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

×
Community
General discussion (archive)This makes me so angry.(169 posts)(169 posts)
(169 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 05, 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/teen-atheist-aclu-led-fight-against-prayer-mural-164416427.html

I can't believe how stupid this girl is. Not for being an Atheist, she can believe what she wants. But I'm astounded that she is so freaking sensitive and self entitled that she costs this small town a ton of money when the economy is this way. She says she's doing it for "constitutional rights." She deserves every bit of ridicule she gets. She's no better than the ignorant "Christians" who are campaigning for JC Penny to get rid of Ellen Degeneres on moral grounds. Some people are just so infuriating.
Posted February 05, 2012
A beautiful picture would suit the wall a lot more than some crap like that, regardless of this case.
Posted February 05, 2012
EDIT: probably a little much of a quick judgement on my part.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by jefequeso
Posted February 05, 2012
avatar
kavazovangel: A beautiful picture would suit the wall a lot more than some crap like that, regardless of this case.
I also don't get why so many people in my faith are up in arms about the prayer in public school debate. If you believe in an omniscient, loving God, then you don't need state sanctioned prayer times to communicate. Besides, Jesus specifically stated some of the best times to pray are by yourself without distractions. Honestly, some Christians are just as sensitive as this girl. But my point is how she's acting like a spoiled, prejudiced baby. She's just hiding behind the Constitution to do so.
Posted February 05, 2012
high rated
Two things:

- She didn't cost the city anything. The city cost itself money by attempting to defend itself in a case that was legally indefensible.

- “It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to,” she said last week. “It’s for their own good." That has to be one of the most self righteous, pretentious, narrow minded things I've ever heard. Shame really, as I was kinda with her until that quote.

Incidentally, the Khmer Rouge said similar things as they went around murdering millions of people "for their own good".

She won, and rightly so. She should have just left it at that.
Post edited February 05, 2012 by MonstaMunch
Posted February 05, 2012
high rated
So as an atheist I do agree that sometimes a live and let live approach is the right way - that some fights are too small to make a court case out of. On the other hand, the money this city has to pay is in court fees because they decided to fight it in court - something they were bound to lose and really should've known they were going to lose. If they had acceded to her request, no money would've been spent by anyone in legal fees. Once again, one could argue that a prayer banner is relatively innocuous (debatable), but the bottom line (which is all that matters once you go to court) is that she is right and the law is on her side. Such banners are not allowed in public schools and haven't been for decades. I'm not sure what the city was thinking when they decided to fight her request in court. The last 30 years of laws and precedence should've made it clear that were never going to win a court case and all it would do is cost them money. Sorry, but the money spent is mostly if not entirely the city's own fault. :/
Post edited February 06, 2012 by crazy_dave
Posted February 05, 2012
avatar
kavazovangel: A beautiful picture would suit the wall a lot more than some crap like that, regardless of this case.
avatar
TCMU2009: I also don't get why so many people in my faith are up in arms about the prayer in public school debate. If you believe in an omniscient, loving God, then you don't need state sanctioned prayer times to communicate. Besides, Jesus specifically stated some of the best times to pray are by yourself without distractions. Honestly, some Christians are just as sensitive as this girl. But my point is how she's acting like a spoiled, prejudiced baby. She's just hiding behind the Constitution to do so.
It's the same reason that homosexuals are so adamant about the gay marriage debate. It's not about the thing itself, it's about the beliefs underlying the situation. Personally, I'm fine with them taking prayer out of schools. They can do whatever the hell they want--it doesn't effect me or my own faith. If I don't like what they're doing, I'll just homeschool my children (which I'll probably be doing anyway since the education system is so piss poor).
Posted February 05, 2012
I do think the school kind of asked for it by putting up a prayer banner. Like I said, I really don't think prayer has a purposeful place in school, so I do think they were a bit naive putting it up there. But I also think that people like her should just suck it up. Just because you don't like someone's beliefs, it doesn't give you moral superiority or any right to make like difficult for anyone else.
Posted February 05, 2012
avatar
crazy_dave: So as an atheist I do agree that sometimes a live and let live approach is the right way - that some fights are too small to make a court case out of. On the other hand, the money this city has to pay is in court fees because they decided to fight it in court - something they were bound to lose and really should've known they were going to lose. If they had acceded to her request, no money would've been spent by anyone in legal fees. Once again, you could argue that a prayer banner is relatively innocuous (debatable), but the bottom line (which is all that matters once you go to court) is that she is right and the law is on her side. Such banners are not allowed in public schools and haven't been for decades. I'm not sure what the city was thinking when they decided to fight her request in court. The last 30 years of laws and precedence should've made it clear that were never going to win a court case and all it would do is cost them money. Sorry, but the money spent is mostly if not entirely the city's own fault. :/
Excellent summation. +1

There seems to be a notable lack of Christian forgiveness/understanding given the chronic overreaction of some looney-tunes elements.

No doubt she'll continue to be harassed and those involved will end up with dislocated shoulders from patting themselves on the back for a job 'well done'.
Posted February 05, 2012
avatar
TCMU2009: I do think the school kind of asked for it by putting up a prayer banner
No, they asked for it by fighting to be allowed to keep it in a court of law. They may simply have been ignorant of the law when they chose to put up the banner, but their lawyers don't have the same excuse for advising the school that they should fight it.
avatar
TCMU2009: I also think that people like her should just suck it up
So if people were to ignore the constitution in the name of another religion, let's say Islam, you think people should "just suck it up" too? Or do you think that only applies to Christianity?
Posted February 05, 2012
Putting up such a prayer mural in a public school was clearly a violation of the first amendment with plenty of case law from nearly identical cases. The school district should have known better to begin with, and beyond that the moment they were called on it they should have known it was a fight they were on the wrong side of and had no chance of winning. But instead of just removing the mural they choose to engage in a several hundred thousand dollar dick-waving contest. If the people of the town have any sense they'll ensure that all of the clowns responsible for this get booted out of public office.
Posted February 05, 2012
Well, it had been up for 50 years. Eh, honestly it would be nice if atheists focused on more pressing matters.
Posted February 05, 2012
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Putting up such a prayer mural in a public school was clearly a violation of the first amendment with plenty of case law from nearly identical cases. The school district should have known better to begin with, and beyond that the moment they were called on it they should have known it was a fight they were on the wrong side of and had no chance of winning. But instead of just removing the mural they choose to engage in a several hundred thousand dollar dick-waving contest. If the people of the town have any sense they'll ensure that all of the clowns responsible for this get booted out of public office.
The only thing I can think of is that the lawyers the city hired deliberately gave the city bad advice to make money off of them (still the city officials should've known better). Otherwise it doesn't make sense.
Posted February 05, 2012
avatar
crazy_dave: The only thing I can think of is that the lawyers the city hired deliberately gave the city bad advice to make money off of them (still the city officials should've known better). Otherwise it doesn't make sense.
Oh, it still makes perfect sense. Public officials have always been quite willing to spend the public's money to fight their own ideological battles (no matter how hopeless) and engage in grandstanding.
Posted February 05, 2012
avatar
crazy_dave: The only thing I can think of is that the lawyers the city hired deliberately gave the city bad advice to make money off of them (still the city officials should've known better). Otherwise it doesn't make sense.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Oh, it still makes perfect sense. Public officials have always been quite willing to spend the public's money to fight their own ideological battles (no matter how hopeless) and engage in grandstanding.
Oh right. It's also an election year. Silly me. :/
Post edited February 05, 2012 by crazy_dave
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)This makes me so angry.(169 posts)(169 posts)
(169 posts)