Cranston Ri School - Religious Intolerance

[Luigi]

[url="http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/02/new-home-sought.html"]http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/02/new-home-sought.html[/url]

Forty years ago, the first class of graduating seniors at Cranston High School in Rhode Island donated a banner to their alma mater. It contained a "prayer" - it's actually not very religious, it pretty typical high school inspirational stuff about doing your best and being good sports - but it does start with "Heavenly Father" and end with "Amen."

It's been hanging in the school for [i][b]forty years[/b][/i].

But a sixteen-year-old atheist was recently offended by the implication that there might be a God somewhere in the universe, and perhaps even in her very own school. And, this being modern America, she sued the school. With the help of the ACLU, of course, because few sixteen-year-old girls - even in modern America - have the $170,000 or so that it takes to sue.

And the ACLU won. Er.. I mean, the offended sixteen-year-old girl won. Yeah... that's what I mean.



This was going on at exactly the same time that the president of the United States and his Secretary of Health and Human Services was - and still is, really - trying to force people of faith to violate their faith by requiring them - I think it would be not too strong to say 'forcing' them - to provide insurance coverage of abortofacient drugs to employees. As if employers are forced to provide [b]ANY[/b] kind of insurance to employees. They're not, of course. They don't [i]have to[/i] provide life insurance, or health insurance, or coverage of poison ivy, or anything else. It's an economic tradition that's been around for a long time in this country, but it's not a law. Or even a regulation.


The conclusion I draw from these concurrent news events involving religion is that atheists are intolerant of religious people. One sixteen-year-old girl can stop the display of a a banner because it contains the offensive words 'heavenly father' and 'amen.' On the other hand, one quarter of the nation - and I grant that not all self-declared Catholics are practicing Catholics or adhere to all the tenets of their faith, but they still constitute something like 75 million people in this country - can be forced to violate their consciences. And that doesn't count Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, or any other denomination that might happen to agree with the Catholics on this issue.



This is what I term a one-way relationship. They demand of us that we not do X, but we cannot demand of them that they not do Y.

If you've ever been in a one-way relationship - with a drunk, an addict, a terribly needy person - you know that the relationship is dysfunctional. It's sick. It's harmful. To both parties.



I am willing to make the following agreement with any atheist that is willing:

I will let you believe (or not) and practice anything within the law IF
You let me believe and practice anything within the law.





Deal?

[brandelynmarie]

Makes you wonder what they did with the banner. They could have even removed Heavenly Father & Amen & left it up.

[4588686]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1329547635' post='2388882']
[url="http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/02/new-home-sought.html"]http://news.providen...ome-sought.html[/url]

Forty years ago, the first class of graduating seniors at Cranston High School in Rhode Island donated a banner to their alma mater. It contained a "prayer" - it's actually not very religious, it pretty typical high school inspirational stuff about doing your best and being good sports - but it does start with "Heavenly Father" and end with "Amen."

It's been hanging in the school for [i][b]forty years[/b][/i].

But a sixteen-year-old atheist was recently offended by the implication that there might be a God somewhere in the universe, and perhaps even in her very own school. And, this being modern America, she sued the school. With the help of the ACLU, of course, because few sixteen-year-old girls - even in modern America - have the $170,000 or so that it takes to sue.

And the ACLU won. Er.. I mean, the offended sixteen-year-old girl won. Yeah... that's what I mean.



This was going on at exactly the same time that the president of the United States and his Secretary of Health and Human Services was - and still is, really - trying to force people of faith to violate their faith by requiring them - I think it would be not too strong to say 'forcing' them - to provide insurance coverage of abortofacient drugs to employees. As if employers are forced to provide [b]ANY[/b] kind of insurance to employees. They're not, of course. They don't [i]have to[/i] provide life insurance, or health insurance, or coverage of poison ivy, or anything else. It's an economic tradition that's been around for a long time in this country, but it's not a law. Or even a regulation.


The conclusion I draw from these concurrent news events involving religion is that atheists are intolerant of religious people. One sixteen-year-old girl can stop the display of a a banner because it contains the offensive words 'heavenly father' and 'amen.' On the other hand, one quarter of the nation - and I grant that not all self-declared Catholics are practicing Catholics or adhere to all the tenets of their faith, but they still constitute something like 75 million people in this country - can be forced to violate their consciences. And that doesn't count Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, or any other denomination that might happen to agree with the Catholics on this issue.



This is what I term a one-way relationship. They demand of us that we not do X, but we cannot demand of them that they not do Y.

If you've ever been in a one-way relationship - with a drunk, an addict, a terribly needy person - you know that the relationship is dysfunctional. It's sick. It's harmful. To both parties.



I am willing to make the following agreement with any atheist that is willing:

I will let you believe (or not) and practice anything within the law IF
You let me believe and practice anything within the law.





Deal?
[/quote]

This case is, in my opinion, frivolous. But this girl has had to be escorted to school by police officers due to her being besieged by bullies and conveyors of death threats.

So you have a girl submitting a legal petition to a court of law on one had and on the other a horde of bigots defaming her character and threatening her life, and yet we are to believe that the girl filing a legal petition is the one guilty of religious intolerance? I don't think so.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Hasan

[Luigi]

She started it.


she couldn't just tolerate the banner? Ignore it? Mutter to herself every time she saw it, "What a bunch of schmucks that need such a stupid concept as a heavenly father to get them to do whatever," and kept her mouth shut?


No. She couldn't. She simply [i]couldn't[/i] get through a day after having been beaten over the head and conscience by some well-intended (if insipid) words on a forty year old banner.


What WILL they ask her to do next?

Edited February 19, 2012 by Luigi

[4588686]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1329631247' post='2389285']
She started it.


[/quote]


What the hell kind of dumb arse argument is that? The 16 year old girl deserves to have her life threatened and have to live under police protection because she filed a lawsuit over some dumb floopy banner?

I thought this lawsuit was stupid before, but to hell with that. I hope they take that banner down, burn it, and pee on the ashes.


'she started it'

What are you? Five?

Edited February 19, 2012 by Hasan

[Luigi]

Right. She should never have to tolerate anything that offends her. Nobody else has to. If something offends you, STATE IT LOUD AND CLEAR. COMPLAIN. And if people give you birdshot in return SUE THEIR INTOLERANT ASHES - to the Supreme Court if you have to.

Because nobody should have to tolerate anything that offends them.

[4588686]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1329632113' post='2389291']
Right. She should never have to tolerate anything that offends her.[/QUOTE]

Stop it. It's a stupid lawsuit. It's a nit pickity, dumb thing to sue over. But what kind of man says, to a 16 year old girl having her life threatened, 'WELL SHE STARTED IT!!!' She's 16 years old. she's stupid and idealistic and she's looking for some cause to champion so she picked this stupid idea. Is it dumb? Yes it is. Is her case valid? Maybe, there's mixed case law about this. The antiquity of the banner gives the state some legal cover. But to say that threatening her life and forcing her to live in fear and bullying her is an acceptable response to a teenager filing a lawsuit over some dumb floopy banner is astounding.

[QUOTE]Nobody else has to. If something offends you, STATE IT LOUD AND CLEAR. COMPLAIN. And if people give you birdshot in return SUE THEIR INTOLERANT ASHES - to the Supreme Court if you have to.[/QUOTE]


That's exactly what she did. She complained to the school and then she filed a lawsuit. Which is her RIGHT as an AMERICAN CITIZEN. Threatening a citizen's life for exercising their constitutional right to sue the state in the court of law is shameful and you should be ashamed for defending it.

[QUOTE]Because nobody should have to tolerate anything that offends them.
[/quote]

They should. And thankfully, they do. Because in this country we have a right to offend people through the freedom of speech. No thanks to your Church.

[4588686]

I apologize for being pissy. I think you're a good guy. I just am really irked, to say the least, by you defending individuals threatening an individuals life. I'm going to go run.

[Luigi]

You offend me. I don't believe in you anyway. I shouldn't have to be confronted by you every time I come on this board. I'm gonna sue to have you removed.

[4588686]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1329634566' post='2389296']
You offend me. I don't believe in you anyway. I shouldn't have to be confronted by you every time I come on this board. I'm gonna sue to have you removed.
[/quote]

You're a smart man. I don't believe that you really have trouble understanding the difference between an individual professing private views and a state institution endorsing religious faith. The First Amendment protects individuals to endorse whatever religious views that choose while specifically prohibiting the government from endorsing any particular religious faith.

The Constitutional merits of her case is arguable. I have no problem with the banner. I'd prefer to retain it. Or rather I did prefer to retain it before learning of the reaction to her law suit. Now I hope someone burns their stupid banner and pees on the ashes. My problem is the thuggish reaction, which you have defended and perhaps even endorsed, of bullying and threatening a 16 year old girl for simply exercising her Constitutional right to take a legal grievance to be heard before the courts.

[Innocent]

[b]EDIT:[/b] <Sorry, double post. See below.>

Edited February 19, 2012 by Innocent

[Innocent]

I don't really have the time to go and read the primary sources of this news, and so I'm just going by what Luigi and Hassan have said here.

Through the ages, and especially in the modern period, there have been several people who hated religion, especially Christianity and in some cases, this hatred is expressed vehemently. Thus it can't be a surprise to come across yet another such person.

In some cases, perhaps such hatred is caused by their encountering religious people who did not take sufficient care to practice charity and the other virtues.

Given the current prevailing culture in modern society, it should not really surprise anyone that a 16 year old atheist would want to remove references to God from a visible spot in her school building.

Also, since the ACLU has a history of supporting those who want to remove references to religion from the public sphere, their role in this affair also is not really a surprise.

This situation might make those of us who are practising Catholics, sad. It might even make us angry and frustrated, but I am of the opinion that any anger and/or frustration we might feel regarding this incident should NOT be expressed towards this 16 year old girl. I don't know her story. Perhaps she has been deeply hurt or traumatised in some way and this is her way of trying to deal with the pain.

It is my opinion that situations like this are really opportunities to put into practice the teaching of Christ to love those who hate us and such people should be treated with love and kindness, even when we express the fact that we are unhappy over what they have done.

It's easy to talk or post over the internet such words as I have written above. I know for sure that I am very far from perfection in virtue, and I don't know if I will ever get there, and thus I don't really know how I would behave if such a situation happens to me personally. I hope and pray that God gives me the grace to respond with love and kindness if I am ever in such a situation.

Please pardon me if my post sounds too pompous.

[Luigi]

I do not hate a sixteen year old girl. I do not approve of anyone threatening a sixteen year old girl - either her life, her safety, or even her sense of security.

However. The sixteen year old girl is the one - let me repeat [i][b]ONE[/b][/i] - who lodged the complaint with the school.

Let's do some math, shall we? Suppose Cranston High School graduates only 200 students per year - let's assume it's a small school. In forty years, 8,000 American citizens have graduated from Cranston. If it's a larger school, the number of graduates would, of course, be proportionately higher. Those 8,000 American citizens have probably something like 10 or 12,000 parents - let's assume some families send multiple children to the same high school, some of the parents are dead, some are divorced, whatever. So a total of 18 or 20,000 American citizens - stakeholders in this school - have had no problem with this banner. If we add in the high school administration, board of education, janitors, teachers, librarians - what you do guess - another 250 people? Well, that's an insignificant number, let's just ignore them.

Over the course of forty years, 18 or 20,000 American citizens have seen a banner hanging in some hallway at Cranston high. Not one of them filed a legal complaint against the banner. They may not have liked the banner. They have been offended by the banner. They may have asked the administration to remove the banner - the original newspaper article didn't say; but I assume that if this ugly question had been raised in the past, the newspaper would have recounted that so we could see the true perversity of this pattern of discrimination. So it would appear that not one of those 18 or 20,000 American citizens filed a legal complaint against the school for publicly hanging a banner with the words Heavenly Father and Amen on it.

But then one day, a particular student - in this case a sixteen-year-old girl - looks at these words. The words were part of the school tradition for 24 years before she was even born, and for another 16 years since she was born. So she sees these words and is - what? You tell me. Upset? Angered? Offended? Hurt? Cut to the quick? Wounded in the core of her being? Whatever her reaction is, she decides she must go to law over this. And somehow, she manages to actually do it.

Now, I'm particularly curious about how this happened. I don't know any sixteen-year-olds who have a lawyer on retainer. I don't even know any sixteen-year-olds who have the cajones to challenge the school board. But I'd be especially curious to know how this particular sixteen-year-old happened upon a lawyer who works for the ACLU. My guess is either this sixteen-year-old [i]or her parents[/i] called the ACLU, which is possible, or the ACLU got hold of[i] her[/i]. And - this is [b]strictly[/b] speculation on my part - I think that's what happened. Because although the ACLU could [i]never[/i] be accused of a pattern of discrimination the way a majority-run institution is, they do have a.. shall we say... long history of finding.. of, what's a good term?.... Banner Children to carry their water for them. A couple of years ago, a guy (not a lawyer at all, so definitely not an ACLU lawyer, but the same basic tactic) filed a complaint on behalf of his ten-year-old who was being forced to say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

So what do we have at this point? A forty-year-old banner with three religiously-tinged words. 18 or 20 thousand people who've never had a problem with it. And a sixteen-year-old student who is either consciously in league with the ACLU or is being manipulated by the ACLU - either way. The ACLU volunteers its services for this student; the hearings rack up $170,000 in court fees. The school loses the case. The student wins. Then banner is coming down. And the ACLU is asking the court to require the school to pay the $170,000 that the ACLU racked up for them in court costs.

In my neck of the woods, we call that "the protection racket." You own a business - I want you to pay me money, without working for your business. I threaten you - pay me the money, or things could start happening to your business. I don't pay you the money - there's a fire, somebody chucks a brick through my display window, the city building inspector shows up; I pay the money - all my bad luck stops. And this sixteen-year-old student is the ACLU's shill.

One student trumps forty years of tradition and the rights of the 18 or 20,000 to live their lives as they always have. She and the ACLU make it seem like these 18 or 20,000 peaceable American citizens intentionally set out to violate the rights of this sweet, innocent, unable-to-defend-herself-so-we-have-to-come-to-her-aid girl, this damsel in distress. When in fact, the 18 or 20,000 were there first, minding their own business, and going about their constitutional little lives.

It seems supremely and inexcusably unfair to me that the supposed rights of one person can trump the rights of a pre-existing community. It seems to me that this "offense" was so mild as to be tolerable to even the most sensitive spirit. And that's what infuriates me about the ACLU, about "Obama's war on religion" - I don't actually see Obama as being intelligent or organized enough to wage war on his next door neighbor, but I understand why other people feel that way - about the culture wars.

Hasan mentioned earlier that it's pretty obviously a frivolous suit. Wrong again, Hasan. Obviously not. The court [i]could[/i] have dismissed it as a frivolous suit - that's a well-established legal term - but the court[i] didn't[/i] dismiss it as frivolous. Any sixteen-year-old with common sense should be able to see the frivolity of this suit prima facia, and that the court should have dismissed it. But not this student, not the ACLU, and not the court. So now it seems like this babe, the ACLU, and the court are all in league against just-your-average-Americans. And maybe I'm wrong about that - maybe Cranston High is a center of neo-Nazism, racism, and all things anti-liberal - I don't know, I've never been there.

Jesus left the 99 in search of the one lost sheep. I understand that. But I don't understand the one lost sheep trumping the rights of the 18 or 20,000. That's what pisses me off. There are a lot of a-religious people in this country. I'm not worried about them. They let the religious people do whatever they want, and we kind of ignore each other. Just like the Occupy Wall Street people complaining about the 1%? I'm complaining about the .00005% (1 / 20,000) that are actively anti-religious - in the name of liberalism, they've become the new Dracos.

But the Church has been through worse persecutions than this - we'll go through them again, in the near future from what I can tell - and we'll survive them again.

But it does make me sad to see what used to be a pretty good democracy going to hell right before my very eyes.


And dear, sweet, Innocent.... never mind.

I'm done now.

And dear, sweet, Innocent... never mind.

[Papist]

So then, to prevent this one 16 year old student from being offended, the banner was forced down, which offended hundreds of students. How can anyone argue with that reasoning.

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1329744781' post='2389930']
So then, to prevent this one 16 year old student from being offended, the banner was forced down, which offended hundreds of students. How can anyone argue with that reasoning.
[/quote]

It's not to prevent her from being offended. The legal issue is not whether she is or was offended. The issue is weather the banner amounts to a state endorsement of religion. That's not difficult to understand. You don't have to agree that the banner amounts to a state endorsement of religion. But you should be able to grasp what the issue at stake is. Why you and so many people seem chronically unable or unwilling to grasp a very basic point is infinity mysterious.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Hasan