Faith

Teen Atheist Behind Prayer Mural Ban Addresses Critics: ‘I’m Defending Their Constitution Too’

Sometimes, activism comes with a price. This is a lesson that Jessica Ahlquist, the 16-year-old girl behind the ban on a prayer mural at Cranston High School West in Cranston, Rhode Island, is learning. According to WPRO, the young atheist has stopped attending school for the time being and is considering transferring.

These developments come after many in her hometown have responded ferociously to her successful attempts to remove the banner from public display at her school.

Ahlquist Stops Attending School & Religious Groups Defend Her Following Prayer Mural Ban

Teen atheist Jessica Ahlquist

The situation continues to be difficult for Ahlquist, who claims that she has needed police protection at school and that her fellow students are constantly bullying her. As a result of the trauma, she says that her family has not yet made a decision regarding sending her to another school.

“We are trying to figure some things out. It’s not a good atmosphere for me to be in right now so we are just trying to wait for everything to relax a little bit,” explains Ahlquist. “Even just in homeroom people screaming under God at me during the pledge of allegiance. It’s just a really hostile atmosphere…It is very difficult to concentrate on school in an atmosphere like that.”

Ahlquist Stops Attending School & Religious Groups Defend Her Following Prayer Mural Ban

A prayer banner, center, is seen on the wall of an auditorium at Cranston High School West, in Cranston, R.I., Thursday, Oct. 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

Despite these challenges, the activist doesn’t seem to show any signs of slowing down or retreating. When a New York Times reporter asked her if she empathizes with members in her community who would like to see the prayer mural stay, she doubled-down on her stance.

Ahlquist Stops Attending School & Religious Groups Defend Her Following Prayer Mural Ban

Jessica Ahlquist (left) (AP)

“It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to,” she said. “It’s for their own good. I feel like they might see it as a very negative thing right now, but I’m defending their Constitution, too.”

While Ahlquist explains that the environment at her school is detrimental, Ray Vatto, the COO of Cranston Schools, says that no formal complaints have been filed regarding any threats made against the young girl.

The drama seems to have only intensified since a judge ruled in Ahlquist’s favor earlier this month, demanding that the school remove the mural and pay the young girl’s legal fees. Last week, Rhode Island State Representative Peter Palumbo, a Democrat, called her “an evil little thing” during a radio interview. And local florists have refused to deliver to Ahlquist. In response, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a civil rights complaint on her behalf.

But despite these attacks and actions against her, members of the local religious community in Cranston are coming forward to denounce some of the bullying that has been waged against Ahlquist:

The banner has been covered with a tarp for the time being, as the school is mulling over a potential appeal. A decision regarding the matter will be decided next month. In the meantime, Ahlquist is certainly paying a social fine for her advocacy on the matter.

(H/T: WPRO)

Comments (557)

1 2 3 ... 9
  • noleftturn
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:10am

    ….. freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

    Report Post » noleftturn  
    • little big man
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:41pm

      would be nice if someone explained to that young lady what the constitution actually says. but she is wrong.

      Report Post » little big man  
    • wtwmew
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:49pm

      Amen to that. It’s a shame that not more people truly understand what this sentence actually says.

      Report Post »  
    • Thomas
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:55pm

      Just another 16 yr old being exploited. She likes the attention and nothing more.

      Report Post » Thomas  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:58pm

      @Smith

      “That’s how we got where we are today Christian turned the other cheek to many times and only to have atheist step up the attacks. Turning the other cheek will only serves to embolden atheist.
      No it’s time to fight fire with fire……She showed no tolerence .Let her reap the intolerence she sowed, she showed her hatred of god let her reap the hatred she sowed…”

      Oh, I think I see your point. A non-Christian isn’t acting like Christians, so Christians shouldn’t either! Christians should act like atheists! … wait…

      Folks, there is no moral high ground one can take to defend (or in most of the cases here, encourage) bullying a 16 year-old girl. Anyone advocating such is failing to live up to Christianity. Getting your jollies off the mistreatment of a teenager is nowhere in Jesus’s message.
      - You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also
      - “whatsoever ye would that men should do to you”
      -‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’

      Those are Biblical

      - “She deserves the bullying”
      - “I hope she and her family get run out of town”
      - “Let’s fight fire with fire”

      Those are most definitely not.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:01pm

      Odd, something got deleted and my response to Smith went to the wrong thread.

      Report Post »  
    • @leftfighter
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:29pm

      She said: “It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to,” she said. “It’s for their own good. I feel like they might see it as a very negative thing right now, but I’m defending their Constitution, too.”

      …if that’s not from Page 1 of the Progressive playbook, I don’t know what is. Compare people to children who don‘t know what’s good for them, and then force them to do what you want them to do.

      See, here’s the problem with her failure in logic: True, the Establishment Clause clearly states that government shouldn’t establish a state religion, but “…the free practice thereof” doesn’t mean to keep society or even government free of the practice of religion. They‘re two sides of the same coin and the two clauses together essentially mean government isn’t supposed to take a side, either in establishing religion or in hindering the practice of religion.

      She is entirely in the wrong and the government is entirely in the wrong for limiting the free practice of religion in schools.

      Report Post » @leftfighter  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:36pm

      Clearly the indoctrinated young girl has created a hostile environment for herself at school. High school is not a place of activism, it’s a place of learning. The school doesn’t need “activism”. She tries to portray herself as something noble..then she should do the noble thing..leave the school in which she’s created such a toxic environment and find another school. And she should learn a lesson, a benign banner that harmed no one didn’t need to be litigated against because she chose to feign “offense” at it.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:39pm

      LEFTFIGHTER…BINGO! Just like “professor” Barry displayed to Jan Brewer, liberal elites feel they’re the intellectual superiors to all and that others just need to be quiet and do as their superiors tell them…for their own good.

      Report Post »  
    • Trance
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:47pm

      As long as you realize if the courts allow public schools to teach religion they won’t limit it to Christianity.

      Report Post » Trance  
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:51pm

      Whose Constitution is she defending? Is there a United Atheist Only States of America somewhere that I’m not aware of? Rhode Island? Really? I didn’t realize it was part of another country. I don‘t know that I’m inclined to visit the UAOSA. I wonder if their Constitution was written by the same people that run the Freedom From Religion Foundation here in the U.S.A.

      My Constitution clearly gives the right of religious expression to everyone. It says that the government is prohibited from endorsing any specific religion. If schools run by the government prohibit religious expression then they would be endorsing atheism. I‘m glad that doesn’t happen in my country. If it did it would be in direct conflict with our Constitution, and I‘m sure that wouldn’t be allowed. I’m happy I live in the U.S.A.

      Foreigners have some funny ideas about freedom.

      Report Post »  
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:56pm

      P.S. I just want to thank S.E. Cupp and company for their atheist influence at The Blaze, making sure that we all know how brave atheists are for having the government advocate their religion for them.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:57pm

      “If schools run by the government prohibit religious expression then they would be endorsing atheism.”

      Not true. This is a logical fallacy. If a mural went up saying “There is no God,” you would be right. But your example is the equivalent of saying “pleading the fifth” means “I confess to the crime, your Honor.” Not saying anything does not mean you’re endorsing a belief in nothing… it means you’re not saying anything.

      If the 1st amendment was to be followed and the prayer would stay, all faiths and beliefs would have an equal opportunity to present their views.

      Report Post »  
    • SayNoToTeaBaggers
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:00pm

      Can other groups but their beliefs up, NO

       
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:03pm

      P.p.s. Harassment of anyone isn‘t Christian and isn’t cool. So, don’t harass. Mmkay?

      Report Post »  
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:09pm

      Wrong LOCKED, because an absence of religion, an oppression of religious expression is in and of itself an expression of atheism. You can’t have forced secularism and not have it be an endorsement of atheism. A sign that says “There is no God.” is the equivalent of the forced removal of a banner that represents a Christian prayer to God.

      That atheists refuse to acknowledge this logical fallacy reflects on the entire “atheist movement” which is simply an attempt to remove religious expression from public display altogether. Such an agenda is in direct conflict with the concept of free religious expression.

      This is illegal, unconstitutional, amoral, and illogical.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:27pm

      @Marsbars

      “because an absence of religion, an oppression of religious expression is in and of itself an expression of atheism. You can’t have forced secularism and not have it be an endorsement of atheism. A sign that says “There is no God.” is the equivalent of the forced removal of a banner that represents a Christian prayer to God.”

      I’m… not even sure how to respond to this. By your reasoning, anywhere that Christian symbols don’t appear has to be endorsing atheism. Secularism is not atheism… one is saying nothing on the subject, the other is saying “there is no higher power.” Those are clearly different; again, as I said before, pleading the fifth (saying nothing) does not mean you’re confessing (saying something).

      Barring even that, the constitutional issue still stands. The courts have been rather clear: if you refuse to allow everyone an equal chance to contribute, then the only fair thing is that no one can. Otherwise someone’s views are being endorsed on government property.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:45pm

      Rush,

      “and responded by asking you the same question..shouldn’t the gays allow christians like the catholic charities to do what they want??”

      Yes, but you didn’t answer my question, which was quite straight forward. To answer yours: while I can sympathize with those who are subject to discrimination, I think it was wrong to require the Catholic Church to consider adoptee parents against the organization’s convictions and conscience.

      So, now that we have that aside out of the way, answer my question. After all, if you believe that the Catholic Church should be able to act in a way that conforms to its conscience in this situation, then shouldn’t you agree that the state should not stand in the way of those who believe it is only right to allow two consenting adults to be married, regardless of gender?

      Report Post »  
    • Rational Man
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:47pm

      What ever happened to the Democratic therory of ‘the majority rules’? There is no injustice here!

      Report Post » Rational Man  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:50pm

      Theophilus,

      I don’t suggest you try to pursue a career in law–precedent doesn’t mean so much when it runs directly against the letter of the law. Nice try kid.

      Report Post »  
    • Tscurt
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:00pm

      I‘m sure she didn’t even notice it walking by the banner every day until her parents put her up to this. I feel bad for our youth going to public schools.

      Report Post » Tscurt  
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:05pm

      @ LOCKED

      No, by my reasoning everywhere religious expression is prohibited represents the endorsement of atheism. Unlike atheists, who find offense with any religious expression they see, I’m not advocating that every inch of open air and every wall space, every open space on the floor of a building be allowed to have an object of religious expression. What I’m saying is, that in the appropriate places – walls where an object of religious expression would not inhibit anyone, floor space where an object of religious expression would not inhibit anyone, areas where objects of religious expression do not block other forms of expression – There should be no prohibition of religion in such places.

      As for “pleading the 5th” you’re using a completely different dynamic, scenario, and subject in an attempt to relate them. On top of that, it’s a failed comparison. When you “plead the 5th” it is voluntary. You aren’t forced by the government to shut up. You shut up because you choose to do so (perhaps at this point you’re reading this and going… Oh yeah, he’s right… maybe I should shut up now… might be a good idea). “Pleading the 5th” – Voluntary. Forced secularization – Not voluntary. “Pleading the 5th” – Freedom to speak or not speak. Forced secularization – Freedom from religion.

      Then, as for the courts – A wrongful court ruling doesn’t change the wording of the Constitution.

      Report Post »  
    • Jcuel2
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:05pm

      Seriously? You can’t have one without the other. If you don’t have freedom from religion, you can not possibly have freedom OF religion. The founding fathers of the nation knew that all too well in fleeing to a freedom FROM religion for their freedom OF religion. You can not have one without the other. The two go hand in hand or you do not have either.

      Report Post »  
    • Jcuel2
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:07pm

      Seriously? You can’t have one without the other. If you don’t have freedom from religion, you can not possibly have freedom OF religion. The founding fathers of the nation knew that all too well in fleeing to a freedom FROM religion for their freedom OF religion. You can not have one without the other. The two go hand in hand or you do not have either.

      Report Post »  
    • ProudConservativeinCA
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:13pm

      I am Christian and do not support physical intimidation or crude vulgar profanity as to intimidate. But let me be clear, I am not a Christian who turns the other cheek when engaged by Bullies who threaten my Faith & Christianity with said tactics.

      It appears the Bullying in this thread has to do with this young lady being yelled at during the Pledge of Allegiance, with the emphasis of the yelling being the word “ God ”…! Really ?
      I don’t see this as “ Bullying ”…!
      I believe this young lady is choosing to be a Victim, and turn the table back on Christians. You reap what you sow. Up to this point no “ Charges have been filed or any signs of aggravated assault ”. Hurt feelings is the best I can tell.

      The underlying efforts by many in this thread is to, dismantle the Judea Christian Principles this nation was founded on, period.
      All you, Christian / God hating Hypocrites have the freedom of choice to move to the, Atheist Fascist Communist Country you like !

      It appears you Atheists are following the below script to a Tee….!

      You Americans are so gullible! We don’t have to invade you! We will destroy you from within without firing a shot! We will bury you by the billions! We spoon feed you socialism until your Communists and don’t even know it! We assist your elected leaders in giving you small doses of Socialism until you suddenly awake to find you have Communism. the day will come when your grandchildren will live under communism!

      This is wha

      Report Post »  
    • Yeah_Buddy
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:15pm

      Wow, she must be easily offended if that banner bothered her. She just should have changed schools to begin with. Her parents should have taught her if she doesn’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:17pm

      @Marsbars

      “No, by my reasoning everywhere religious expression is prohibited represents the endorsement of atheism. Unlike atheists, who find offense with any religious expression they see, I’m not advocating that every inch of open air and every wall space, every open space on the floor of a building be allowed to have an object of religious expression.”

      I still disagree, as endorsing secularism isn’t endorsing atheism; again, atheism is stating “there is no God.” So to endorse it you’d have to actually do something.

      But I think I see your point a bit better. I agree (if this is the point you were making) that religious expression that does not interfere with other people or endorses a specific faith over others should be allowed. The prayer should have stayed; and the school should have allowed similar prayers from other faiths and beliefs to be posted as well. As I said to you before (and you didn’t mention here, oddly), doing so would be both constitutional and a victory for all.

      Report Post »  
    • Jim S
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:27pm

      Matthew 6;6

      King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
      But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

      …keep ignoring your God,he’ll love you for it…lake of fire etc…just sayin…

      Matthew 6:5-6: “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men….when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret….”

      ….unless you believe Satan,he’s the bad guy, and Jesus,the good guy, are brothers…then who knows :)….

      Report Post »  
    • stpppim
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:38pm

      Freedom of religion means exactly, precisely, and only freedom from government imposed (coercion) religion.
      Freedom of speech means exactly, precisely, and only freedom from government imposed restrictions on speech.

      Report Post » stpppim  
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:40pm

      @ LOCKED
      I didn’t intentionally leave out you stating that the school allowing the religious expression of other religions being a solution. I didn‘t mention it because I didn’t see it. And, that (anyone of any religion should be afforded an opportunity for religious expression) is precisely what I believe. I don’t think every inch of every wall space on government property should have religious expression objects on them. People that are in government, and people that use the property regularly should be afforded a level of religious expression on that government/public land/property so long as it doesn‘t impede the function of the property and doesn’t impede/infringe upon the rights of others (shouldn’t block walkways, doorways, shouldn’t cover posters, notices, other pictures, shouldn’t be intentionally offensive, etc…).

      One thing to clarify though is your wording “that doesn’t … endorse a specific faith” – and I am compelled to disagree again. Free expression allows for a specific faith to be represented. To sterilize that message in a way that causes the message to simply be representative of vague spiritualism is wrong. “You may express religion, but only for the sake of expressing religion. You may not express your specific religion. Just religion in general.” … That’s not in the Constitution.

      Report Post »  
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:53pm

      @ LOCKED
      Atheism isn’t stating there is no God. Atheism is [a - theism] or without theism. It’s anti religion, based on the belief that deities do not exist. That is the definition of atheism, as understood for quite some time now. Setting aside the fact that I believe it to be impossible for any human being to be an absolute atheist, a true atheist would be compelled to ignore religion as opposed to being compelled to constantly challenge it.

      There is a difference between disbelief and anti-belief. If it was simply a matter of being convinced that no deities exist and that religion is a waste of time then one would be compelled to abstain from religion and make their case concerning their position when they or someone else brings it up for a topic of conversation. However, for an atheist to make up “monuments”, objects expressing their “atheism”, and to actively communicate their message “there is no God” – it‘s tantamount to proselytizing and it’s not really atheist at all, but instead is anti-religion. Specifically, when one says “There is no God” it targets monotheism specifically, and again is not atheistic, but simply anti-monotheistic. “There are no deities” is a more honest expression, but religious expression for an atheist is in and of itself contradictory to what atheism is.

      Report Post »  
    • FreedomIsResponsability
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:56pm

      @locked. It would only be a fallacy if there had not been an active removal of religion. That in and of itself shows a forced secular environment because they are forcibly removing religious influence. The constitution doesn‘t say that private citizens can’t post religious things on public land if the space is provided for them to do so. The school is not endorsing religion, but providing a space for free expression of views. Maybe she should put up an secular banner next to it, then they could both be represented. We’ll see who wins that PR battle, the banner that says “God loves you and wants your happiness” or the one that says “there is not God and religion is evil”

      Report Post »  
    • outrigger19664
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:57pm

      Liberal are mindless robots who cannot think for themselves. they can only regurgitate what they have been told. Their aim has been to remove religion (mainly Christianity) from every facet of life possible. when you remove religion you have removed moral guidance and therefore you have people without morals. See how well it’s worked in our education system, the children no longer respect authority and liberals blame the children’s misbehavior on everything but the obvious. Liberals for some reason cant justify why the school shootings and the high suicide rate in teens is a relatively now phenomenon. The obvious is that it started when God was removed from our schools, government and judicial system. That is why Michelle Obama said we need to change our “HISTORY” among other things because real and true history proves them wrong and they cant have that. I have one question to ask atheists. If there is no God or intelligent design how did you and the universe come to exist? They cant answer that question, but they are sure there is no god.

      Report Post » outrigger19664  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:08pm

      @Marsbars

      “That is the definition of atheism, as understood for quite some time now”

      “Dictionary.com
      a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
      noun
      1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
      2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.”

      The definition of atheism is pretty clear here. It is definitely a belief that there is no God.

      @Freedom
      “It would only be a fallacy if there had not been an active removal of religion.”
      This itself is a fallacy. If placing the banner up in the first place is endorsing religion, then removing it is removing that endorsement because it was in error in the first place. As the banner was erroneously endorsing religion (as the court said), removing it simply stops the endorsement.

      “That in and of itself shows a forced secular environment because they are forcibly removing religious influence.”

      Yes. I agree. That’s kind of the point. Secularism takes belief systems out of play, in effect saying “If you can’t play well together, no one plays at all.” Keep in mind: this isn’t atheism. Secularism is what the government strives for, as it is equal (although that doesn’t make it “right”).

      “The constitution doesn‘t say that private citizens can’t post religious things on public land if the space is provided for them to do so. ”
      Very true. Due to SCotUS rulings though there are clear guidelines to meet. This situation did not meet those guidelines.

      Report Post »  
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:16pm

      @ LOCKED
      Addressing anti-religion vs. being opposed to religion… I misstated above in my initial definition of atheism – “anti-religion“ should have read ”opposed to religion”. Later in that post I did use “anti-religion” in proper context.

      The point is one can contrast the belief in atheism with the Christian religion in this way – Christianity is an advocacy of the teachings of Christ (salvation, the golden rule, etc…) and the belief in God. It advocates itself. It does not advocate attacking alternative beliefs. One may argue in favor of Christianity vs other beliefs, to make the case for Christianity in contrast with other beliefs. However, it is in and of itself an advocacy of Christianity, and not anti-atheism or anti-Islam or anti-paganism. Atheism, practiced honestly would lead an atheist to simply abstain from religion. The advocacy would simply be non-religion. However, those who attempt to proselytize on behalf of atheism are advocating an anti-belief instead of abstinence from belief.

      It’s borderline hate-speech. Take for example, those who are against Judaism. They say various disparaging remarks about Jews concerning their religion and stereotypical things about them. In contrast, when you see the Jewish religion advocated by Jews it includes the symbol of the Star of David and references to the Talmud. Similarly, Christians advocate Christ‘s salvation and God’s forgiveness.

      Report Post »  
    • Nick84
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:18pm

      noleftturn
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:10am

      “….. freedom of religion not freedom from religion.”

      I wonder how you would react to the situation if it was Islam instead of Christianity. “freedom of Islam, not freedom from Islam”

      Report Post »  
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:36pm

      Contrast the practices of Judaism and Christianity with that of atheism – In the way that Christians and Jews express their religious beliefs, someone who believes there are no deities and that because there are no deities there is no reason to practice religion – is that the message? How does one express a religion of no religion? Does it advocate itself? Honestly, it would abstain. Instead, atheists often “express” their atheism by attacking religions. Most often the specific religions of Christianity and Judaism, referring often to “God”, as opposed to “gods” or “deities”.

      Taking all this into account – not that simple common sense couldn’t lead one to the conclusion without pointing out a bunch of specifics – the advocacy of secularism by the government is essentially the endorsement of atheism. Secularism – rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations. It’s exactly what atheism is. Now, take the Constitution’s provision that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. It is conclusive that the government is in direct conflict with the Constitution with enforced secularization. There is no room for debate on it.

      Last – a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity [Merriam-Webster]
      Break the word down: atheism -> a-theism -> a = without; theism = belief in the existence of God or gods -> atheism = without belief in the existen

      Report Post »  
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:46pm

      @ LOCKED
      (Got to love The Blaze’s posting format, huh?)
      Last – a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity [Merriam-Webster]
      Break the word down: atheism -> a-theism -> a = without; theism = belief in the existence of God or gods -> atheism = without belief in the existence of God or gods (deities).

      In other words, for an individual to say “There is no God” is specifically an attack on monotheism, not an expression of atheism. To reference a “sky God”, “sky fairy”, “man in the clouds” are all derogatory references to a monotheistic concept of a deity. It is equivalent to hate speech, directly attacking someone else‘s belief instead of advocating one’s own point of view. Contrast that with the prayer banner in the school. The prayer banner makes no direct attacks against atheism or any other religion. It simply advocates its own tenets.

      I think it’s time for some self scrutiny here on the part of atheists, and it’s high time that Christians and other religious groups in this country started taking our government to task for the endorsement of atheism through forced secularization.

      Report Post »  
    • MarsBarsTru7
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 5:00pm

      @ JIM S
      The bible versus you quoted are in reference to piety and self-righteousness. While one is supposed to constantly strive to be more righteous and strive for perfection, one should be humble and not make a show out of their personal relationship with God. Praying humbly to God when one prays personally is exactly what it is in reference to.

      Contrast that with references to:
      Luke 12:9 – But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.
      Matthew 5:15 – Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
      Mark 16:15 – And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

      Yeah, so your attempt at making a point was invalid. You might try learning a little more about Christianity before attempting to refute it. Try going to the source instead of going to a bigoted ant-Christian website.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 5:07pm

      I would bet Soros and Buffett‘s fortunes that this easily offended atheist doesn’t mind taking Easter and Christmas holidays off from school. Why isn’t this self-appointed constitution “protector” litigating to keep children in school on those holidays? I know why her adult counterparts don’t…it‘s because they’d suffer a backlash so severe that their cause would be set back decades. So it’s “banners and displays” that they’ll get offended with instead…but not Christian holidays on Federal and State calendars….too much bad PR for them to litigate those.

      Report Post »  
    • USAF2003
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 6:12pm

      She was doomed to become a liberal from birth…She just looks like one. It’s funny how 90% of the time you can tell a liberal just by a pic of them. What a dumb chick

      Report Post »  
    • GoliathOnline
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 7:15pm

      censor our history. censor who we are and where we came from. censor the faiths our fathers believed in. censor everything because it offends everyone. each generation is becoming weaker than the next.

      Report Post » GoliathOnline  
    • Lotus4115
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 7:18pm

      Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

      Good loving Christians. Ya, right.

      Report Post » Lotus4115  
    • iono12345
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 7:29pm

      Sorry, but freedom of religion is also freedom from religion….basically our government should not condone one or the other so with that said it should not be sponsored by the government in anyway. This includes religious signs or affiliation at a public funded school. Hey if you don’t like it go to a Christian school were the kids can be taught the way the parent sees fit. Yes religion is part of our culture and there is no stopping that, however to have it in your face or be reminded of it when attending a public school is B.S. On that note her lawsuit is frivolous and nonsensical, she should have just left it be, but somebody was looking for attention and trying to prove how smart she was, well now she is paying the consequences.

      Report Post »  
    • Bad_Ashe
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 8:11pm

      “It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to,” she said. “It’s for their own good. I feel like they might see it as a very negative thing right now, but I’m defending their Constitution, too.”

      Wow. Scary.

      Only a teenager and she already has the most disturbing atheist/liberal/fascist (take your pick) rationalization down pat. She’s saving her fellow students from themselves. It’s for their own good. Who cares if the overwhelming majority doesn’t want it, they just don’t know any better.

      I’m very curious the religious beliefs and politics of her parents, as her quotes reek of coaching and smug liberalism. Either way, her head is full of some serious misapprehensions about both the establishment clause, and the nature of God.

      Over/under on her becoming a born-again Christian or Muslim? I’ll say age 40.

      Report Post » Bad_Ashe  
    • VicksVaporub
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:51pm

      She wanted attention and now she got it. Idiot.

      Report Post » VicksVaporub  
    • PAINESMAN
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:42pm

      I think I just read that kids wont be able to quit school until they are eighteen in the future. They cant vote till they’re eighteen. They cant join the military til they are eighteen. I’m wondering why the school system is allowing a sixteen year old to set school policy. Where are the adults. Especially the lucky parents who should be telling thier daughter to shut up, keep her opinion to herself and not make waves. Got a feeling the apple didnt fall far from the tree. Raising a good little obama brownshirt aint cha.

      Report Post »  
    • pwhite42
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 9:22am

      I don’t support the bullying of this misguided girl, but she really needs to read the 1st Amendment. It’s not tricky. It doesn’t ban the practice of religion, just the state establishment of one. The idea of separation of church and state is not part of it, but rather an opinion made by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.

      Report Post » pwhite42  
    • Rockshop
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 11:41am

      The state school belongs to everyone, including the Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Witches, Wizards, Scientologists, Buddhists, Satanists, Pastafaranists, Discordianists, Jewish, Agnostics, Rastafari, Sihks, Jainists, Confucianists, Taoists, Norse, Greek, Egyptian, Pygmy, Aztec, Navaho, Inuit, Maori, Deists, SubGenai, Jedi, Robotolists, Panentheists,Pantheists, Astrologists, Kabbalah, Occultists, Falun Gong, Neo-Paganists and all the various forms of Christianity people that live in the state.

      Either allow all religions space, or deny all – there is no one vs other, its equal treatment, that is why separation of Church and State exists, because if its left too long THIS happens, a minority gets bullied, ridiculed and sent death threats for being themselves.

      It was illegal when put up, its still illegal now – time does not change the legality, and majority is not the rule, its the protection from the majority why this rule exists.

      Taking it doesn’t advocate Atheism either, easy to show in a simple example -

      Hold up a piece of paper.

      If it has a cross on it, its advocating Christianity,
      If it has crescent moon with a star on it, its advocating Islam,
      If it has ‘there is no God’ on it, its advocating Atheism,

      If it has nothing on it, What does it advocate?

      Saying a blank wall advocates Atheism is like saying Bald is a hair color.

      Report Post »  
    • ReadyforRapture
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 3:36pm

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” when are we gonna understand this part.

      Report Post »  
    • BenjiMac
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 4:34pm

      Did this girl ever read the banner she wants removed?
      If people did what the banner says, there would be no bullying or other insults she is experiencing.
      Apparently she is getting what she wants, everyone ignoring the banner’s encouragements.

      Report Post » BenjiMac  
    • DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 4:40pm

      No public(communist) schools. Problem solved.

      Report Post » DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)  
    • Nick84
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 5:04pm

      Oh, I understand now. If you have a wall without any references to God on it, it is neutral. However, if you hang a banner with “God” on it, then take it down, it becomes atheistic (even though it’s the exact same way it was originally). It doesn‘t return to it’s neutral state. Thank you for clearing that up. That is the exact problem many atheists have with Christians. They view neutrality as siding with atheism (when in reality, there should be a banner stating “there are no gods” in order for it to be atheist.) Therefore, Christians are opposed to neutrality.
      The most ridiculous part about people like you is that you have this idea of “don’t like it, don’t look at it!“ and ”freedom of religion, not freedom from religion!”. Well, here’s the thing. By that logic, shouldn‘t Christian students simply stop looking at the wall and complaining when their banner isn’t there? Or do those rules only apply when a Christian gets his way?

      Report Post »  
    • Nick84
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 5:07pm

      Sorry, I hit reply to the wrong thread.

      Report Post »  
    • amdoktor
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 5:58pm

      Intolerance is why we are a troubled Nation. Our Federal Government shows intolerance towards the American people and now we show no tolerance to our neighbors. I hope the fame of her own “reality show” does no harm to her in her future. Atheist or Christian it is better to give or be forgiving than to take away.

      Report Post » amdoktor  
    • badger83
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 8:06pm

      So the judge that ruled in her favor doesn’t understand the Constitution either? hmmm?? Doubt that’s the case tiny big man. Better get your facts straight before posting ignorance.

      Report Post »  
    • M1A2_Tanker
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 8:41pm

      “According to WPRO, the young atheist has stopped attending school for the time being and is considering transferring.”

      The young ID10T is thinking “one down so many more to go” Likely they are searching for another school to ROB the rights of their students.

      OF……..OF……Freedom OF Religion. It just cannot get more simple than that.

      Report Post »  
    • SaraD
      Posted on January 29, 2012 at 12:44am

      It is in the constitution, and it was upheld by the supreme court. Good for her, she had the guts to stand up for the seperation of church and state. Since this event she has been asked to speak at events, and given thousands in scholarship money, tons of letters, and tweets of support. Christians threats to kill, or beat her up haven’t made her or anyone else run back to church.

      Report Post » SaraD  
    • 1ClassicLiberal
      Posted on January 29, 2012 at 1:00am

      Ye shall reap what ye sow. Atheism and Secularism as practiced today are both religions. You do not need a deity to have a religion, just a dogma and true believers. Secularism has become the State religion the founders feared. They did not foresee establishment of a religion through the Judiciary, or believed the other two branches of their new government would never let it happen. The intolerence of the Secularist and their sub-sect the Atheist is exactly what those first colonists left Europe to avoid, Religious Persecution. The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution but rather a tenet of the Secular Faith. George Washington stated in his farewell address, “Of all dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity , Religion and morality are indispensable supports. Reason & experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Hardly the words of a Secularist.

      Report Post »  
    • AmericanLass
      Posted on January 29, 2012 at 12:28pm

      Exactly, Its OF OF OF not FROM FROM. This is what happens when we let our young be indoctrinated. She believes she is standing up for the rest of us, and that she is a hero. Just like the women (can’t remember her name) who won Roe vs Wade, she too thought she was the defender of all women’s rights. Now she has courageously came out in support of pro-life

      Report Post » AmericanLass  
    • BlueStarMom
      Posted on January 29, 2012 at 9:09pm

      The irony, the incredible irony. Someone should point out to her that she is getting exactly what she asked for: a world without the things the prayer banner advocates. Perhaps she should have read past the Heavenly Father part and asked herself if she wanted to live in opposite world, where people are not kind to each other, do not smile when they lose, and do not expect the best of themselves. That‘s what she’s getting, and apparently she doesn’t like it very much. Miss Jessica Atheist, you have no right to impose your will on people over whom you have no authority and for whom you have no responsibility. Especially not “for their own good”.

      Report Post »  
    • ChrisAshtear
      Posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:22am

      to Leftfighter:

      it says congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesnt sound like that only means ‘no state religion’, but that congress shouldnt make any laws supporting one religion over another. Since public schools are funded by the state(and i believe the federal government provides money for them as well), a public school having an official school prayer may be perceived as violating the establishment clause.

      Report Post »  
  • Tri-ox
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:09am

    This girl is being used by the forces of evil and her parents to push obama’s radical, anti-American agenda. Is it any wonder that she’s having deep personal problems as a result? We are witnessing the destruction of another young life, at the hands of liberal evildoers.

    Report Post » Tri-ox  
    • Marci
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:18am

      Easily brainwashed at that age…fighting to suppress religious speech at that age is not something she thought up on her own. Now if only these people would say the exact same thing about Islam. But they won’t….because it isn’t about religion at all–it’s about forcing Christianity out. I am not particularly religious, but “freedom from religion” is an oxymoron. Who is FORCING anyone to be Christian and worship God? Think we need a new foundation to counter this “Freedom From Selective 1st Amendment Hypocrites”.

      Report Post » Marci  
    • Sirfoldallot
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:26am

      She’s a defender of “ No Freedom ” !!!!!

      Report Post » Sirfoldallot  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:27am

      “This girl is being used by the forces of evil and her parents to push obama’s radical, anti-American agenda. Is it any wonder that she’s having deep personal problems as a result?”

      Just checking; are you saying that the (presumably) Christian children who bully and insult her are being used by forces of good? Or are you saying that -their- poor behavior is -her- “personal” problem?

      The girl is a busybody, but constitutionally in the clear. That these supposedly “good” children are bullying her now is no act of good or justice; it’s a bunch of kids being cruel, and spurred on by people like you. What happened to being an example to others? What happened to “turn the other cheek”? I must have missed the part of the Gospels that said it‘s ok to throw out Christ’s teachings when you’re angry.

      The girl should be prayed for, not at. She should be treated kindly, not cruelly. She should be respected, as all people should be. Christians should respond by being an example for her, not making an example of her. At least that’s what my Bible teaches me… what does yours say?

      Report Post »  
    • TH30PH1LUS
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:32am

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

      Our Constitution does NOT prohibit religious expression. One of Congress’s first acts was to PUBLISH BIBLES

      “Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aitken_(publisher)

      Report Post » TH30PH1LUS  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:37am

      “Just checking; are you saying that the (presumably) Christian children who bully and insult her are being used by forces of good? Or are you saying that -their- poor behavior is -her- “personal” problem? ”

      I assume you mean that ‘bullying’ her is telling the truth to her or about her…she’s a fascist.

      she is using the liberal courts to bully christiians….so I have no sympathy for her…

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:49am

      @Rush

      “I assume you mean that ‘bullying’ her is telling the truth to her or about her…she’s a fascist.

      she is using the liberal courts to bully christiians….so I have no sympathy for her…”

      From what I’m reading here, you seem to be saying “She brought it on herself and should be bullied.” Again, I disagree, and I think Christ would say the same. I can understand people being upset if they feel their beliefs are under attack… but I can’t understand someone saying “As good Christians, we must insult and intimidate this girl until she is forced to leave.” There’s nothing Christian in that.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:10am

      “but I can’t understand someone saying “As good Christians, we must insult and intimidate this girl until she is forced to leave.” There’s nothing Christian in that.”

      cry me a river…its time for christians to stand up for what they believe in….before we lose all our freedom.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:14am

      @Th3o

      “Our Constitution does NOT prohibit religious expression. One of Congress’s first acts was to PUBLISH BIBLES”

      Interesting way to make your argument. According to your link, this act was in 1782… 6 years before the Constitution was ratified. How do you argue that an act prior to the Constitution has any constitutional basis?

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:16am

      @Rush

      “cry me a river…its time for christians to stand up for what they believe in….before we lose all our freedom.”

      It amazes me that you‘ll throw out Christ’s own teachings to argue… that you should be allowed to put Christian prayers up in school. I understand you don’t see the hypocrisy in it… I just hope others can.

      Report Post »  
    • Mtroom
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:18am

      Wow, political…really?…What has happened is this girl push for a non issue to become an issue…It is her own fault…Her community clearly is on a different page and she pushed them…To tell ya the truth, this need to happen more often. The whole point was she was offended by the prayer and the majority was not.She has found that out..Should they ridicule or bully her, of course not…But to take on your whole community is a large task, not something you can do on a wimm..She is not defending anyone else as she tries to claim, she is telling people who she is, that is where she needs to stand proud…For her to run now would be a mistake..Start peer groups around it and stop fighting…She has already cost the tax payers to much money just to have her views of LIFE heard…This could have been solved without a court, without feelings hurt, and without all this media…Instead it became a religious fight with a 16 year old girl..No one would hear her side in the beginning…Organized religions do this every time..Both side of this need to understand people have different views on many different things..Going into another persons life you will find things different in the way they live, that’s just how it is..This prayer didn’t effect this girls life in anyway, but she decided it did..How?…Did anyone ask her? .Nope, just bash her as an Atheist..What religion does that? Not mine, I would find out why this girl feels the way she does.She’s a kid for Christ sake.

      Report Post » Mtroom  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:21am

      This is all rooted in the Liberal idea of Separation of Church and State…Which there is no such thing. But the idea inflames the ignorant sheeple. They use the Constitution as a tool like using a sledgehammer to crack an egg. The Constitution only guaranteesno establishment of a religion, not that we will never see it in action somewhere…We do not want a Theocracy, we want the freedom to express our religion freely anywhere at any time except on private property where someone who owns the properrty would object. Public property should always remain public with any religion (even atheism) so any religion can be expressed frrely.

      The correct interpretatiuon of the establishment clause is only to protect us from a STATE enforced religion. If we do what the Atheist want, then we are actually installing a religion of Atheism!! How blind can everyone be?

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • turkey13
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:22am

      I want to know why she isn’t wearing her burqa out in public. Also, is the school letting a male family member escort her to her classes?

      Report Post »  
    • AndYetItMoves
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:27am

      The true face of christian charity revealed over and over on this thread.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:41am

      @Locked

      Yea, she should be respected, treated kindly, and be made to feel welcome so that she will not have to deal with the consequences of her own selfish, boorish, and petty behavior.

      Yes, you are right, we need to do these things to insure that the next 100 or so of these “children” are encouraged to do the same type of things to get their 15 minutes of fame.

      Locked, you live in a theoretical world. Most of us live in the real world.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:54am

      So… let’s get this straight:
      This little girl is, as one poster put it, using the law to “bully” Christians. She should get used to the prayer mural–it’s not hurting her, right? She is a “busybody,” because the mural would supposedly have very little effect on her day-to-day life. Is this a accurate reflection of the opinion of so many of you here?

      So, then I have a question for you folks–why is it that this girl should shut up about the mural because it doesn’t have anything to do with her, yet so many of you are opposed to gay marriage? Shouldn’t you just shut up and let consenting adults do what they want?

      So please–tell me how we might reconcile this apparent hypocrisy.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:55am

      @Billy

      “Yea, she should be respected, treated kindly, and be made to feel welcome so that she will not have to deal with the consequences of her own selfish, boorish, and petty behavior.

      Yes, you are right, we need to do these things to insure that the next 100 or so of these “children” are encouraged to do the same type of things to get their 15 minutes of fame.”

      If she’s shunned by some students, that’s understandable (and expected). If she’s being threatened, bullied, and antagonized, that’s deplorable… as are all the people saying “she deserves the abuse.” There’s a big difference between one and the other. Turning the other cheek involves doing just that. Going out of your way to be cruel to a person? Nothing Christian nor American in that.

      Report Post »  
    • GeorgieJo
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:59am

      She can transfer to Russia or China—-Enjoy your “freedoms” there.
      I will pray for her.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:00pm

      “So, then I have a question for you folks–why is it that this girl should shut up about the mural because it doesn’t have anything to do with her, yet so many of you are opposed to gay marriage? Shouldn’t you just shut up and let consenting adults do what they want? ”

      too bad the fascist gays and their brown-shirted supported can’t do the same….like with the catholic charities in MA…can’t let them have freedom of religion…not when the gays don’t like it!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:01pm

      @Locked

      Once again……………

      Theoretical world………..Real world

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:02pm

      But I guess that’s what makes a liberal, a liberal.

      Huh?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:04pm

      @Publius

      Because marriage is between one man and one woman,

      Simple

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:09pm

      @Billy

      I think I’m missing something. What‘s theoretical and what’s reality in your opinion? I’m arguing that Christians should not abuse someone but should turn the other cheek; that they should be role models, not hatemongers. Are you saying this concept only exists in theory, and not the real world? I can show you plenty of Christians who actually practice what they preach. An example was cited in the article: local faith leaders calling on their flocks to stop the abuse.

      Why is treating others as you would want to be treated not reality? Why shouldn’t it be?

      Report Post »  
    • TEXASGRANNY73
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:09pm

      @Locked The article clearly states “But despite these attacks and actions against her, members of the local religious community of Cranston are coming forward to denounce some of the bullying that has been waged against her.” Clearly she does not care as she plows on with she is defending THEIR Constitution to. Ok, she, a 16 yr old is offended and THEY other 16 yr olds are offended but the religous community defends her. How about praying for ALL 16 yr olds. Some of the bullying is saying under God with emphasis in the pledge?

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:12pm

      “I’m arguing that Christians should not abuse someone but should turn the other cheek”

      how is she being abused? hmmm?? having her iddle feeling hurt?? poor snoogums…

      turning the other cheek doesn’t entail smiling at your abuser…and welcoming them with open arms…sorry…..

      Report Post »  
    • scarebear83
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:17pm

      She shouldn’t be bullied because all it does is show in her mind that Christians are hateful and who would want to convert to that? Do I approve of what she did and how she did it? No, not at all. But as I read this it sounds to me like there are two sides to every story. They say she’s being bullied and needing police protection yet no formal complaints have been made. If it is as bad as she claims I would think she would file the complaints. But that’s just from reading the article. I don’t know, I’m not there. The only thing I can do at the moment is pray for her in hopes that the Gospel message will reach her.

      Report Post » scarebear83  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:17pm

      “too bad the fascist gays and their brown-shirted supported can’t do the same….like with the catholic charities in MA…can’t let them have freedom of religion…not when the gays don’t like it!!!”

      Rush,
      You’re changing the subject–try to be a little less transparent when you dodge a fairly straightforward question. Answer my original question.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:26pm

      “Rush,
      You’re changing the subject–try to be a little less transparent when you dodge a fairly straightforward question. Answer my original question.”

      didn’t you bring up gay marriage? I did answer your question:

      “Shouldn’t you just shut up and let consenting adults do what they want? ”

      and responded by asking you the same question..shouldn’t the gays allow christians like the catholic charities to do what they want??

      apparently you just didn’t like the answer…and can’t answer my question….gee what a surprise!

      Report Post »  
    • oneshiner
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:27pm

      Without a doubt. This is one sick puppy. I wanted to say this is for you and that’s for the horse your rode on in. But, you wouldn’t understand a slam if you saw it. You’re parents or somebody is leading you down a road to sedition. Read the bible little girl. The devil is out to deceive even you.

      Report Post »  
    • jado1981
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:44pm

      “Even just in homeroom people screaming under God at me during the pledge of allegiance. It’s just a really hostile atmosphere”
      -
      Wow, that sounds very hostile, it’s almost like getting beat up… oh wait, wow, titty baby, that’s not hostility. Grow up.
      I‘m not saying it’s okay for people to beat up on anybody, Christians vs athiest or muslims or whoever, blacks versus whites or whatever. Violence is wrong, no matter who is doing it. It seems like if she really had a problem with it, she could have kept her pie-hole shut during the under God section of the pledge, or perhaps asked for an athiest prayer beside the school prayer, “Dear nobody, I know you don’t exist, and when I die, nothing happens, amen”
      If I was in a school that had a muslim prayer banner on the wall, I’d ask for a Christian one next to it, or keep my mouth shut during it, but then again, if I wanted 15 minutes of fame, I’d go on tv crying about it and try to get some major press time too.

      Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:50pm

      Leave the girl alone and act like a Christian by turning the other cheek” nets you in return.
      That’s how we got where we are today Christian turned the other cheek to many times and only to have atheist step up the attacks. Turning the other cheek will only serves to embolden atheist.
      No it’s time to fight fire with fire……She showed no tolerence .Let her reap the intolerence she sowed, she showed her hatred of god let her reap the hatred she sowed……. let her eat the pie she made

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:00pm

      LOCKED Wrote:
      “I think I’m missing something. What‘s theoretical and what’s reality in your opinion? I’m arguing that Christians should not abuse someone but should turn the other cheek; that they should be role models, not hatemongers. Are you saying this concept only exists in theory, and not the real world? I can show you plenty of Christians who actually practice what they preach.

      @Locked

      First, let me be clear that I am in no way condoning any kind of Physical threats or violence.
      I have seen so actual proof yet of physical threats, but if there are any, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

      But as for kids screaming “under God” at her during the pledge? Well boo fricken hoo.

      This girl went out of her way to be a big pain in the a$$ to as many people as possible.
      It was intentional.

      It is only to be expected that people are going to be a pain in a$$, right back.

      That is what I mean by the “real world” (All people, even Christians, are not always going to turn the other cheek) I’m sure she has seen plenty of good Christians in her life, and it obviously had no effect on her.

      The theoretical liberal utopia you dream of will never exist. If she is truly surprised by all the hubub, then she is the foolish child she comes across as.

      Let’s be honest Locked, she was not doing this for anyone but her self-important, spoiled little self. This was not done for the greater good of society.

      Could she not have simply i

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • infidelible
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:01pm

      Atheism indicates what a person does not believe, not what they do. It is possible to not believe in god (any of them) and still want a small, limited government, free markets, individual rights, personal responsibility and the ability to group together for any peaceful purpose. Why is it such a burden that theists abstain from using the state as a vector for their message?

      Why is it is hard to understand that the framer’s, regardless of their personal piety, deliberately did not involve religion into the structure of the nation, but instead ensured that individuals had the right to believe and speak for themselves?

      The students have a right, and maybe a good reason, to not want to associate with the girl – they should be free to choose their associations. It is very telling, however, that many who espouse a faith in Christianity, can take glee at the reported harassment of a child. If you want to see your satan, you won’t find him in an atheist, you’ll find him in someone who pretends to believe as you do, but acts the opposite.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:02pm

      @Smith

      “That’s how we got where we are today Christian turned the other cheek to many times and only to have atheist step up the attacks. Turning the other cheek will only serves to embolden atheist.
      No it’s time to fight fire with fire……She showed no tolerence .Let her reap the intolerence she sowed, she showed her hatred of god let her reap the hatred she sowed…”

      Oh, I think I see your point. A non-Christian isn’t acting like Christians, so Christians shouldn’t either! Christians should act like atheists! … wait…

      Folks, there is no moral high ground one can take to defend (or in most of the cases here, encourage) bullying a 16 year-old girl. Anyone advocating such is failing to live up to Christianity. Getting your jollies off the mistreatment of a teenager is nowhere in Jesus’s message.
      - You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also
      - “whatsoever ye would that men should do to you”
      -‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’

      Those are Biblical

      - “She deserves the bullying”
      - “I hope she and her family get run out of town”
      - “Let’s fight fire with fire”

      Those are most definitely not.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:03pm

      Continued:

      Could she not have simply ignored the banner, and just “Let It Be”?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:14pm

      @Billy

      “It is only to be expected that people are going to be a pain in a$$, right back.

      That is what I mean by the “real world” (All people, even Christians, are not always going to turn the other cheek) I’m sure she has seen plenty of good Christians in her life, and it obviously had no effect on her.

      The theoretical liberal utopia you dream of will never exist.”

      I agree some reaction is expected; shunning her? Sure. That‘s not the extent of the abuse she’s receiving:
      http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-national/teen-atheist-abused-via-social-media-after-prayer-banner-ruling
      That’s just some of the abuse. There’s a link in there going to an atheist site that shows pictures of dozens of messages threatening, encouraging, and advocating violence, abuse, and mistreatment. Granted: that’s social media, not at school. I think “dropping an anchor on her face” and “jumping her” goes a bit beyond acceptability.

      Know what my main concern is? Honestly? It makes Christians look terrible. As already pointed out, religious leaders are condemning these attacks on her. But it’s not stopping people (like most of the commentators here on The Blaze) from posting almost identical messages about a freaking teenage girl… and every time they do, it reinforces the idea that “Oh, hey, Christians are nuts.” True Christians will follow Christ and decry the bullies as much, if not more, than they decried her actions in the first place.

      That’s the reality I c

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:17pm

      (Cont):

      That’s the reality I choose. And I don‘t think it’s impossible.

      Report Post »  
    • ronvent
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:24pm

      “The forces of evil…” What crap! Once having invented a god who is all good and powerful, the same fairy-tale fantasy advocates needed to create an army of evil…how else to explain a world that is so obviously flawed? Throw out this kooky dogma and make life easy for yourself.
      Those “christians” who can’t burn, drown or jail Jessica are struggling with impatience. Unless they shoot at her from rooftops (NO, please!) they have to wait for their all-forgiving god to fry her for eternity. (That would be the same god who could “forgive” Hitler.”) Yeah, THAT makes sense!

      I don’t see such vitriol, hatred, vengeance, misplaced anger, etc. in atheist writing. You “religious” are a nasty bunch.

       
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:28pm

      Folks, there is no moral high ground one can take to defend (or in most of the cases here, encourage) bullying a 16 year-old girl. Anyone advocating such is failing to live up to Christianity. Getting your jollies off the mistreatment of a teenager is nowhere in Jesus’s message

      You’re half right there is no moral high ground on either side. Morallity didn‘t fuel this bigotted little atheist’s intolerence or hatred for God. Just as morality isn’t fueling those bullying her……There’s no moral high ground in war…THAT‘S WHY IT’S CALLED WAR. When we went to Europe and killed German the act wasn’t moral however the desired out come was. Same thing here much smaller scale
      To destroy the intolerence,bigotry,and hatred of atheism on most be intolerent bigotted and hateful towards them. Words don’t win wars THEY START THEM. When Satan rebeled against God he didn’t turn the other cheek…he casted out the demon . TIME TO START CASTING

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:50pm

      @LOCKED

      Like I said, physical threats of violence is unacceptable.

      But mocking, teasing, etc. has to be expected in a “real world” scenario of high school (and here is the key word) JUVENILES. This will never change.

      And of course religious leaders are condemning the acts against her.

      What religious leaders would NOT condemn threats of violence?……………………..??????

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • @leftfighter
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:52pm

      @ Locked

      Bullying notwithstanding (remains to be proven- “no formal complaints have been filed regarding any threats made against” her so there’s nothing but her word to go on), how is she constitutionally in the clear?

      The First Amendment states:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      Is this banner not the free practice of religion? Is it not free speech? As I’ve posted elsewhere in this thread, the Establishment Clause is a counterbalance to the Adbridgment Clause. It means gov’t must be neutral among the people of Faith & Atheists. In this case, they’re siding with an Atheist against all people of Faith, not just Christians, but Jews, Muslims, Hindus, you name ‘em.

      You have to apply the Lemon test to determine if this is problematic:

      1. the statute (or practice) has a secular purpose; (yes- serves as a daily reminder to grow, to do your best)
      2. its principal or primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; (nobody has said they were forced to pray or even believe Jesus, Mohammad, Moses or even a Heavenly Father exists)
      3. it does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. (entanglement: tr.v. 1. To twist together or entwine into a confusing mass; snarl. 2. To complicate; confuse

      Report Post » @leftfighter  
    • SayNoToTeaBaggers
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:02pm

      How is this anti-american you nut?

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:07pm

      @Leftfighter

      To answer your first question, she’s constitutionally stable because the courts said so.

      As for the lemon test, let me counter your examples:
      “1. the statute (or practice) has a secular purpose; (no; it distinctly favors a monotheistic view over others, and puts this view on others by using plurality in its phrasing)
      2. its principal or primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; (according to the 1962 Engel v Vitale case, voluntary prayer in school is still unconstitutional. Vague wording doesn’t matter either.)
      3. it does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. (excessive is relative, of course. Alinquist says does; the school disagrees. The judge sided with her on this one, although I agree it isn’t excessive).

      Any one of these is sufficient to remove the banner, and arguments can be made for each one in either direction.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:19pm

      “That’s just some of the abuse. There’s a link in there going to an atheist site that shows pictures of dozens of messages threatening, encouraging, and advocating violence, abuse, and mistreatment. Granted: that’s social media, not at school. I think “dropping an anchor on her face” and “jumping her” goes a bit beyond acceptability.

      Know what my main concern is? Honestly? It makes Christians look terrible
      ”

      oh the horror…‘abused by social media’ it just gives me the VAPORS to think of such a thing!!! LOL

      and where does it say CHRISTIANS are doing such TERRIBLE things to her…sounds like another ASSumption on your part…..

      didn’t see anything in that link blaming christians, maybe I just missed it….since English is your natural language I’m sure you can point it out…..

       
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:33pm

      “Those “christians” who can’t burn, drown or jail Jessica are struggling with impatience. Unless they shoot at her from rooftops (NO, please!) they have to wait for their all-forgiving god to fry her for eternity. (That would be the same god who could “forgive” Hitler.”) Yeah, THAT makes sense!

      I don’t see such vitriol, hatred, vengeance, misplaced anger, etc. in atheist writing. You “religious” are a nasty bunch.
      ”

      uh I don’t see any proof that christians are doing such things…why don’t you post your proof or apologize for slandering christians? hmmmm????

      oh but that would take integrity..and you’re an athiest….nevermind….

      Report Post »  
    • TH30PH1LUS
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:39pm

      @ LOCKED: you wrote = “How do you argue that an act prior to the Constitution has any constitutional basis?”

      It’s called “precedent”. That’s a word which generically means that facts or events preceding bear influence on current and future ones.

      Do you think that the magna carta, English bill of rights, mayflower compact, fundemental orders of Connecticut, declaration of indepence, and articles of confederation had NO BEARING on the formation of our Constitution merely because they were “prior acts”?

      “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.” ~ GEORGE WASHINGTON

      Report Post » TH30PH1LUS  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:40pm

      @Rush

      “oh the horror…‘abused by social media’ it just gives me the VAPORS to think of such a thing!!! LOL”

      Interesting view. I would think death threats against teenage girls would upset people more. Then again, you’re one of the ones who thinks she deserves it. At least Billy and I agree that threats of violence are unacceptable.

      “and where does it say CHRISTIANS are doing such TERRIBLE things to her…sounds like another ASSumption on your part…..

      didn’t see anything in that link blaming christians, maybe I just missed it….since English is your natural language I’m sure you can point it out…..”

      Let’s see…
      -when the atheist dies, they believe they become a tree. so we should chop her down, turn her into paper, then PRINT THE BIBLE ON HER.
      -nail her to a cross
      -drown her in holy water
      -hail mary, full of grace, jessicaahlquinst is gonna get punched in the face

      Yeah, where did the idea that Christians wrote those threats come from?

      Rush, you’re part of the problem. You could be praying for this girl, hoping she sees the light. You could be condemning the people who threaten her. Instead you’re cheering for them, saying she’s getting “an eye for an eye” as it were. This is exactly Christians were told not to do! How can you read the Bible and think a reaction like the above is ok?

      I mean, unless you’re not a Christian; it’s true, I’m just guessing you are. If you’re not, then I’d ask: how, as a fellow human, can you

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:51pm

      “Interesting view. I would think death threats against teenage girls would upset people more’

      you know I did a search for ‘death threats’ on your link…didn’t see any…again since english is your natural language, perhaps you can show me where that is…

      “-when the atheist dies, they believe they become a tree. so we should chop her down, turn her into paper, then PRINT THE BIBLE ON HER.
      -nail her to a cross
      -drown her in holy water
      -hail mary, full of grace, jessicaahlquinst is gonna get punched in the face

      Yeah, where did the idea that Christians wrote those threats come from?
      ”

      I didn’t see those in your article….let me guess you got those off an atheist blog or web site!!!

      yeah sounds like atheists trying to discredit christians…no surprise you would fall for such a thing, that anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see through.

      “Rush, you’re part of the problem. You could be praying for this girl, hoping she sees the light”

      actually I think you are part of the problem…defaming christians without any proof….if you had any integrity you’d apologize….and you say you’re a christian…..so I expect you will either post your proof, or apologize. right?

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:55pm

      Why is it that the religious types always claim that in situations like these atheists are pushing their religion on them! Is a wall without a religious banner automatically an atheistic wall? Is your faith so weak that the absense of a public banner threatens your belief in God?

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:00pm

      “Why is it that the religious types always claim that in situations like these atheists are pushing their religion on them! Is a wall without a religious banner automatically an atheistic wall? Is your faith so weak that the absense of a public banner threatens your belief in God?”

      its rather obvious to anyone who has an ounce of intelligence…oh wait…you’re an atheist, let me explain….taking down any reference to God is by default, embracing an atheistic world view….since it reinfoces the notion that there is no god…does that help??

      actually we don’t like having our freedoms taken away…why is your atheistic faith so threatened that you cannot stand to see anything that disagrees with that faith?

      Report Post »  
    • TH30PH1LUS
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:05pm

      @ PubliusPencilman

      Why is it that the atheist types always claim that in situations like these believers are pushing their religion on them? Is a wall with a religious banner automatically a Christian wall? Is your faith so weak that the presence of a public banner threatens your belief in nothing?

      Report Post » TH30PH1LUS  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:10pm

      @Rush

      Odd, searching for “death threats” didn’t reveal any? I mean, when you write “I’ll drop an anchor on her face“ or ”let’s all jump that girl” or any of the others, how did they not use the phrase “death threats” when writing them?

      Come on man (or woman?). Try and be a bit more creative when evading.

      “I didn’t see those in your article….let me guess you got those off an atheist blog or web site!!!”
      You mean the part where I wrote:
      “That’s just some of the abuse. There’s a link in there going to AN ATHEIST SITE that shows pictures of dozens of messages threatening, encouraging, and advocating violence, abuse, and mistreatment.” (emphasis mine).

      My, how creative you are to intuit such a thing.

      Again, Christians like these (and you; you never admitted you are one, so I don’t want to misrepresent you) are giving the rest of us a bad reputation. You‘ve forsaken Jesus’s teachings, and I hope you find your way back. And even failing that, you’re wishing hurt on a teenage girl; even if you never become a Christian, I pray that you can learn to love your fellow Americans.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:12pm

      @Rush

      “taking down any reference to God is by default, embracing an atheistic world view….since it reinfoces the notion that there is no god…does that help??”

      False. See the argument made when marsbars said the same thing above you:
      “This is a logical fallacy. If a mural went up saying “There is no God,” you would be right. But your example is the equivalent of saying “pleading the fifth” means “I confess to the crime, your Honor.” Not saying anything does not mean you’re endorsing a belief in nothing… it means you’re not saying anything.”

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:17pm

      “Odd, searching for “death threats” didn’t reveal any? I mean, when you write “I’ll drop an anchor on her face“ or ”let’s all jump that girl” or any of the others, how did they not use the phrase “death threats” when writing them?

      Come on man (or woman?). Try and be a bit more creative when evading.
      ”

      uh yeah I noticed those….did you notice the source???

      William Hamby, Atlanta Atheism Examiner, offers examples of the abuse and threats being directed against Jessica via social media. The following is but a small sample:

      and this:

      Screenshots capturing some of the abuse and threats directed towards Jessica can be seen at Jesus Fetus Fajita Fishsticks.

      yeah I beleive whatever the atheists tell me…those mean old bad christians…and I know they’re bad because atheists tell me so….especially the atlanta ATHEISM EXAMINER and the JESUS FETUS FAJITA FISHSTICKS web site….oh yeah…..they’re gospel man!!! amazing.

      uh huh….you really are uneducated and easily led aren’t you now?

      “Again, Christians like these (and you; you never admitted you are one, so I don’t want to misrepresent you) are giving the rest of us a bad reputation. You‘ve forsaken Jesus’s teachings, and I hope you find your way back. ”

      ‘christians’ (yeah right) like YOU give the rest of us a bad reputation…slandering real christians…agreeing with atheists…you have no idea who is making those posts…and given the source I can’t believe e

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:18pm

      and given the source I can’t believe even you are THAT dumb….

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:21pm

      “False. See the argument made when marsbars said the same thing above you:
      “This is a logical fallacy. If a mural went up saying “There is no God,” you would be right. But your example is the equivalent of saying “pleading the fifth” means “I confess to the crime, your Honor.” Not saying anything does not mean you’re endorsing a belief in nothing… it means you’re not saying anything.””

      no its True. when governments refuse to acknowledge any religion or any faith, they are de facto (look it up) embracing atheism. I thought it would be apparent to even someone as simple as you….

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:43pm

      @Rush

      “no its True. when governments refuse to acknowledge any religion or any faith, they are de facto (look it up) embracing atheism. I thought it would be apparent to even someone as simple as you….”

      Hey, it‘s not my problem if you don’t understand the difference between saying “There is no god” (atheism) and “… (the sound of silence)…” (secularism). The definition of secularism is literally refusing to acknowledge any faith; atheism is literally the belief that there is no god (seriously; go to dictionary.com. I just pulled the wording from there). They are not the same thing, even if you wish it to be so.

      Report Post »  
    • Mtroom
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:49pm

      This is why I say everyone needs to chill and talk about why they think the way they do, it shows different opinions on the same subject…To be offended and run from your own point is just giving up what you believe…As you put me into the “against gay marriage” category. I’ll answer you with what I feel, and hope you realize some look at points different than just right and wrong..

      As, for gay marriage, that is imposable…Not by my opinion but by fact…Look the word up in any dictionary please…Now if you ask me about a gay union between two adults, that is possible, and I do not have an issue with that…It is the word that they chose to make a point…You can change the law but it won’t change the word…All I’m trying to say is start a conversation as such, not I’m right your wrong..You will always find fault if you keep looking for it…Talk to this girl is all I’m saying…Some of those kids will be surprised to really know why they feel the way they do…Stop the attacks and talk..There is no more of that anywhere ..Even here…You pull gay marriage into a talk of a little girl..Where was that mentioned in the story?…You took it on yourself to bring it here..Same as Obama, didn’t see him in this anywhere either…But that is what you wanted to talk about, so that is where it went..Maybe someday you’ll stay on topic and talk, instead of blasting off with things that don‘t matter just so you’ re right..

      Report Post » Mtroom  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:49pm

      “Hey, it‘s not my problem if you don’t understand the difference between saying “There is no god” (atheism) and “… (the sound of silence)…” (secularism). The definition of secularism is literally refusing to acknowledge any faith; atheism is literally the belief that there is no god (seriously; go to dictionary.com. I just pulled the wording from there). They are not the same thing, even if you wish it to be so.”

      a distinction without a difference….to any thoughtful person…so I can see why you don’t get it….

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:55pm

      oh and locked…still waiting for an apology, or proof, from a credible source, that those issuing the threats are christians….

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:34pm

      let see no credible source, no apology..no surprise…my how ‘christian’ of you locked…

      why do you hate christians so locked, when you profess to be one?

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:34pm

      @Rush

      “still waiting for an apology, or proof, from a credible source, that those issuing the threats are christians….”

      I’m not sure why you would expect an apology, as there seems to be no reason for one. As for proof, it’s been supplied: on you now to refute it. As for a “credible source,” those logs are all direct from the social media sites; it’s as close to credible as you can get, despite the atheist site. There are other feeds that are similar (http://forum.baby-gaga.com/about2061898.html). This one had some of the feeds in the comments… before the twitter accounts became password protected: (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/01/12/updates-on-the-jessica-ahlquist-story/). And then there are comments like those found here at The Blaze.

      So, there you are!

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:41pm

      “(http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/01/12/updates-on-the-jessica-ahlquist-story/).

      (http://forum.baby-gaga.com/about2061898.html).

      And then there are comments like those found here at The Blaze.

      So, there you are!
      ”

      oh yes those are credible sources!!! LOL oh well you are good for a few laughs…

      “for one. As for proof, it’s been supplied: on you now to refute it.”

      and the proof that those making those comments are 1) real 2) christian IS?????

      uh huh….

      you really are too easy…..

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:46pm

      what I find interesting locked, is how you KNOW that someone making an anonymous post is a christian….where did you get such GOD-like powers at? hmmm??

      what was that about not judging in the bible? oh but such a good christian like you wouldn’t do ANYTHING like that would you now? you know whats in a man‘s heart don’t you now….given your GOD-like powers….

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:56pm

      @Rush

      Of course, I’m sorry for doubting your God-like powers, where you assume that every negative comment against this girl, every threat, every religious reference, are done by atheists and liberals trying to deceive the world into thinking Christians never get angry or threaten.

      Yeah… I think it‘s pretty obvious that you’re trolling now. Here! Let’s make it easy!
      1. Are you a Christian?
      2. Do you think this girl deserves to be bullied (as in, to receive these threatening messages)?

      Yes or no answers, please. Short and sweet.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 6:03pm

      “Of course, I’m sorry for doubting your God-like powers, where you assume that every negative comment against this girl, every threat, every religious reference, are done by atheists and liberals trying to deceive the world into thinking Christians never get angry or threaten.

      imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!! of course those atheists KNOW christians are posting that….and you know because of your GOD-like powers…uh huh

      atheists and liberals lie all the time, if you haven’t noticed…so I would put nothing past them…

      your sources are a JOKE…you have substantiated anything you’ve said…you refuse to apologize…in other words you have no integrity…and your ‘christianity’ is just a pose…

      and no surprise you try to change the subject…

      here’s your answer..of COURSE I think she should be bullied and threatened…I’m a christian after all!!

      moron.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 6:13pm

      @Rush

      “of COURSE I think she should be bullied and threatened”

      I figured as much.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 6:33pm

      @LOCKED

      This is not the first time I have wanted to mention this.

      It is meant only as a little friendly advice.

      You might learn to read between the lines a bit sometimes.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 6:40pm

      “@Rush

      “of COURSE I think she should be bullied and threatened”

      I figured as much.
      ”

      are you masochistic??

      no one can be THIS stupid…wow…

      thanks for the laughs….

      tell me are you a quisling, or a poser? oh and I‘m sure you’re REAL upset by that christian girl being punished for her anti-gay views, right????

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 6:56pm

      @Billy

      “This is not the first time I have wanted to mention this.

      It is meant only as a little friendly advice.

      You might learn to read between the lines a bit sometimes.”

      Right back at you. Reading between the lines for his comment means one of two things:
      1. He’s good for his word. Seems unlikely; his statement doesn‘t drip with sarcasm so much as it’s submerged a few yards under it.
      2. Rush is lying. We can guess why this is: he’s afraid to answer truthfully (see the first point), or he’s confronted with the uncomfortable idea that, gosh, I really do feel a teenager should receive death threats, but that’s not Christian at all!” and presumably his mind short-circuited as “Error! Error! Evasive maneuvers!” flashed behind his eyes.

      I personally like the second. What’s your money on?

      Report Post »  
    • Lucy Larue
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 7:44pm

      @LOCKED,

      Well…,you’re all over here acting all sanctimonious, turn the other cheek, yadda, yadda.
      Let me tell you something. Jesus was NOT a wimp. He was not! Why would Jesus think that what this idiot girl did was okay?
      The very thing that you are touting is what brought us to where we are today.The many must suffer because of the self aggrandizing few.

      I do not feel sorry for this narcissistic little twit. She got what she wanted. She had the “OFFENSIVE” prayer removed. Now she can live with the consequeces of her “VICTORY”. I hope she gets negative reactions from her fellow students EVERY SINGLE DAY…,Monday thru FRIDAY.

      “As ye sow, so shall ye reap”.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 7:54pm

      @Lucy

      “Well…,you’re all over here acting all sanctimonious, turn the other cheek, yadda, yadda.
      Let me tell you something. Jesus was NOT a wimp. He was not! Why would Jesus think that what this idiot girl did was okay?”

      I think you’re missing the point so much it MUST be deliberate. I never once said Jesus would condone her actions. I said that he would most definitely condemn the actions of those calling for her death, torment, or injury. In fact, if they are Christians, he would likely hold them to a higher standard.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 8:01pm

      “….taking down any reference to God is by default, embracing an atheistic world view….since it reinfoces the notion that there is no god…does that help??”

      Ha! That’s pretty funny. You seem to have the simple act of taking down a banner confused with deicide. The absense of a banner does not “reinforce” atheism–it’s merely institutional neutrality. You know, like in the Constitution. For the record, my friend, I’m not an atheist. Sorry; I know most of your argument is based on calling me names and insulting me.

      Theophilus,
      Again, as I told Rush above, I’m not an atheist. The simple fact that you are ASSUMING that I am means that the absense of a banner does not promote any specific doctrine or lack thereof. I believe in God, yet I do not in any way feel my belief diminished by the lack of a banner. Hmmm… I must just be a better believer than you…

      Report Post »  
    • Lucy Larue
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 8:07pm

      @LOCKED,

      Sigh…,no I am not deliberately missing whatever point you think you may have. I am not.

      I am saying that personal responsilty is a b*#ch. She did what she did and deserves the consequences.Simple as that.

      All this moral relativism baloney being bandied around here is ridiculous.

      MAJORITY rules! This little twit did a bad thing. Let her find out how bad it was.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 8:08pm

      And Rush, you never answered my simple question above. I don’t actually expect you to, since you seem to have your hands full being crushed from every direction. You’re sad insistence that two words which have clear definitive differences are actually the same (atheism and secularism) pretty much put you to bed.

      Report Post »  
    • Bad_Ashe
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 8:41pm

      @LOCKED (and everyone else)

      No one in their right mind is condoning violence against this little girl, and I‘m sure she’s received some subtle hostility, as well as some empty threats of violence. However, she is being openly antagonistic towards the majority of her community, and acting in a way that is not in accordance with what the community sees as being in its best interest.

      What did she and her parents expect to happen? Cheers? Hugs? A parade through the center of town with a giant “Scarlet A” balloon tethered to a float celebrating St. Darwin of the Galapagos?

      This isn’t just a matter of a girl wanting to join the wrestling team, this is an attack on a fundamentally important belief for the nearly 80% of Americans who identify as Christian, and an attack on the history of her individual community and her school.

      She didn’t just keep her head down, either…she sensationalized this on social networks, on news reports, on anything she could find to get her 15 minutes of godless fame. This behavior is not endearing her to anyone, except to make her a hero (or object of affection) to basement-dwelling Internet atheists because they simply have nothing better going on.

      Teenagers crave getting attention…but now that she has it, she realizes it’s not all double rainbows. Quite frankly, she (and her parents, or whoever is coaching her) asked for it. While I don’t condone aggressive hostility, they don’t deserve any sympathy either.

      Report Post » Bad_Ashe  
    • Nick84
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 3:19am

      Rush-Is-Right-

      I’m probably too late getting into this conversation, but you said: “let me explain….taking down any reference to God is by default, embracing an atheistic world view….since it reinfoces the notion that there is no god…does that help??” So, I want you to look at this space:

      Would you argue that the space in between this and the previous sentence is pushing an atheistic view? How is it any different than a bare wall?

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 11:35am

      “Ha! That’s pretty funny. You seem to have the simple act of taking down a banner confused with deicide. The absense of a banner does not “reinforce” atheism–it’s merely institutional neutrality. ”

      oh yes and that ‘neutrality’ just happens to reflect an atheistic worldview, and reinforces an intolerance of religion, and an actual official disapproval of religion…..

      not even a good try…but then thats par for the course for you…

      “You know, like in the Constitution. For the record, my friend, I’m not an atheist. Sorry; I know most of your argument is based on calling me names and insulting me”

      I guess you missed that whole freedom of religion thing in the 1st amendment…no surpirse…

      and actually my whole argument is based upon making you look foolish…not that its very difficult mind you….

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 11:36am

      “1. He’s good for his word. Seems unlikely; his statement doesn‘t drip with sarcasm so much as it’s submerged a few yards under it.
      2. Rush is lying. We can guess why this is: he’s afraid to answer truthfully (see the first point), or he’s confronted with the uncomfortable idea that, gosh, I really do feel a teenager should receive death threats, but that’s not Christian at all!” and presumably his mind short-circuited as “Error! Error! Evasive maneuvers!” flashed behind his eyes.

      I personally like the second. What’s your money on?
      ”

      my money was on you would continue to dig yourself deeper into a hole and make yourself look even more foolish…and I was right!!

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 11:59am

      “And Rush, you never answered my simple question above. I don’t actually expect you to, since you seem to have your hands full being crushed from every direction. You’re sad insistence that two words which have clear definitive differences are actually the same (atheism and secularism) pretty much put you to bed.”

      I notice you never answered my question either…but I don’t expect you to since it would take intelligence and integrity…

      crushed? LOL you really need to take the tin-foil off and get back on your meds…I’ve enjoyed making you and locked look stupid….not that its very hard…

      at least you’re good for a laugh or two…

      oh and secularism and atheism…a distinction without a difference…..why don’t you explain the differences…this should be good….

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 12:02pm

      “So, I want you to look at this space:

      Would you argue that the space in between this and the previous sentence is pushing an atheistic view? How is it any different than a bare wall?
      ”

      you definately have a space in your intellect…this is an example of official hostility to any other religion, other than atheism…get a clue. you atheists are just laughable…and not nearly as clever as you think you are….

      Report Post »  
    • Nick84
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 5:06pm

      Oh, I understand now. If you have a wall without any references to God on it, it is neutral. However, if you hang a banner with “God” on it, then take it down, it becomes atheistic (even though it’s the exact same way it was originally). It doesn‘t return to it’s neutral state. Thank you for clearing that up. That is the exact problem many atheists have with Christians. They view neutrality as siding with atheism (when in reality, there should be a banner stating “there are no gods” in order for it to be atheist.) Therefore, Christians are opposed to neutrality.
      The most ridiculous part about people like you is that you have this idea of “don’t like it, don’t look at it!“ and ”freedom of religion, not freedom from religion!”. Well, here’s the thing. By that logic, shouldn‘t Christian students simply stop looking at the wall and complaining when their banner isn’t there? Or do those rules only apply when a Christian gets his way?

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 6:23pm

      “They view neutrality as siding with atheism (when in reality, there should be a banner stating “there are no gods” in order for it to be atheist.) ”

      uh huh your ‘neutrality’ is having nothing that would ever offend atheists….and an official hostility to any religious expression…yeah thats real ‘neutral’ …laughable.

      “Therefore, Christians are opposed to neutrality.”

      this isn’t neutrality, this is hostility towards any other religion other than atheism, and lets be honest islam…if that was a muslim banner you atheists wouldn’t have the guts to do anything about it.

      ” The most ridiculous part about people like you is that you have this idea of “don’t like it, don’t look at it!“ and ”freedom of religion, not freedom from religion!”. ”

      the most ridiculous part about people like you is thinking that forcing religion out of all public life is freedom from religion. but the truth is people like you are fascists who can’t stand to see anything that might upset you.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 10:38pm

      “crushed? LOL you really need to take the tin-foil off and get back on your meds…I’ve enjoyed making you and locked look stupid….not that its very hard…”

      Rush, you’ve done nothing of the sort (well, at least not with me). Last time we spoke, you admitted that you find it Christian to send death threats to a girl… on the flip side, if you said it sarcastically, that means you‘re either a liar or can’t back up your own behavior.

      Either way, you’re not a good Christian, which you admitted to. Which was kind of my point… there’s no moral high ground you can take. You condone threatening 16 year old girls. That’s… well, that pretty much wraps it up. I’ll pray for you.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 29, 2012 at 10:30am

      “Rush, you’ve done nothing of the sort (well, at least not with me). Last time we spoke, you admitted that you find it Christian to send death threats to a girl… on the flip side, if you said it sarcastically, that means you‘re either a liar or can’t back up your own behavior.:

      really? I enjoyed watching you run out of the other thread where I asked you where the constitution authorizes slavery….not just the supreme court (whom you worship) says so…..and you couldn’t…you slunk out with your tail between your legs…it was rather amusing…but not surprising…

      just like in this thread…you couldn’t back up you idiotic assertions that christians were doing the threats…and your supporting sites…atheists-wackos-r-us . com was just too funny…I mean seriously…and then you just continue to make a fool out of yourself….I appreciate the laughs, but you must be masochistic.

      “Either way, you’re not a good Christian, which you admitted to. Which was kind of my point… there’s no moral high ground you can take. You condone threatening 16 year old girls. That’s… well, that pretty much wraps it up. I’ll pray for you.”

      oh yes and where in the bible did YOU get the job of judging me? hmmm? I guess I missed that…but I didn’t condone threatening a 16 year old girl…you are a LIAR….a man with no integrity or honor.

      I don’t want your prayers, cause you sure don’t pray to the God of the bible obviously

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on January 29, 2012 at 11:22am

      Rush,

      I quite clearly and directly answered the question you posed on the thread above; you have made absolutely no effort to answer mine.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 29, 2012 at 12:37pm

      “…but I didn’t condone threatening a 16 year old girl…you are a LIAR….a man with no integrity or honor.”

      @Rush_Is_Right wrote:
      “of COURSE I think she should be bullied and threatened”

      Ah, so you’re a liar. Hopefully one day you will become a man with integrity or honor. Until then, I’ll pray for you… a person who endorses threats toward teenage girls.

      Now of course, if you were going for sarcasm, I‘m finding it odd that you couldn’t answer the questions I posed. Again, I think it‘s because you realize that Jesus wouldn’t condone the actions of those who are threatening this girl, but you can’t admit it. Pride comes before the fall, Rush!

      As for the slavery issue, I did answer. Slavery was not mentioned in the Constitution until the 13th amendment, which outlawed it. As it was a State issue, the courts ruled on the basis of slaves being property, not people. I guess you just… forgot my response?

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 29, 2012 at 2:56pm

      “Ah, so you’re a liar. Hopefully one day you will become a man with integrity or honor. Until then, I’ll pray for you… a person who endorses threats toward teenage girls.”

      oh I thought english was your natural language…look up sarcasm. again you prove you’re the liar…and without integrity and honor…and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…no surprise you don’t have the intellect to come up with your own lines….loser

      “Now of course, if you were going for sarcasm, I‘m finding it odd that you couldn’t answer the questions ”

      I did answer your question, its not my fault you’re too stupid to understand it. try english 101

      “Again, I think it‘s because you realize that Jesus wouldn’t condone the actions of those who are threatening this girl, but you can’t admit it. Pride comes before the fall, Rush!”

      Jesus doesn’t like pompous self righteous liars either…

      “As for the slavery issue, I did answer. Slavery was not mentioned in the Constitution until the 13th amendment, which outlawed it. As it was a State issue, the courts ruled on the basis of slaves being property, not people. I guess you just… forgot my response?”

      uh again you prove yourself a liar… I asked you where the constitution AUTHORIZED slavery…you didn’t answer…and slunk out of the thread like the low-life you are. but your precious court authorized it, and you agreeed with their decision showing what type of ‘man’ you are.

      “

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 29, 2012 at 4:44pm

      “I did answer your question”

      Yet you just said it was sarcasm… so that leaves us with you either as a liar (by saying you answered when you didn’t) or a liar (by lying with your answer).

      At any rate, I think it says quite enough about your character that you are still defending the actions of the people who would threaten this teenager. I think most people would agree with my feeling that Jesus would condemn a crowd calling for abuse against a child… that you don’t see anything wrong with such actions pretty much sums up the situation.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 31, 2012 at 10:02am

      “At any rate, I think it says quite enough about your character that you are still defending the actions of the people who would threaten this teenager.”

      where did I do that? another nice lie from your mr. ‘christian’

      as far as I can tell no one is threatening her…your ‘proof’ is BS. just like everything else you post.

      Report Post »  
  • wade56013
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:09am

    freedom OF religion. not FROM

    Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:18am

      Establishment Clause, trumps your slogan.

       
    • k9nemesis
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:29am

      Why are her religious rights more important than mine or anyone else’s.

      Report Post » k9nemesis  
    • booger71
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:40am

      No it doesn’t , the Establishment Clause refers to the Federal Government establishing a “State Religion” not some school district having a religious poster hung in the school.

      Report Post » booger71  
    • zorro
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:45am

      Slogan? Wow. Real nice.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:21am

      Booger, there is a 14th Amendment that incorporates the 1st Amendment to the States. Learn the Constitution before you post.

      Report Post »  
    • selloursouls
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:08pm

      Hey encinom, do you think the 14th amendment applies to the 2nd Amendment as well? Because New York, California, Illinois, DC, and several other liberal states have effectively regulated the 2nd Amendment out of existence. When the right to carry is determined by an agent of the government that right has been violated.

      Atheists believe they are removing religion from government when they pull this garbage, but they are simply forcing their religious beliefs instead. Also what LAW was passed that established a religion when the poster was put up? It seems atheists ignore the law passage part of the establishment clause. If the 14th amendment makes the 1st amendment applicable to the states then that means the state legislature has to pass a law that establishes a state religion. No law passed, no constitution violated.

      Report Post » selloursouls  
    • NoNannyState4me
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:11pm

      As established in LATIN, the root of OUR language. OF and FROM are synonymous with one another. Sorry, but Freedom OF religion is also directly and relevantly Freedom FROM religion. Sorry, I know you’d like it differently literal, but it isn’t.

      Report Post » NoNannyState4me  
    • Pray_for_Israel
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:30pm

      @ENCINOM: I wonder if you’re always this smug or is it just when you’re not being a weasel? Your type loves to tout the Establishment Clause as if it’s the Atheists trump card. Get your facts straight… this issue has nothing to do with state supported religion and having a prayer hanging in a school is not an example of a religion being supported. It is a prayer… non denominational. And, no one is denying a prayer from any other religion to hang on the wall. I say get your facts straight but I know you won’t… your type never does.

      Report Post » Pray_for_Israel  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:36pm

      “. Sorry, but Freedom OF religion is also directly and relevantly Freedom FROM religion”

      only in your dream state…the soviet union….

      Report Post »  
    • selloursouls
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:39pm

      Nonanny your english history is suspect. The english language is derived mainly from the Germanic and Norse languages. While latin has had an influence, the main source is the northern languages. Thanks for trying though.

      Report Post » selloursouls  
    • Tony C
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:39pm

      Just think, if you peed on the poster, the liberals and atheists would call it art and defend it hanging there. My suggestion, draw a smiley face on it and call it art.

      And someone needs to study the 14th amendment…it does not trump the first, it only reinforces it…
      “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:40pm

      Pray_for_Israel
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:30pm
      @ENCINOM: I wonder if you’re always this smug or is it just when you’re not being a weasel? Your type loves to tout the Establishment Clause as if it’s the Atheists trump card. Get your facts straight… this issue has nothing to do with state supported religion and having a prayer hanging in a school is not an example of a religion being supported. It is a prayer… non denominational. And, no one is denying a prayer from any other religion to hang on the wall. I say get your facts straight but I know you won’t… your type never does.
      ___________________________
      Government buildings must be religiously neutral. Its not that only a Christian pray was presented, it was that the Schoole violated the Establishment Clause by promoting religious belief period.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:31pm

      “Government buildings must be religiously neutral. Its not that only a Christian pray was presented, it was that the Schoole violated the Establishment Clause by promoting religious belief period.”

      why?

      so in other words you don‘t want religious buildings to be ’religously neutral’ you want them to actively enforce the religion of atheism.

      Report Post »  
    • Bad_Ashe
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 8:55pm

      The simplest solution is for the students to organize a student group, take a vote, and then hang the mural as an expression of their 1st amendment rights. Students in other schools have won similar cases regarding student expression of religion. They can also hang another banner with symbols from various religions, including the idiotic little Humanism logo guy.

      The school and its administration will place a small notice next to these banners stating that this was placed by the students and the school does not endorse the message contained within it.

      I’m no attorney…but based on previous rulings, that should pretty much do it. It really is time that these schools and small towns stop letting themselves be bullied by one measly parent, or some atheist halfway across the country with a bug up their rear end and the ACLU in their pocket.

      Report Post » Bad_Ashe  
  • let us prey
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:09am

    She is supported by a group who is against hate and intolerance. That’s rich.

    Report Post » let us prey  
    • DrFrost
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:12am

      You can tell what a group is really about by their stances on issues like this.

      Report Post »  
    • NoNannyState4me
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:16pm

      By all means, Christians should defend idolatry in the name of Christ with violence and anger. Rip the little girl apart, stone her!

      Man o man, Christians have NO right to make any comments about Islam stoning adulterers and blasphemers. You tools would do the same thing and worse if that silly ol’ Constitution would allow you the “FREEDOM” to do it.

      Quite your ballin. Maybe some people are sick of reading the nursery rhymes that very nearly NONE of you follow just by your example of what you write here.

      Report Post » NoNannyState4me  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:30pm

      “By all means, Christians should defend idolatry in the name of Christ with violence and anger. Rip the little girl apart, stone her!”

      where is the violence? hmmm?? I see nothing other than her feeling are hurt…perhaps you should apologize for lying about christians.

      Report Post »  
  • Berticus33
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:06am

    I actually pity the girl for being misguided, mis-informed, and uneducated. Those adults who have led her astray will have much to answer for one day and they‘re not going to enjoy the dissent they’ve sowed.

    Report Post » Berticus33  
    • nocalifornia
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:16am

      In this case the adults are her socialist parents and I bet they forgot to tell her about the consequence she would pay now and in the future for these misguided actions. I know I for one would never hire her for a private sector job.

      Report Post » nocalifornia  
    • Redhandpaddy
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:17am

      A lesson in accountability. You may do as you please provided you are prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions. No sympathy. I hope this follows and tortures her and her family wherever they go.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:19am

      She is spot on about the Constitution and state endorsed religion. Keep your prays out of government and we will keep our logic and reason out of your churches.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:40am

      “She is spot on about the Constitution and state endorsed religion. Keep your prays out of government and we will keep our logic and reason out of your churches.”

      there is no separation of church and state in the constitution…thats a fascist philosphy put in by progressives judges who redefine the constituion.

      you don’t like our prayers, but you sure want your fascist atheistic faith imposed in the schools. hypocrisy much?

      and your atheist ‘logic’ is laughable…as is your racist atheist fairy tale of evolution….

      Report Post »  
    • ronvent
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:11pm

      “Misguided” and “Led astray.” I see, in a few more turns of this celestial orb, you think you will get what you want: to see her fry in hell. I hope for your sake, and for the sake of all the others who condemn someone so smugly, that there IS no hell. What a crazy universe the religious have created for yourselves. If only you would keep it to yourselves.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:43pm

      “I see, in a few more turns of this celestial orb, you think you will get what you want: to see her fry in hell. I hope for your sake, and for the sake of all the others who condemn someone so smugly, that there IS no hell. What a crazy universe the religious have created for yourselves. If only you would keep it to yourselves.”

      wish you atheists would keep your hellish fascist faith to yourselves too, but you can’t you have to impose it upon the rest of us ….and when you get power slaughter those who disagree.

      hopefully your atheist heros, like stalin, mao and pol pot are in hell…

      Report Post »  
  • ValidFib
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:04am

    Communist Goal #28 – “Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist

    The cold war is over but the destruction of the United States continues through naive citizens like the Atheist schoolgirl, these selfish, naive Americans are unwittingly fighting for these Communist Goals! Tearing down the institutions and the ideals that make us a uniquely strong, moral people.

    Useful idiots.

    Report Post » ValidFib  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:21am

      So points made by a fringe Mormon reactionary on par with the John Birch Society should be taken as factual?

      Report Post »  
    • barber2
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:53am

      ENCIN: Oh, Lord. Now they are dragging out the John Birch Society! Time for some distraction…

      Report Post »  
    • ronvent
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:41pm

      Yup, Jessica’s rending the very fabric of our society. Maybe you are being a little extreme?
      Don’t blame either a god or Jessica, or the beliefs that differ from your own, for any supposed ‘decline’ in America. That kind of “pie in the sky” belief wastes time and resources while people, yes, even such as yourself, can be contributing to real world solutions. There’s nothing “up there,” stop spinning your wheels.
      There are no words to counter your POV, and, atheist that I am, I cannot pray for you. I can only hope that your influence harms as few people as possible. WOW!

      Report Post »  
    • dan@AL
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:43pm

      @Encinomorron I have read the constitution 100′s of times and never read anything that prohibits religion in school. I did however read that the federal government can not establish a religion so can you please let us ignorant people know exactly where in the constitution you can find separation of church and state or a ban on religion in schools. Since she is an atheist (which is a religion because they go on faith there is no GOD) did they not honor her religion and violate the rights of others by taking it down. I really hope the kids in her school or any one she transfers to make her life a living h311 until she graduates or hopefully drops out and spends her life on the street!!!!!

      Report Post »  
  • mycomet123
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:04am

    Let me get this straigh Jessica? We’re not suppose to enforce our God on you, but you have the right to enforce your atheisim on the rest of us? Like it or not if you do not believe in the existence in a Higher Power, than you are making YOURSELF your own God & wanting the rest of society to believe what you believe!!

    Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:23am

      Actually the govenrment needs to be neutral, no school pray, period end of story, the Establishment Clause is the law of the land. You want to pray, great don’t have the State or a State agency do it for you.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:40am

      “Actually the govenrment needs to be neutral, no school pray, period end of story, the Establishment Clause is the law of the land. You want to pray, great don’t have the State or a State agency do it for you.”

      the government is NOT neutral…banning christianity and enforcing your hellish faith of atheism.

      Report Post »  
    • Doctor Nordo
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:00am

      Removing a prayer mural is NOT the same as enforcing atheism. REPLACING the prayer mural with a sign saying “LOL God isn’t real” would be an example of state-sponsored atheism.

      Report Post » Doctor Nordo  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:10pm

      “Removing a prayer mural is NOT the same as enforcing atheism. REPLACING the prayer mural with a sign saying “LOL God isn’t real” would be an example of state-sponsored atheism.”

      sure it is…they are banning all mention of any religion…except atheism…so much for freedom of speech…thats only for atheists apparently…..

      Report Post »  
    • sickoftalking
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 1:57pm

      @ENCINOM,

      Schools should not impose on any religious or political beliefs that make students who disagree with them uncomfortable.

      However, when I was in school, there were gay pride displays in the hallways, and the administration encouraged Latino students to walk out in protest to ballot initiatives. Apparently, the concern by some only goes one way. Its seems like its okay to impose liberal political views on conservative students, but not okay to express any religious beliefs.

      On the other hand, I don’t consider a simply prayer to be in any way imposing. There are a lot of Bible passages and a lot of prayers that can be appreciated in a secular context, just as there are passages in the Qu’ran or quotes from Buddhist monks. I‘m not religious and I don’t get offended by the word “God” any more than I get offended by the expression “The Fates” (from Roman and Greek myth). “God” has also been used in a secular context; many Greek Stoic philosophers talked about a “God.” Its a harmless, non-offensive use of language.

      One would wonder if anyone would object if there were an Islam cultural appreciation day and there were quotes from the Qu’ran teaching different values on the wall for that day.

      Report Post » sickoftalking  
  • Locked
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:04am

    Shame on the people who would bully her for this. Her case was a crock in my opinion, but I understand the ruling; no one should be heckled for upholding the Constitution. Hope things get better for her, but you can’t force people to behave decently… especially not children.

    Report Post »  
    • Countrygirl1362
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:21am

      The USA Constitution says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Displaying a banner does not cause the establishment religion.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:27am

      @Countrygirl,

      The 200+ years of Supreme Court Jurispurdence on the issue says otherwise. The 14th Amendment applies the 1st to the States. Since the 1940′s the Supreme Court has ruled the school pray violated the Establishment Clause, it shows a prefence towards a religion at the expense of all others.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:29am

      “Displaying a banner does not cause the establishment religion.”

      The courts disapprove, and as the courts use the power of judicial review and deciding constitutionality of actions, you’d be wrong.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:41am

      “The courts disapprove, and as the courts use the power of judicial review and deciding constitutionality of actions, you’d be wrong.”

      oh yes our fascist black-robed masters who also approved slavery and separate but equal..yes they know best!!!

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:44am

      “The 200+ years of Supreme Court Jurispurdence on the issue says otherwise. The 14th Amendment applies the 1st to the States. Since the 1940′s the Supreme Court has ruled the school pray violated the Establishment Clause”

      oh so before that our black-robed master were wrong….so tell me why are they right now? and tell us why they were right about the dred scott decision….

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:46am

      @Rush

      “oh yes our fascist black-robed masters who also approved slavery and separate but equal..yes they know best!!!”

      I didn’t say best. I said they rule constitutionality. If they ruled “what’s best” they would have kept the banner up, as it can’t really harm anyone. But instead they ruled based on the Constitution.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:54am

      “I didn’t say best. I said they rule constitutionality. If they ruled “what’s best” they would have kept the banner up, as it can’t really harm anyone. But instead they ruled based on the Constitution.”

      oh ok, slavery is constituional…separate but equal is constituional then….after all the supremes ARE supreme!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:06am

      “oh ok, slavery is constituional…”

      False. Read your Constitution with amendments.

      “separate but equal is constituional then”

      Overturned by proof that separate is not equal in later Supreme Court cases. Until that point, yes, it was constitutional. Welcome to the judicial system of the United States?

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:16am

      “Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:06am
      “oh ok, slavery is constituional…”

      False. Read your Constitution with amendments.
      ”

      again this is TOO funny…didn’t you just say

      “Constitutionally, Dred Scott’s outcome was correct”

      in this post???

      Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:55am
      @Rush

      the thirteenth amendment outlawed slavery…but when did the constituion every authorize slavery? hmmm??

      “Overturned by proof that separate is not equal in later Supreme Court cases. Until that point, yes, it was constitutional. Welcome to the judicial system of the United States?”

      thanks for proving its a joke. kind of like calling this country a republic….its a judicial oligarchy where out laws mean whatever the courts say it means…

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:26am

      @Rush

      I’m sorry, I didn‘t realize English isn’t your natural language. Allow me to tell you about “verb tenses.“ The word ”is” implies current tense, the present. “Was” implies past tense: history. So when you say
      -“oh ok, slavery is constituional…”
      You’re talking in the present tense. Mr response:
      -”False. Read your Constitution with amendments.”
      Is doing the same. The comment
      -“Constitutionally, Dred Scott’s outcome was correct”
      Is past tense. At the time of Dred Scott’s case (1857), there was no amendment banning slavery (the 13th amendment was adopted in 1865). Prior to the 13th amendment, slaves were considered property, not people. Hence why Dred Scott’s decision was constitutional at the time, but ceased to be 8 years later when slavery was banned through the amendment process.

      Hope this has been an educational day for you.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:54am

      “I’m sorry, I didn‘t realize English isn’t your natural language. Allow me to tell you about “verb tenses.“ The word ”is” implies current tense, the present. “Was” “:

      I asked you where in the constituion slavery was authorized…its not…

      I’m sorry, I didn‘t realize English isn’t your natural language

      but your precious supreme court said it was constitutional…even though the constitution does NOT authorize slavery….

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:55am

      “Hope this has been an educational day for you.”

      oh yes I’ve been educated in how arrogant and laughably stupid you are…but then thats always been painfully obvious about you….you’re not nearly as clever as you think you are….

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:58am

      “Prior to the 13th amendment, slaves were considered property, not people. Hence why Dred Scott’s decision was constitutional at the time”

      really? where in the constitutuion were slaves considered property? (before the 13th amendment)

      I‘m breathlessly awaiting your next ’gem’ I can use a good laugh.

      Report Post »  
    • selloursouls
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:28pm

      Locked your faith in the Supreme Court is disconcerting. These people rule according to their own ideological beliefs and in some cases some look to the laws of foreign countries (Justice Ginsberg and ex-Justice O’Connor). I am curious about your stance on Social Security, the 2nd Amendment, Obamacare, the Patriot Act, and the TSA. The Supreme Court has many questionable rulings that are suspect in regards to Constitutional standing. Do you actually believe that these nine people are the absolute deciding factor on what is Constitutional? You yourself admitted they change their stance on precedent periodically. Case law is garbage law. I also would like to know how you feel about plea bargains.

      I ask these because if I have inferred correctly you are an atheist libertarian, but you put a large amount of faith in the Supreme Court’s decisions.

      Report Post » selloursouls  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:45pm

      @Sell

      “I ask these because if I have inferred correctly you are an atheist libertarian, but you put a large amount of faith in the Supreme Court’s decisions.”

      Christian; libertarian in social matters, conservative in fiscal ones.

      I don’t put faith in the Supreme Court necessarily, but in our country. The Supreme Court has ruled constitutionality for 200 years; the “case law” you cite seems incorrect, as the US federal system is primarily common law. (Quick link about it; forgive it being from wikipedia, but it’s the first thing that comes up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States#American_common_law).

      Anyway, our country has run on the idea of the courts holding final say for a couple centuries now. I don’t think they always get it “right” morally, but overall I find them very structured constitutionally. Their opinions cite precedent; they refer to the Constitution. They can be overturned (via the amendment process). So while I don’t agree with all of their decisions, I do respect the reality that their decisions matter and affect our country. I see their use of judicial review as a key point of the balance of power.

      “Do you actually believe that these nine people are the absolute deciding factor on what is Constitutional?”

      Yes. As that’s how our government was worked since Marbury V. Madison, not believing so is to not believe in reality.

      Report Post »  
    • insaneserenity
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:08pm

      wow this locked is completely clueless. doesn’t have a clue what the Constitution means, has zero ideas what Christianity is either. Obviously is just a ******* troll.

      hey locked, do the world a favor and learn what you are talking about, because you make it obvious you haven’t a clue.

      The First amendment means people are allowed to practice any religion they choose, and congress cannot make any laws and judges cannot say what is allowable at all. This means if you want to be an ecoterrorist and love the green movement you may, it also means you have zero business telling others what they can believe.

      And stop quoting scripture. You have no idea what you are saying, or what the passages mean. Please enlighten us to wear Jesus said we should never stand for what is right, show us where Jesus doesn’t preach his beliefs and ideas, and show us where Jesus let someone walk all over him.

      Words are not attacks. If a fool cannot deal with the weapons she chooses to engage others in, she has zero business fighting anything. This trap chose to fight, and now she is acting like any ******* evofreak when she realizes she is ignorant of all reality.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:59pm

      @Insane

      Please, if you feel they are wrong, then counter my arguments. Your defense of the first amendment is misplaced; as has been mentioned so many times already, the Supreme Court rulings have set the bar for the policy of prayer and religious displays in school. You say “the first amendment means…” ok, according to whom? Who decides what is the final say on it? The Supreme Court. So your example here is rather bogus unless you become a Supreme Court judge and can back up your opinion with precedence. Come back to the discussion when you do that and I’ll happily agree with you.

      As for quoting Scripture, now I’m interested. Do you deny that Christ said “Turn the other cheek?“ Or to ”love your neighbor?” Or that these apply quite well to the situation of an entire crowd heckling a girl and threatening her for a sin? Oh wait, there seems to be a parable for that… and a saying as well. “Let he without sin cast the first stone…”

      “Words are not attacks. If a fool cannot deal with the weapons she chooses to engage others in, she has zero business fighting anything.”

      Threats are, however. Bullying is a crime in RI. That you would rather defend those who would attack this girl, or deny that such attacks are worthy of rebuke, shows who the actual follower of Christ is. No matter her sins, we Christians are called to turn the other cheek and love her as we would love ourselves. There’s no misunderstanding there.

      Report Post »  
  • I.Gaspar
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:04am

    Just what she needs…even less knowledge.
    Her parents should be put in jail.

    Report Post »  
  • littlefish
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:04am

    Why is it the RIGHT and apparent duty . . .of Atheists…. to call everyone else STUPID ???

    Report Post » littlefish  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:15am

      A lot of atheists don’t support this kind of thing. The radical atheists get all the attention and it paints all atheists with a broad brush. I think the radical atheists actualy hate a God they claim not to believe in. The normal atheist just doesn‘t believe so they don’t get wound up about this stuff.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Sirfoldallot
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:09am

      Atheist think they know it all. Problem is they should leave others alone that have different believes than them. Must be hard for those with god complex.

      Report Post » Sirfoldallot  
  • sndrman
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:02am

    hey if no other school takes her maybe she could go to Christian Schools? Catholic Education is really worth the price. just saying if secular schools who are 95% anti-GOD and she found the other 5% well…I don’t support bullying at all but it is nice to see that students kids standing up for the banner.maybe there is hope that these kids will grow up to be the hope we need.every liberal social program under the guise of “it’s a good thing to do”has failed,social security,public schools,welfare,tarp and it goes on and on..

    Report Post »  
  • Lonescrapper
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:02am

    C.S. Lewis warned us about people who are doing things ‘for our own good’, saying: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

    “The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    Report Post » Lonescrapper  
  • NOBAMA201258
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:00am

    Maybe the little airhead should have kept her mouth shut and just not look at the banner,the atheists are really out of line,richard dawkins writing a children’s book to promote evolution and atheism ? Why are these people always complaining that Christians are trying to shove religion down their throats when the exact opposite is true? I know we are supposed to pray for them but we might “offend” them and open ourselves up to a lawsuit,so I say good luck

    Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:30am

      Maybe Rosa Parks, should have kept here mouth shut and road in the back of the bus, maybe Brown should have stayed quiet and been happy and stayed out of whites only schools.

      Those that remain silent in defense of Constitution and the rights contained within don’t recieve the protections the Founders set out.

      Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:39am

      Now he’s a Constitutionalist. LMAO

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:45am

      “Maybe Rosa Parks, should have kept here mouth shut and road in the back of the bus, maybe Brown should have stayed quiet and been happy and stayed out of whites only schools.”

      oh but your precious supreme court, those guarantors of freedom and liberty…said separate but equal was ok….so according to you liberals she should have shut up.

      Report Post »  
    • barber2
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:50am

      ENCIN: Perhaps we are experiencing today one of the worst results of slavery : the over use of the Discrimination Card. Rosa Parks had a legitimate grievance. Forcing banks to give home loans to the “ poor” was insane and dysfunctional. The Discrimination Card has become a time bomb to our economy and society. Wonder when the rights of “ pedophiles ” will be used to assure that they are not required to register because it “ discriminates” against them. Wonder when “ polygamy ” will be allowed because it is “ discrimination” to forbid them this ” right.”

      Report Post »  
    • ronvent
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:44pm

      The “Little Airhead” did not advocate replacing the poster with an “anti-god” display. She is not demanding that you or anyone else be subjected to anti-god rhetoric in any public place.

      Do you honestly believe that, had there been no poster, she would have insisted on an antigod poster on that spot of bare wall? (Is that what “Satan’s army of atheists” has been doing? Funny, I didn’t see any posters in my post office this morning…)

      You spout nonsense so easily, so illogically, so without fear of condemnation, so protected by majority-mob rule. She, tiny-voiced as she is, is no threat to you, or to the army of Salem Witch Trial Imitators who, since they can no longer burn or drown her, none-the-less can’t wait for her to fry in hell. I think Rhode Island’s founder would be spinning in his grave if he were in any position to witness the current government/religion fiasco in his state.

      Far from being an airhead, she has a voice, and great courage and I for one, would be PROUD to call her my daughter! “Stand up for what you think is right, even if you stand alone.” is easy to say when you are standing in a crowd. SHE’S a real hero.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:14pm

      “She, tiny-voiced as she is, is no threat to you”

      she’s already taken our rights away…but then you athiests are fine with liberty for yourselves..but not those you disagree with…

      Report Post »  
  • gdbhusker
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:00am

    where to start????? I am a Judeo-Christian and I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy spirit. I believe that we are all part of a magnificent creation from a God that truly loves each of us. I am not political about my religion however, and believe that this is the main disconnect between Christians and Atheists. Should I, at any time, sue my childrens school for the very large Darwin picture of the transformation of primates into humanity? I mean it is right there on the large hallway in the science wing. you MUST attend science class, so every child has to see it. the answer is NO. I teach my kids to do their work even if it is on darwinism, learn the facts that the teachers want them to (dates and such) and move on. Atheists on the other hand , do not teach their children this…and believe me, atheism is TAUGHT by parents to children the same way I teach my children about the Lord. They instead teach them that all Christian symbolism must be contested in our society (which actually is VERY FAR from constitutionality) at all cost. Have ANY of you heard of any cases where atheists go to the courts against……….ISLAM?, Buddhism???Scientology? Hinduism? or anything other than CHRISTIANITY???? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! because the name Jesus Christ sends non-believers into furious anger, they feel it’s their duty to stop HIM…..this is sad. She was not FORCED to believe Christianity, any more than my child is forces to believe Evolution..

    Report Post » gdbhusker  
    • NOBAMA201258
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:15am

      Just further proof we are living in the latter days, no religion on Earth is persecuted to the extent that Christianity is,just once I would love to see these atheist cowards take a stand against the muslims but they won’t

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:39am

      Darwin and Science is not a faith based Myth like creationism and religion. Their are no temples to Darwin. Your argument is a joke if it wasn’t for the sad fact that so many willfully ignorant christians believe this. Unlike religion, theories are tested and refined, they are backed up with independant and varifiable evidence. Outside of the bible where is the evidence that the earth is six thousand years old or that the Christian creation myth as opposed to the Greek, Hindu or Shinto one is correct.

      the argument is not displays of religion, its displays on religion in public.government control areas that violate the Establishment Clause. Set up a navitity on your front lawn, but in front of a government building which must represent all ctizens is a problem. Your kids want to pray in school fine, don;t have a school sponsored banner and teacher lead the pray.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:47am

      “Darwin and Science is not a faith based Myth like creationism and religion”

      darwin has nothing to do with science, since there is no science that supports evolution….nothing in the fossil record, nothing in the lab…and evoluton is useless for science…

      In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin‘s and Alfred Russel Wallace’s evolutionary theories.
      The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings: the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.
      Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss.
      http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:53am

      “Your argument is a joke if it wasn’t for the sad fact that so many willfully ignorant christians believe this. Unlike religion, theories are tested and refined, they are backed up with independant and varifiable evidence. ”

      post your proof….tell us the mutations that led to the eye…in order….oh you can’t can you? no one else can either…you just take it on FAITH…which is all evolution is….

      “Outside of the bible where is the evidence that the earth is six thousand years old or that the Christian creation myth as opposed to the Greek, Hindu or Shinto one is correct.”

      really?

      [2] All living humans are also descended matrilineally from Mitochondrial Eve who is thought to have lived earlier about 190,000 – 200,000 years ago.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

      I’d love to argue about evolution with you…I can always use a few laughs….

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:28am

      @Rush is Wrong,
      how does the science of DNA prove the Christian creation myth?

      And outside the brainwashed Christian, Evolution is accepted science. Sorry but Christian myths are not science they are no different than fairy tales, again no evidence of anythng. the DNA you are pointing to would be expected in evolution, a common ancestor.

      Report Post »  
    • Twobyfour
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:44am

      “Darwin and Science is not a faith based Myth”

      No, I am proof positive that Darwin existed and as for science — it is a set of rules providing tools for modeling realty, based on the principle of falsification. If you can’t falsify–then it is not a part of science. Atheist assumptions aren‘t a part of science because they aren’t falsifiable.

      At least shouldn’t be, or should be only allowed as a tentative set of postulates and presented as such.

      Evolution fits the above. It is closer to a faith than to a scientific theory, in the macro-evolution aspect of it.

      Report Post » Twobyfour  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:47am

      “@Rush is Wrong,
      how does the science of DNA prove the Christian creation myth? ”

      you can’t read english very well can you gomer? I posted the link…I notice you don’t have any support for your racist atheist fairy tale do you now??

      “And outside the brainwashed Christian, Evolution is accepted science. ”

      oh yes and those who disagree are harassed, silenced, sued, and fired…by the tolerant fascists of ‘science’ I asked you a simple scientific question…why can’t you answer it? hmmm?? since you have SCIENCE on your side…should be a simple thing for you to answer…..

      “Sorry but Christian myths are not science they are no different than fairy tales, again no evidence of anythng. the DNA you are pointing to would be expected in evolution, a common ancestor.”

      uh get a clue, oh of course…no matter what the data says….even if happens to support the bible….it HAS to support evolution….laughable.

      you realize you’re not nearly as clever as you think you are….

      Report Post »  
    • Twobyfour
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:21pm

      Rush, just so you know… (you probably do)…

      The Eve Mitochondrial and Adam Chromosomal are not in the related conceptual framework individuals (or at least not specific individuals) but rather a narrow group of modern humans (estimated at 2000 individuals or so).

      If we consider that Abraham took form UR with him the Sumerian mythology that later manifested in a condensed version in the Bible, then it may be prudent to explore Sumerian mythology,what it says about the matter.

      To a considerable degree (as far as our translations have a reasonable degree of correspondence with the ancient meanings), the Sumerian literature confirms that the first modern humans were not 2 individuals, but a small group of people. The male members of this group were called in Sumerian a.da.mu and the female members were called ba or a.ba. Sounds familiar?

      The etymology of these names:
      a.da.mu = worker/servant; the meaning is rather precise and non-ambivalent
      a.ba = from mud (also ba stood for a rib). Normally mud was ba.ki (ki = earth), so ba is often interpreted as “clay” or “matter” or “material”.

      Adam was in reality, according Sumerian sources, an adam.

      Report Post » Twobyfour  
    • ronvent
      Posted on January 28, 2012 at 2:18pm

      Have ANY of you heard of any cases where atheists go to the courts against……….ISLAM?, Buddhism???Scientology? Hinduism? or anything other than CHRISTIANITY???? ….the name Jesus Christ sends non-believers into furious anger, they feel it’s their duty to stop HIM…..this is sad. She was not FORCED to believe Christianity, any more than my child is forces to believe Evolution..

      Do you think, for a second, that american atheists would acquiesce to a requirement that they wear veils in an american school? That Jessica would be happier bowing to a Buddhist shrine? This is America, where the Christians think they own it all. Where ANY differing view emanates from one who will surely die and go to hell. The Muslims, Hindus, etc, etc. here have about as much to say as the atheists…almost no voice at all. The reason atheists object to drowning in christian symbolism is precisely and exclusively because such symbolism is so all pervasive. That Christians, the overwhelming majority in America and a seemingly unstoppable mob, whine about “oppression” from the tiny numbers of atheists in our midst is just crazy displacement. Christians, I assure you, by sheer force of numbers and by a proven resistance to facts, science, knowledge, progress, etc, will remain a lasting remnant of the middle ages in America long after the last “atheist/liberal/obama-ite/satanist” (toss in the rest of the mindless rhetorical name calling) is forgotten, or simply has had his/her books bu

      Report Post »  
  • islamhater
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:59am

    I don’t believe in god. But i hope these kids run her out of town… It‘s call’ed freedom of religion NOT freedom from religion..Atheist need to move out of this country if they don’t like it… I would much rather have a christian neighbor than an Atheist one…

    Report Post »  
    • SmallGovBigGuns
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:06am

      Agreed. I’m agnostic as of now altho my faith is growing by the day as i see how the world is changing.

      This little punk needs to be run out of town. Now her little celebration on facebook looks real dumb. She is going to be a victim the rest of her sad pathetic life.

      Report Post »  
  • let us prey
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:59am

    Maybe the city can get a lawsuit to have her removed. If she waits long enough, she can go live at the atheist mosque.

    Report Post » let us prey  
  • OnceAMarine
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:58am

    Well I‘m sure she doesn’t want anyone to stop the students from excersizing their 1st amendment free speech rights in their disappointment at the courts decision.

    Report Post »  
  • Wolf
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:58am

    She’s getting her fifteen minutes of fame. God has a way of making people like her eat their own words and she’ll come around- or her children will.

    Report Post »  
    • Doin it for da Chilren
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:14am

      Next step is the pro choice dance. Moving on up. Dumb hole holler tolerance while practicing intolerance. This is how you make it big in the US now either fight GOD in school, gov’t buildings and church (thats next). This church’s bells are so distracting and stain glass windows create a glare on my eyeball when I put my face next to them, ohhhhh wheres the justice? Or you can make a porno on the internet and get your own reality show. Jesus is my SAVIOR. If the devil acknowledges his own existence then he acknowledges GODS existence.

      Report Post »  
  • lukerw
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:54am

    Dear Jessica: If you are Insane… you will deny it… so people tend to look to others in order to judge if their Thinking is valid.

    Report Post » lukerw  
    • Lonescrapper
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:01am

      C.S. Lewis warned us about people like (fill in blanks for liberal / atheist activists), saying: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

      “The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

      Report Post » Lonescrapper  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:53am

    Cry me a river.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • NOBAMA201258
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:04am

      Yeah I wonder if her next school will need to remove anything she deems offensive,this BS needs to stop!

      Report Post »  
  • NOTAMUSHROOM
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:53am

    ” but I’m defending their Constitution, too.”

    Apparently she hasn’t actually read it. And her history teachers didn’t teach any history.

    Report Post »  
    • Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:02am

      The communist constitiution maybe.

      Report Post » Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra  
    • barber2
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:42am

      Good point. If teachers actually taught world history, there would not be as many believers in Communism . Just young people ignorant of the basic facts who get brainwashed by their Communist/ Marxist professors…

      Report Post »  
    • Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:50am

      I love how, when you present the “Fair” system of grade redistribution to students, communism is suddenly a bad idea, and people should be able to keep the grades they earn.

      Report Post » Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra  
  • AzSage
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:50am

    The clock on the wall to the left of the banner offends me greatly. It reminds me that we all are slaves to time and that we better not be late least the man come down from on high and punish us.

    I demand that the clock be removed!!!!! IT IS OFFENSIVE.

    Report Post » AzSage  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:55am

      It’s not whether something offends you, it’s about whether a public school can promote religion. The First Amendment prevents the government from promoting religion, any religion, which this prayer does. Thus, the school cannot have it displayed. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is offended.

      Report Post »  
    • Rampart
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:05am

      Godfather…You need to re-read the Constitution, lest you continue to confirm our assumption that you are a libertard drone…The US Constituion says NONE of those things.

      Report Post » Rampart  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:09am

      “It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is offended.”

      This. At the same time, the girl is learning the hard way that people throw decency out the window when you do something they consider to be an attack on their beliefs. It’s not right, it’s not fair, but it is reality.

      I do question the reasoning behind the kids heckling her. If you want to convince someone of your beliefs, being antagonistic and rude is usually a bad way to go about it. Instead they show the worst side of being religious; the blind hatred of the “other.” Then again, they’re just kids; there‘s still some hope that they’ll read the Bible and learn about the Golden Rule. Hopefully they figure out that being lousy to others makes you a lousy person as well.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:15am

      @Rampart

      “The US Constituion says NONE of those things.”

      Quite true. However, the interpretation of its meaning through the Supreme Court certainly does. As they’re the basis of deciding constitutionality in our country, it’s a rather moot point.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:42am

      “As they’re the basis of deciding constitutionality in our country, it’s a rather moot point.”

      so in other words our constituion is meaningless…it only means what 5 black robed thugs on the supreme court say it means….

      glad to know we’re livng in a judicial oligarchy, and not a republic.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:55am

      @Rush

      “so in other words our constituion is meaningless…it only means what 5 black robed thugs on the supreme court say it means….

      glad to know we’re livng in a judicial oligarchy, and not a republic.”

      Glad to know you’re moving out the US, as you disagree with every court ruling for the past 200+ years? By your thinking, you must be against Brown V. Board of Education?

      Note: Dred Scott’s outcome was reversed by amendments, not the courts. I think you might want to learn history. Constitutionally, Dred Scott’s outcome was correct; morally, it was abhorrent. Decide what you’re arguing; on the one hand you demand the courts make “the right” decision; on the other, you demand they stick to the Constitution. Sometimes the two aren’t the same.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:08am

      “Glad to know you’re moving out the US, as you disagree with every court ruling for the past 200+ years? By your thinking, you must be against Brown V. Board of Education?”

      by my thinking the court doesn’t have the power to decide what is and is not constitutional…and w’eve seen the results of when they do….ie the civil war….just because the supreme court says it, doesn’t make it right or constititutional…see KELO for a recent example….

      “Note: Dred Scott’s outcome was reversed by amendments, not the courts. I think you might want to learn history”

      I thought it was because of the civil war…perhaps you missed that in your history class?? hmmm??

      “Dred Scott’s outcome was correct; morally, it was abhorrent. ”

      oh this is TOO Funny…tell me where the constitution authorizes slavery….

      “Decide what you’re arguing; on the one hand you demand the courts make “the right” decision; on the other, you demand they stick to the Constitution. Sometimes the two aren’t the same.”

      I‘m arguing they shouldn’t interpret the constitution…they change their minds all the time…as we’ve seen….so in other words they don‘t decide what is ’constitutional‘ because the constitution hasn’t changed (other than a few amendments) but the courts have decided its changed…in other words our constitution is a joke, and only means what the courts say it means…

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:20am

      “tell me where the constitution authorizes slavery….”

      It explicitly forbids it… now. Prior to the 14-16th amendments, slavery was a state issue and the Constitution did not say anything explicitly on it. When ruling, the SCotUS primarily ruled that people were possessions (ie, Dred Scott)… Constitutionally sound, if morally abhorrent.

      Civil War changed nothing, Constitution-wise. The amendment process did. Again: history. Might want to read it.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:28am

      Note: above should read “prior to the 13th amendment”

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:36am

      “It explicitly forbids it… now. Prior to the 14-16th amendments, slavery was a state issue and the Constitution did not say anything explicitly on it. When ruling, the SCotUS primarily ruled that people were possessions (ie, Dred Scott)… Constitutionally sound, if morally abhorrent.”

      no it wasn’t constitutionally sound…if the constitutuion said nothing about it, and it didn’t directly..then the supreme court shouldn’t have even bothered with the case…the supreme court decided slavery was constitutional…based upon nothing. the constitution never authorized slavery.

      and the congress banned the importation of slaves in 1808….so that would give you some indication that slavery was not constitutional…even given the compromises that were in place when the constiution was ratified….and of course the 3/5 rule which was specifically designed to limit the power of the slave states…

      get a clue.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:41am

      “Civil War changed nothing, Constitution-wise. The amendment process did. Again: history. Might want to read it.”

      oh of course not….do you really think the supremes would have made the same decision after the civil war??? since dred scott was one of the sparks of the civil war?? hmmmm??

      again history….you might want to read it.

      you pompous moron.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:43am

      and do you REALLY think the 13th amendmend would have passed without the civil war???

      again you might want to read history…and get a clue.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:02pm

      @Rush

      Insults aside, I feel your words say only one thing: “I’m right!” There’s not much backing that up… constitutionally, judicially, and historically you’ve been wrong. Maybe one day you’ll see that.

      Barring that, and returning to the original topic, I pray more that one day you’ll realize that abusing a teenage girl because is not Christian. Go with God!

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:08pm

      “Insults aside, I feel your words say only one thing: “I’m right!” There’s not much backing that up… constitutionally, judicially, and historically you’ve been wrong. Maybe one day you’ll see that.”

      uh no surprise you can’t tell me where the constitution authorizes slavery…it doesn’t…

      the supreme court authorized slavery in dred scott….and to you whatever the supreme court says is true, by definition.

      “Barring that, and returning to the original topic, I pray more that one day you’ll realize that abusing a teenage girl because is not Christian. Go with God!”

      after your complete capitulation on what we were talking about in this thread…you’re back to this…

      whats your definition of ‘abusing’ getting her feelings hurt? ahhhhh poor baby…

      Report Post »  
  • barber2
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:50am

    Isn’t this part of the Victim Card tactic? I remember the video of the Anarchist female who repeatedly disrupted Gingrich’s speaking event , and then accused the people around her of “ threatening ” her. Don’t know if these types have a chip missing which makes them take on obnoxious causes so they will be out of step with the majority or if they just have an overwhelming need for ATTENTION – regardless of what kind of attention they get….

    Report Post »  
    • JP4JOY
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:12am

      Chimpanzees and other socially organized groups usually banish or abandon those troublemakers who don’t fit into their social fabric. The article on the guy in England who wants to build a temple to Atheism underscores the basic human need or desire to worship (installed by our creator). I wish we could just send these misfits away because they don’t seem smart enough to leave the rest of us alone. IMHO we would all be a lot happier.

      Report Post » JP4JOY  
    • barber2
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:38am

      JP: Good point. The Roams did use banishment as a punishment !? Guess the world’s too “ small” today – PLUS our borders are wide open .

      Report Post »  
    • barber2
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 10:39am

      OOps. That should have been Romans .

      Report Post »  
  • BrerRabbit
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:47am

    Makes me 8>)

    Report Post »  
  • Sirfoldallot
    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:46am

    Obama is her GOD

    Report Post » Sirfoldallot  
    • Pontiac
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:44pm

      Did you guys miss this part
      [State Representative Peter Palumbo, a DEMOCRAT, called her “an evil little thing” during a radio interview.]
      Obama, Socialist, Communist, Marxist, Democrats, & Progressives have no problem using any “God” to push their agenda like wealth redistribution. The governments use of god is far more perverted than religions and the more government mentions god the more it plays god. Far better to keep it in your home, church, private school, and car bumpers than to have it as a staple of government schools. Students in that school already have a perverted understanding of Christianity by bullying a girl that has done nothing to strip them of their belief in the flying spaghetti monster.

      Excerpt of the schools prayer
      [To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers as well with others]
      Unless they’re atheist, then persecute them… Also nice that it wants you to be kind and helpful to the government stooges that will undoubtedly push progressive idea’s on christian sheep under the guise of collective salvation. Yes, we need more mentions of god in our government so government can be unchallenged, like the Vatican. Fantastic idea…

      Report Post » Pontiac  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:13pm

      “Students in that school already have a perverted understanding of Christianity by bullying a girl that has done nothing to strip them of their belief in the flying spaghetti monster. ”

      how did they bully her? oh they hurt her little feelings….poor snuggums….

      “Unless they’re atheist, then persecute them…”

      yeah seeing anything you atheist fascists disaprove of is SUCH persecusion…you poor little dear!!

      Report Post »  
    • Black Eagle
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:11pm

      PONTIAC you are absolutely correct. There is nothing “Christian” in the cruelty thrown at that young girl. Many Christians reject the fanatical side of organized Church-Going “Better Than Thou” types. I grew up in a small southern town, back in the 1950s, and the intolerance, racism, and hate (against blacks, Jews, anyone not like “them”) was so intensive that I got beat up daily by the “good Christian” boys in the school, because I was Italian, and made the “mistake” one time to defend Martin Luther King in the classroom, where the High School Coach was the “history” teacher, telling us kids that blacks were lower down on the evolutionary tree. Don’t forget in prior centuries, that young girl would have been burnt at the stake by “good Christians”. If you are rightfully suspicious of progressives who thump their bible, Das Kapital, as a justification for smashing you down, then be equally suspicious of the Holy Bible thumper who would use the words of the Prince of Peace to justify their desires to create a self-righteous Biblical Hell On Earth.

      Report Post »  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:26pm

      “and the intolerance, racism, and hate (against blacks, Jews, anyone not like “them”) was so intensive that I got beat up daily by the “good Christian” boys in the school, because I was Italian,”

      you do know it was christians who freed the slaves right?

      you atheists sure didn’t lift a finger….

      Report Post »  
    • Pontiac
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:28pm

      @rush_is_right
      [SNARL, HARBLE GARBLE HARBLE GARBLE!]
      Sorry, what was that? I stopped reading your hate filled insanity some time ago, in case you haven’t figured that out yet while you stalked my every post on religion.
      Again, not reading your post, couldn’t care less about your existence. kthxbai.

      Pontiac  
    • rush_is_right
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:40pm

      “[SNARL, HARBLE GARBLE HARBLE GARBLE!]
      Sorry, what was that? I stopped reading your hate filled insanity some time ago, in case you haven’t figured that out yet while you stalked my every post on religion.
      Again, not reading your post, couldn’t care less about your existence. kthxbai.”

      hate-filled? oh its called projection….get some professional help for that…

      I was just making fun of you pompous arrogant atheists…its SO easy to do…especially with the idiotic drivel you post!! LOL

      stalked your every post?? my you do think highly of yourself don’t you? got any proof of that? didn’t think so..but then you’re an atheist….lying comes naturally doesn’t it?

      and uh if you didn’t read my post…then why are you posting to me?? LOL

      you’re too easy…are there any atheists that actually have an ounce of intelligence?

      Report Post »  
    • Bad_Ashe
      Posted on January 27, 2012 at 9:21pm

      @Pontiac – Yet another atheist desperately attempting to equate non-establishment, separation and accommodation with “remove religion from the public square”. The militant godless should really stop falsely equating the two, even though they want it to be true so very very very badly.

      Report Post » Bad_Ashe  
1 2 3 ... 9

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love