her for seeing the issue through.

I personally get pissed off with hearing about how some of these fundamentalists in the US seem to think that they are somehow above the law and above all criticism by virtue of their being Christian. This School Board thought that they could suddenly twist the law to their own making because they are Christian and because "most of the US" are Christians.

I know there are plenty of ultra-orthodox Jews, ultra-fundamentalist Muslims and ultra-fanatical atheists (i.e. this girl) that are just as bad.

As for those florists - what a pair of whiny fuckers. Didn't even have the guts to say what was really on their minds (something along the lines "I'm not delivering to that devil-worshiping godless whore").
Post edited February 06, 2012 by jamyskis
Posted February 06, 2012
Hello,

i feel compassionate about this teenager girl. People are making fun of me all the time, because I belief in the Emperor.

But confuzianism, buddism, hindi, islam, atheism, christian religion, they are all sides of the same coin. About humanity being in shock and awe about its existence, trying to desperately find a place in the universe, instead of conquering it.

Posting this article is just another try to make fun out of the girl. She is 16 years old and fighting for her place in life. That takes a lot of guts. And It is the right of the young generation to question all rules and to change life for the better. She is only doing her job. And dear OP what do you belief in life? Are you religious, are you existentialist, are you atheistic? Should we start discussing your beliefs? Or your incentive to post this here?

'Have a nice day

The Emperor protects.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by torqual76
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
jamyskis: This, thousand times over.

On the one hand, I agree that the girl is in the wrong for having taken up the issue so heavily in the first place. The prayer banner is unconstitutional, yes, but there was noone forcing her to look at it. It's not like she was being forced to engage in prayer sessions against her will or banned from practising her religion. She was certainly legally in the right, but whether she was morally in the right is questionable (and yes, I am an atheist, but I respect the beliefs of others in the same way I expect my beliefs to be respected).

On the other hand though, as soon as the school board and District of Rhode Island decided to try and bully her into submission, effectively ridiculing her for her beliefs, she was automatically put morally in the right as well. When Rhode Island decided to start fighting a hopeless case knowing that they were in the wrong just to make a point, the girl's fight suddenly became less about a mural on a wall and more about the right of every person to uphold the letter of the law.

So while I condemn her motivations for getting involved in this in the first place - it was doubtless little more than an excuse to rage against religion - I do applaud her for seeing the issue through.

I personally get pissed off with hearing about how some of these fundamentalists in the US seem to think that they are somehow above the law and above all criticism by virtue of their being Christian. This School Board thought that they could suddenly twist the law to their own making because they are Christian and because "most of the US" are Christians.

I know there are plenty of ultra-orthodox Jews, ultra-fundamentalist Muslims and ultra-fanatical atheists (i.e. this girl) that are just as bad.

As for those florists - what a pair of whiny fuckers. Didn't even have the guts to say what was really on their minds (something along the lines "I'm not delivering to that devil-worshiping godless whore").
I agree. Christians have no right to persecute anyone else for different beliefs, and unfortunately they do that. So in the context of the past hundred years or so of American history, I suppose she did have a moral reason. But just looking at that school's history with that banner, I don't think there was any reason for this overreaction. She's either an idiot, a fanatical atheist, or just a typical, self possessed 16 year old. My God, I didn't even see the part about the florists. That's ridiculous.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by TCMU2009
Posted February 06, 2012
what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Money has nothing to do with it, except for the slant the paper is using to muddy the situation. How many other minority arguements have cost cities money without the "oh, the cost.." outcry?

She's quite right.. and as for the cost to the city, if it wasn't her fight costing the tax payer, it would be someone elses.

At least atheism wins this time, THAT'S the big news here.
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
TCMU2009: I agree. Christians have no right to persecute anyone else for different beliefs, and unfortunately they do that. So in the context of the past hundred years or so of American history, I suppose she did have a moral reason. But just looking at that school's history with that banner, I don't think there was any reason for this overreaction. She's either an idiot, a fanatical atheist, or just a typical, self possessed 16 year old. My God, I didn't even see the part about the florists. That's ridiculous.
There was a compromise available. The school had the option of modifying the wording of the banner, so that the *message* it expressed remained, but the religious overtones were removed.

The school refused to do this,

And it may not be over. The school board meets on the 16th of the month to decide whether to appeal the court ruling. If they do appeal, and lose, the situation may deteriorate further.
Posted February 06, 2012
While I think the girl's action was somewhat over-the-top, it doesn't really make me mad. From my point of view, this whole ordeal has served its purpose of reminding people that there's a wall of separation between church and state, and it's still in place. It's good to keep these things in check from time to time.
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
Kezardin: There was a compromise available. The school had the option of modifying the wording of the banner, so that the *message* it expressed remained, but the religious overtones were removed.

The school refused to do this,
The banner was put up in 1963 and this is the first formal complaint about its presence. What do you consider an appropriate cut-off point beyond which things are considered historical items and not to be tampered with, regardless of current views on the subject matter?

To give you an example, last year a publisher released a new edition of Huckleberry Finn (a book first published in 1884) with all of its many uses of "nigger" replaced with "slave". This was done to bring the material into line with the current practise of avoiding using this term, but was this the correct thing to do?
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
Arkose: The banner was put up in 1963 and this is the first formal complaint about its presence. What do you consider an appropriate cut-off point beyond which things are considered historical items and not to be tampered with, regardless of current views on the subject matter?
I just threw up a little in my mouth thinking of the Declaration of Independence being edited or burned because it refers to "God" and "Creator".

avatar
Arkose: To give you an example, last year a publisher released a new edition of Huckleberry Finn (a book first published in 1884) with all of its many uses of "nigger" replaced with "slave". This was done to bring the material into line with the current practise of avoiding using this term, but was this the correct thing to do?
That is just fucking sad.
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
TCMU2009: Listen, we've been having a very mature and open minded discussion about religions and beliefs tonight, and I really don't appreciate you coming in here and typing hateful, anti religious bias aimed at anyone not explicitly in agreement with you. I agree that, according to the law, this girl every "right" to do what she did. But I maintain that she acted stupidly and selfishly, and ended up making a huge mess for everyone. The city has to pay exorbitant legal fees, and she will most likely be ridiculed and bullied until she graduates. It's a no win situation that could have easily been avoided. Now, you clearly have some issues with religion that you need to sort out elsewhere, so if you won't post anything to add to the discussion, please don't post anything at all.
It takes 2. The situation wouldn't have escalated if either side had backed down. Why are you insisting that the girl should have been the one to do so? Because her view is in opposition to yours?

When I first read this thread I thought you were overreacting, but not biased. I see that I was wrong about the latter.

By the way, I think you have every right to be peeved by this if you are a religious person. And you could have outright said so. But you choose instead to hide behind a veil of moral superiority and launch personal attacks on this girl. That's quite a nasty thing to do imo.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by maycett
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
Arkose: The banner was put up in 1963 and this is the first formal complaint about its presence. What do you consider an appropriate cut-off point beyond which things are considered historical items and not to be tampered with, regardless of current views on the subject matter?
There was reportedly a complaint about the banner from an 'unnamed parent' in july 2010.

The banner was put up *after* the supreme court ruled school prayers unconstitutional, so the school had the opportunity to modify it before it was displayed..

avatar
Arkose: To give you an example, last year a publisher released a new edition of Huckleberry Finn (a book first published in 1884) with all of its many uses of "nigger" replaced with "slave". This was done to bring the material into line with the current practise of avoiding using this term, but was this the correct thing to do?
There are a number of Warner Bros cartoons known as the Censored Eleven that haven't been broadcast for many years for similar reasons.

What's 'correct' can be a thorny issue these days.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by Kezardin
Posted February 06, 2012
Lot of vitriol against this kid. Keyword being that last one. She's an idealistic teenage girl. I'm finding it hard to feel any sympathy for the school, or the people bullying her or vilifying her, or those imply that somehow she should shoulder sort of responsibility. She's 16 years old for crying out loud. If you're trying to pawn off blame in equal parts and one side is a governing body and the other is 16, perhaps it's time to rethink some things.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by Sinizine
Posted February 06, 2012
Being an agnostic myself, I don't have anything for or against religious statements at school, as long as they aren't forced on people or advocate one kind of believe at the cost of others.

I tend to look at the message beyond the religious aspects. As such, I think that the message on the prayer banner was positive, constructive, and useful. I therefore wouldn't have gone against it - if one cares about religious freedom, then there are much more worthwhile fights to spend one's time and resources on, imho.

Nevertheless, I do understand her objection. What I don't understand is why the town spent so much money trying to fight an unwinnable case. I can understand why the school wants to keep the mural, as well as I can understand the girl's wish to have it removed or changed - neither of the two sides is "evil", they just have different views and goals. But for such situations, when views and goals clash, society has laws, and in this case the law is clearly on the side of the girl - which the town should have known and accepted, even if they didn't like it.

I see absolutely no justification for the people who now ridicule or harass her. She's not a hero, but she's not a villain either. She took issue (perhaps too much) in a minor thing and didn't back down when it got blown out of proportion, that's all. However, _if_ she's now being attacked for doing that, then that's an indication that there may indeed have been more to the banner than its positive message. And it that case it was right to remove it, and actually even right to fight for its removal.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by Psyringe
Posted February 06, 2012
You go, girl!

It's sad that people get upset when someone are trying to fight the good fight, but hey. That's what you can expect when religion is involved.
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
TCMU2009: http://news.yahoo.com/teen-atheist-aclu-led-fight-against-prayer-mural-164416427.html

I can't believe how stupid this girl is. Not for being an Atheist, she can believe what she wants. But I'm astounded that she is so freaking sensitive and self entitled that she costs this small town a ton of money when the economy is this way. She says she's doing it for "constitutional rights." She deserves every bit of ridicule she gets. She's no better than the ignorant "Christians" who are campaigning for JC Penny to get rid of Ellen Degeneres on moral grounds. Some people are just so infuriating.
The legal system is screwed if it can end up in such large costs. Also the constitution is there for everybody. Everybody must be able to claim their rights. This is not really an abuse of the power of the constitution, is it?
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)This makes me so angry.(169 posts)(169 posts)
(169 posts)