LIVE: Prayer Banner Appeal Meeting APPEAL FAILS
Follow our coverage of tonight's School Committee meeting during which members will decide whether to appeal the court ruling against a prayer banner at Cranston West.
Photos
Videos
6:25 p.m.: A crowd gathered outside Cranston High School East before 6 p.m. Many wore signs that simply stated "appeal." Someone else brought a sign that makes reference to the flying spaghetti monster. The doors to the school opened around 6:15 and the auditorium here is already full. Children are holding large signs that say "God has the right to be in public! The constitution says so!"
Another section of the auditorium is represented by supporters of Jessica Ahlquist. "Solidarity." "My religion is kindness." "I support Jessica Ahlquist" their signs read.
The media presence here is large. Expect lots of coverage tomorrow morning from across the country.
"There is no standing room," a voice booms over the loudspeakers. "If you don't have a seat, you will be asked to leave."
6:31 p.m.: Applause erupts as a young man tapes a sign supporting Ahlquist higher up on a concrete pillar. A chant in support of an appeal breaks out a few moments later. Energy in the room is steadily increasing as the School Committee talks behind closed doors in executive session.
6:42 p.m.: A shout out to my colleague Matt Sanderson, editor of Tiverton-Little Compton Patch. He's here with his camera so I can focus on taking notes and updating this story as it unfolds.
6:43 p.m.: The crowd has settled into seats and the wait is on for the School Committee to return from executive session and open the meeting.
7:09 p.m.: School Committee is still in executive session. Trying to conserve battery power. We'll tweet when the action is really going on. In the meantime, you can brush up on the issue we're talking about tonight by clicking here to sift through our large story archive.
7:20 p.m.: The committee is here. Meeting started after a very loud pledge of allegiance.
Superintendent Peter Nero said the administration is ready to support the committee's decision, whichever way it goes.
He says despite contrary reports, Cranston West continued to be a "typical high school" in the days following the lower court decision.
Everything is in place for a smooth day tomorrow, Nero said.
Addressing social media: We are in the disinformation age, Nero said.
He has received hundreds of emails from people expressing their opinion about the issue from around the world. In them, he heard a phrase he hasn't heard since the Democratic Convention: The world is watching you.
Nero calls for decorum, respect and everyone to be on their good behavior. He warned the crowd not to be rude or unruly, especially when a student is at the podium."
"The way the world will view Cranston is really up to you."
7:28 p.m.: City's lawyer, Joesph Cavanaugh Jr., gives a history of the banner, and said there were two legal tests that the judge could have based his review on. Cranston argued it was historic display, but the judge viewed it through the lens that the mural is a prayer, mainly because of the presence of the term "school prayer."
An appeal would go to the First Circuit Court in Boston, briefs would be filed. No trial.
"If we appeal and city loses in First Circuit there will be more fees automatically," Cavanaugh said. The city already is being asked to pay $173,000 for legal fees so far.
His estimate - fee in range of $100,000 if goes to first circuit, $200,000 if beyond. To run it up the ladder in the hopes of the Supreme Court taking it as a "display case" and not a "prayer case" it could cost $500,000.
Cavanaugh said the banner was never used as a prayer per se, and "doesn't represent prayer being taken away from these kids" addressing a widespread feeling that the decision is an attack on religion.
A lot of people think that God should have more of a presence in our lives, "but this case will not solve that."
7:37 p.m.: Cavanaugh said the class of 1963 unfortunately got caught in the crossfire and something they hoped would remain a permanent part of their legacy will come down. He calls on the community to treat each other with respect.
Cavanaugh is thanked by the committee, he became a "lifelong friend" said School Committee Chairwoman Andrea Iannazzi. No matter what happens, she said she is proud to share part of history with him.
Four pages of speakers signed up to speak tonight. Public speaking will end at 10 p.m. At that time the committee will make their own comments and then vote.
Committee Member Frank Lombardi points out he has an "outrage of the week" about someone who posted online - "LOL I can't imagine there's anything dumber than the cranston school committee. Just sayin'"
The School Committee are among the hardest working officials in the state of Rhode Island. We do the research. We do the homework, he says. We do everything for the benefit of taxpayers in the City of Cranston. The point is "we make hard decisions every single night we're here. We make decisions that affect children and their educational livelihood when someone takes to the blogs and calls us dumb we all know in the room who the dumb one is when they say that."
7:48 p.m. BASICS is getting a plug for their Music is Instrumental Program and the fact they're selling food and drinks in the back. Committeewoman Janice Ruggeiri says it's a shame that this many people don't show up when they're doing budget work.
7:51 p.m.: VP Class of 1963 Jerry Zito is at the podium. Says he is glad Cavanaugh referred to the banner as a mural because "that's what it is."
He said he wants to clarify some misinformation about what happened back then. He was actively involved in the process that put the mural up on the wall and believes the class of 1963 has something to say about the mural.
The class of 63 proposes three things -They would be OK with the removal of "Our Heavenly Father" and "Amen" to let it stay.
If the mural has to come down, Zito asks that the mural not be destroyed. If it had to be, he said the class of 1963 would work with the student body to come up with a new pledge or creed to dedicate in 2013 to coincide with their class reunion in June.
7:55 p.m.:
Rep. Charline Lima is up and says she urges appeal because the majority of residents want her to support appeal. She also feels strongly the ruling was not justified by facts in case. Appeal is necessary because principle is "far too important to be left unchallenged" and encourage others to infringe on the Constitution that our founding fathers would never dream of, she said.
"Where is it going to stop? Are we going to change our currency? Are we going to stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance?
8:00 p.m.: A woman (didn't catch name) says if the School Committee spends one more dollar on fighting this case instead of spending it on providing a quality education for her two daughters, it "will be an outrage."
She said at the last meeting she was told by someone that she didn't even know "that I would burn in hell."
"The vilification of atheists represents a lack of compassion for another person," she said. "This is a place of public education where we learn skills to reach our full potential to develop as adults and one of those skills is critical thinking."
The lack of critical thinking in regards to the debate has been shocking, she said.
8:08 p.m.: My speakers suddenly blasted classical music and I don't know why. Thank goodness for the mute button on this laptop.
Anette Bourne is up. She said there is a big missed opportunity here. All the great things happening in Cranston in the face of recent budget adversity could be brought up during this emotional debate.
"It is my believe we've been offered a chance to do something great about our state's heritage of Roger Williams and religious freedom by not continuing the legal battle. While we can't afford the legal battle, we can afford the discussion and peaceful resolution.
"Do not take more from the budget and vote against appeal."
8:14 p.m.: Dan McCarthy is up and states he is supporting an appeal because he doesn't think government should condone one form of religion over another. He comes from Irish descent.
"My great grandfather couldn't own his own farm because he was Catholic and the government was Protestant," McCarthy said.
8:20 p.m.: Michelle Verducci, who lives just a couple blocks over, said conflict resolution is something many of her neighbors have "failed at."
She notes that Judge Ronald Lagueux is a conservative Catholic and the ruling was based on well-established case law.
"You are hurting our children and community if you allocate precious resources including time and money to fight a losing battle based on your emotions."
Rosemary Trager up next states essentially the same.
"This is a matter of constitutional law and decided long ago," Trager said.
8:24 p.m.: Salvatore Loporchio states that he is for an appeal.
"We are faced with a cancer that is a terrible thing for our nation," Loporchio said. "The cancer is the ACLU."
8:26 p.m.: Resident Paul Verduchi describes an atheist who is well-loved around the world, has received the Nobel prize, traveled and met with leaders of all nations spreading his message of peace and nonviolence.
That man is the Dalai Lama.
"A lot of people don't realize that Buddhism is an atheist religion," Verduchi said.
8:31 p.m.: Steve Bergquist is up. He asks for an appeal.
"Since day one I knew this was headed to the Supreme Court," Bergquist said. "It's the right thing to do. Someone has to take a stand. They're chipping away at everything and someone just has to take a stand. We are going to win this appeal. I'm completely confident. This case is going to set a precedent around the country. I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to see this through to the end."
8:34 p.m.: Dozens of speakers left to come up. Only an hour-and-a-half left until public debate is closed.
Both sides are applauding, some subtle boos now and then but otherwise the crowd is keeping calm. Lots of speakers admonishing negative words and threatening speech that has been flourishing online. Multiple times speakers have said that the vitriolic response indicates people aren't taking the banner's intended message to heart.
8:46 p.m.: Trying to fix typos as I go along. Speakers are taking turns providing similar arguments, so we're not quoting every person in detail. A blend of quotes from all voices will appear in our detailed coverage tomorrow morning.
There is a large number of people who have stated there are concerned about a perceived attack on religious freedom in the country. The ACLU as a cog of a liberal or progressive movement has been described interestingly, you could say.
8:54 p.m.: Bobby Bach - this has brought division to the city "worse than partisan politics."
As lifelong resident who barely noticed banner when I was student myself" he "truly appreciates" the history and message and how it has caused inspiration.
He refers to a Facebook Page set up shortly after the decision in an effort to preserve the banner.
"We were aimed at creating a level of calm" to see past rhetoric and insults "at times myself guilty of out of weakness," Bach said.
Sidenote, Bach is behind the T-Shirts that depict the banner that he has been selling out his business, Twigs Florist, in an effort to raise money to pay for its removal and transportation.
Bach said he has been told by a company that has done a removal and replacement before that the cost would be about $60,000.
8:57 p.m.: There are many camps in this debate. A big one is made up of people who believe the banner is an historic artifact, not a state-sponsored prayer.
9:03 p.m.: Richard Tomlins is nearly led out of the auditorium by police after speaking loudly beyond his allotted time.
9:07 p.m.
Resident Janine Freeborn - I believe its time for it to stop. Mr. Cavanaugh explained the situation - the money is to be spent on our children, on our education.
"I wonder how many people would be for an appeal if it said Allah instead of Our Father," Freeborn said. "It's a public school. There's a place for everything. There is home, church and school."
9:11 p.m.: Inching closer to the 10 p.m. cutoff. We just had a microphone malfunction. Flo Jonic from Rhode Island NPR is quick to sort it out.
Father Andrew George asks why the judge viewed the mural as a prayer and not an historic document. Cavanaugh said is because it has the word "school prayer" in it and has "petition words' and states "amen."
George: but city represent as display case. Why did he turn it around?
Cavanaugh: Because he disagreed with us. He viewed it is a silent message. Can we whittle the ACLUs legal fees down? "It's up to the judge."
9:16 p.m.: Cranston West student named Christen says he thinks banner should stay. He asked dozens of people and only "got one person that said tear down the prayer."
He is a classmate of Ahlquist's and nobody in his class have not said a negative word ever to her.
"She is not a bad person," he said. "I just don't agree with her."
People think this has torn the school apart.
"This has not torn us apart," he said. "It has made us come together. . .in nonviolent protest in agreement that this should [stay up]"
He brings up the money point that comes up over and over in this discussion. Our currency has "In God We Trust" on it. It was added to U.S. currency in the 50s at the height of McCarthyism. Many pro-banner supporters suggest that atheists are hypocrites by using money. They respond saying it is not illegal to cross it out and people can use debit/credit cards. To get a very clear explanation as to why this doesn't apply in this ruling, click HERE to see the full text of Lagueux's 40-page decision.
9:22 p.m.
The opinions keep bouncing back and forth. Richard Canning said he asked his son, a student at the school, if Ahlquist "went around and got a petition" before making an issue of the banner.
"The answer was no, dad."
Nancy Krane said she was raised a Catholic.
"I was raised in the Catholic chruch. I am asking you to not file an appeal," she said.
Dawn Trudell said Jessica Ahlquist could have made a choice and moved to Cranston East if she had a problem.
"If anyone is wasting money for education it is her and her family," Trudell said.
9:26 p.m.: Paula Goldberg says she is tired of hearing that we are "a Christian nation"
"We are a diverse nation," she said. "We need to accept diversity here. This is a constitutional issue. It is not a religious issue or an emotional issue."
9:29 p.m.: Peter Paolella: since this started there has been an "astonishing" amount of attacks on religion. He cites Treegate at the State House — the flap over whether the tree at the State House should be called a Christmas Tree or Holiday tree.
He trails off on Obamacare, groans in crowd, some scattered applause. First accusation of socialism/communism of the night. He is not alone in his thinking based on the clapping afterwards.
9:33 p.m.: A man with a laptop hoping to shoot a video is told he wouldn't be allowed to because the speakers in the video are not present and people who are here cannot defer their time to people in a video. The decision is made by Iannazzi.
9:35 p.m.: Twenty-five minutes left until public comment is cut off. 23 percent battery on the laptop. I spy an outlet but a Cranston Police Officer in a Kevlar vest needs to step over for me. Will try to stretch this out. Apologies for typos and errors. Names could be misspelled, will fix that later.
Note: We have been shooting video at the meeting tonight (not every minute) and should have some color and action for your viewing tomorrow.
9:42 p.m.: A number of residents have offered to volunteer time and effort to fund-raise for an appeal. Others have said they are willing to pony up in response to several speakers who have said if the appeal is so important at the risk of cutting into education funds to put their money where their mouths are.
9:46: Rev. Don Clinker said it is hard when we feel our beliefs are trampled on. He tells a version of the Roger Williams story, calling RI "the first place in the world" with a guarantee of freedom of conscience.
He "guaranteed the right of an atheist to live in Rhode Island," he said. "Here a baptist could survive, here an agnostic could survive."
He refused to put God in the charter of the colony. It was the first colony to do that. "He died a Christian man. He died faithful to the God he served."
"My tribe, the Jesus people, went to the coliseums of Rome and were accused of being atheists because they refused to salute the flag of the Emperor," Clinker said.
9:52 p.m.: I'm on the floor. Plugged in. Most of the crowd is still here but many of the youngsters have gone home for late homework and dinner (if they didn't take care of that before coming here tonight.)
Richard Taquet is up and said his two children had no idea where the banner even was when this came up two years ago.
"These children are not forced to say this and recite this," he said. "I have respect for anyone and their beliefs but don't trample our beliefs."
He said he is willing to contribute a large amount of money for a legal defense. "No amount of money is too great," he said, referring to the possible cost.
Next speaker, Laura Black, states "appeal, appeal, appeal."
"God will provide," she said. "What about my rights as a citizen of the United States who wants the banner to stay intact?"
10 p.m.: Interesting point. This meeting started with the Pledge of Allegiance which contains the phrase "under God."
Committee now has the floor.
Iannazzi acknowledged the help given by Cranston Police, Fire Department and city employees who have made this meeting go smoothly so far.
10:01 p.m.: Lombardi makes motion to appeal. Seconded by Traficante.
Lombardi begins by saying that when this started he went on a long dissertation as to why voted to maintain mural at particular time. It is "my belief" that as a lawyer of more than 20 years this is a "winnable case" and an appeal would reflect his beliefs and the majority of constituents.
He offers $1,000 of his own money for legal fees. Offers to take the lead on all School Committee fundraising efforts.
In terms of the monetary issue, "If we win, it will be nothing."
10:12 p.m.: Janice Ruggieri said she was one of original three who voted against a legal defense. She believes that anyone who thinks that there is money for a legal battle "is ignorant" of the history and facts. The district is still trying to pay off millions in a lawsuit they lost prior to her becoming a committee member."
Ruggieri then states that there are many misconceptions about the banner issue - a parent originally raised the issue and brought it up with the ALCU, not the district. They should have come to the district first, Ruggieiri said.
Secondly, the ACLU never came to the district with an offer to have "Our Heavenly Father" and "Amen" removed and ACLU Director Steve Brown said in a news article she read from that there would need to even more changes than just removing those words to make the banner OK.
She said the response from many has been disheartening and she has seen much intolerance and hatred. Committee members themselves have been insulted by "all groups" involved in the debate. They have been called bigots, idiots, and that's just for starters.
The group I feel deserves an apology for commentary and bad press are faculty and staff and students of Cranston West, she said.
"They have tried over and over again to get back to" educating and focusing on their jobs. Meanwhile they're dealing with newspaper articles, news shows and much else interfering, Ruggieri said.
10:21 p.m.: Committee Member Michael Traficante said he was one of the four voting in favor keeping banner in place.
He said Cranston is a city with a great deal of pride.
"I am sick and tired of hearing our city and school dept being depicted as institution of prejudice hostility and lack of compassion," Traficante said. "It is not part of our legacy."
He said this country was built on Christian principles.
"One of our students displayed her greatness. She displayed her courage," he said. "I too have the courage of my convictions. The banner is secular in nature. It's not religious. It's worth fighting for."
We're writing summary here. Full commentary/quotes tomorrow morning.
10:29 p.m.: Committee Member Stephanie Culhane said she encourages people to read the entire budget and see if they can find an extra $173,000.
"I wish you would stop saying 'don't make it about the money,'" Culhane said. "Where were you when I had to vote to cut music from my child's education? Where were you when I had to cut funding for the gifted program? Where will all you be when we have to possibly close a school, lay off teachers because we spent money, money meant for education on a lawsuit."
Member Steve Bloom said the Constitution was set up to protect everyone, not just the majority. He previously voted to remove the banner and will continue to do so.
Paula MacFarland says she will vote NOT to appeal. She had previously voted to defend the banner.
Iannazi said this has been a frustrating debate, but the financial impact is too great.
MOTION TO APPEAL FAILS.
Note: my Internet died at the last moment. Wasn't able to include detailed comments from Iannazzi and MacFarland. Stay tuned.
Elana Carello
7:46 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
This is excellent work. Thank you, Cranston patch.
Jeffrey Barone
9:08 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
I wonder how he feels this morning after learning of the results of last nights vote at Cranston East?
Robin G
7:56 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Thank you for the updates! Keep it coming please!
Melissa
8:16 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Thanks for the updates! Great Job : )
Gayle Jordan
8:25 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Tennessee says thanks for the live feed!
KevinL
8:29 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Thank you Cranston Patch for the live feed.
And thank you commentators for not picking a side, let them debate, not us.
Wait until the final decision, after that lets talk about it, until then, its in their hands.
Lew Payne
8:57 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I'm amazed at how much energy the crowd exerts in support of superstition, especially when threatened with not being able to display that superstition at a public school. It's as if we live in a third-world country, where religious voodoo is the "science" of the masses. What a sad state of affairs.
Joe The Plumber
7:20 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
You are talking of course about the superstition that God does not exist. Which is the view of a miniscule minority of our society. And rightfully so. Very few people believe there is no God because it is an unpopular falsehood.
Robin Lionheart
12:34 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
@JTP
Believing God does not exist is as superstitious as believing that the number 13 is not unlucky.
Art Rigsby
9:13 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Lew, don't you just love these things! It always brings the crazy Christians out of the woodwork with their goofy, but hilarious, remarks
RDT
1:06 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Dear Lew Payne:
Wow! I am amazed how blind you are to say that prayer does not work. This experience opened the eyes to so many kids that attend school here and they realized how important God it to them. More kids were for the banner then opposed to it. Some wore tee shirts and some prayed. The battle is lost for the banner but not for the souls of these kids. You and your lack of belief cannot take away that....... so you lost. We win..... take that!! God always has a bigger picture in mind then we can understand. Taking a banner off the wall does not remove God from the heart of His people! Tebow time to get on your knees !! I guess we need people like you to make us realize how much we do need God thank you for that........
Um Ah
11:42 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
I don't understand. If god is all-powerful, and he/she wanted to keep the prayer banner, wouldn't it have magically been kept?
The fact that the banner is coming down means
a) god doesn't want the banner up,
b) god doesn't care, or
c) god doesn't exist, so it doesn't matter either way
Why vote to uphold something that the main figure of one's mythology doesn't care about or support?
Um Ah
11:51 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
@Robin Lionheart, I have a special pebble. It is so special that it cannot be seen or touched (felt). If I drop it on the ground, it will make no sound. It has no odor and is tasteless.
If you believe that my magic pebble doesn't exist, then you are superstitious.
Oh, and the number 13 is no luckier (or unluckier) than the number 12. Or 14. Think I'm wrong? Prove it.
Robin Lionheart
6:36 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012
@Um Ah
Here’s a similar statement for you to rebut: “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”
Melanie Scalera
9:14 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Janine Freeborn is apparently another dumb-dumb who doesn't know that "Allah" means "God". And your point, LADY??? Who cares what language or what way it is said?? Why does it matter if it said Allah? Is there something wrong with that? Don't make like YOU know what all Christians think when you apparently have no clue what you are even talking about. SO ignorant!!!
And, on another note, thanks Cranston Patch-you are doing a great job with this live blog!
Lew Payne
9:21 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Allah is indeed the name of God... but *not* the Christian God. There have been thousands of Gods since early man; Krishna, Buddha, Horus, Zoroaster, Mithras, Attis, Dionysus, Bacchus, etc. Each of them also means "God." So, what's your point? The name of the Muslim God is Allah. Make no mistake about it, Allah is not the same as the Christian God. Who's the real fool, now?
Melanie Scalera
9:31 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
You are, because you have no clue what you are talking about. God IS God. Wtf is a "religion" God? REALLY???? There is ONE God; so you, buddy, are the fool.
Lew Payne
9:40 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
As an Ordained Minister since 1986, and a Priesthood holder, I'm pretty sure I know the difference between the God commonly referred to as "Allah" and the Christian God. Do you believe professing your ignorance in public is a good idea?
Joe The Plumber
9:56 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Hey Reverend Lew,
With a comment like "It's as if we live in a third-world country, where religious voodoo is the science of the masses. ", what the heck kind of ordained minister are you?
Is it like the Church of Cosmic People of Light Powers?
Art Rigsby
9:18 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Hey, Joe the Plumber, don't disrespect Lew. He saved my soul from the fires of hell.
Melanie Scalera
9:50 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Do you believe being a douche is a good idea when you are supposedly a minister/priest?
Lew Payne
9:57 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
If your remarks need to be flushed out, then a douche is the best medicine.
Joe The Plumber
10:02 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Hey Reverend Lew,
When I attend your Wednesday morning services should I wear my plunger on my head?
Art Rigsby
9:24 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Joe the Plumber: No need to wear a plunger. We'll just look around until we spot the idiot in the crowd.
Melanie Scalera
9:51 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
God is God; if you don't get that, then I don't know what kind of clown religious school you went to.
Joe The Plumber
9:55 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Reverend Don Clinker.........
Really????
Not gonna do it... it's too easy.
Kate Katzberg
10:04 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Thank you Lew Payne. You are eloquent and refreshing. Thank you for being so sane in this crazy world.
Joe The Plumber
7:20 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
Katey,
You would call a statment like "especially when threatened with not being able to display that superstition at a public school. It's as if we live in a third-world country, where religious voodoo is the "science" of the masses", eloquent and refreshing???
I call it intolerant, insulting and vulgar to people of that faith.
Elana Carello
10:12 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I agree, but Lew please be more respectful of those that believe in God, or 'superstition', as you call it. I have read disrespectful comments from both Christians and Atheists. Let's not add to this. Especially when you have such intelligent responses to the... less than.
Lew Payne
10:17 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
To respect superstition is to respect lunacy. Respect is reserved for science, and for reasoned discourse. I refuse to validate superstition by respecting it.
Elana Carello
10:18 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Lew, this is where I lose it with the atheists. Just because you don't believe what someone else does, does not give you the right to call it lunacy. Why do you have to go there? Seems your points could be just as eloquently made without the nasty remarks. Why not try it.
Lew Payne
10:26 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Elena - As I stated earlier, I don't feel the need to respect superstition; to do so would be to offer it validation. I don't believe in superstition; religion is superstition (as both the dictionary and encyclopedia point out). If someone chooses to believe in voodoo or any other form of religious superstition, I don't feel the need to support them, much less to respect their choice. I also don't feel the need to try your approach, just as you don't feel the need to try mine.
Brad Edwards
10:40 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I second that.
Richard Brum
10:47 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
If a friend of mine said he believed unicorns farted the universe into existence, and truly believed it, I would respect his right to believe what he wanted. But he would NOT be exempt from mockery. I would point out how silly his beliefs were, and while I may hold back because he/she is my friend, his/her beliefs would STILL NOT get my respect.
Beliefs don't automatically earn respect just by existing. If you believe that humanity must work on its own to achieve greatness, help each other, do more good than harm, etc. those would be beliefs I would respect. Those are honorable beliefs.
When you believe things like humanity being born sinful, needing a higher power to validate itself, worrying about offending this supreme being for fear of eternal torture and damnation... those are not honorable and do NOT earn my respect.
Respect, like trust, must be earned, and on an individual basis.
RDT
8:18 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
I dont know what you are smoking but Lew Payne comments are not refreshing. Did he go to Cranston West? Did you?
Joe The Plumber
10:24 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Reverend Lew, Church of the Cosmic People of Light Powers will be holding services every Wednesday afternoon at 3:12 pm in the Walmart parking lot.
Rain or shine.
Don't forget to wear a funnel on your head.
Elana Carello
10:28 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
LOL Joe
Brad Edwards
10:33 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Joe The Plumber,
First you make a claim as if it were an accepted fact, to wit, "...about the superstition that God does not exist." You cannot make such a claim. All you can legitimately do is say that you *believe* God exists, nothing more. You cannot make any factual claim that "God exists" without providing factual evidence. You have none.
By your statement, you opened yourself up to legitimate criticism. And to many, your statement is simply ignorant and ridiculous. Your "faith" is not exempt from disrespect, ridicule, or insults. You have no such privilege.
Perhaps if you learned to express your beliefs for what they are - simply beliefs - and not try to arrogntly assert them as fact, you might earn respect.
Joe The Plumber
10:40 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I was not trying to be arrongnt.
But you certainly are ignrnt.......
Richard Brum
11:00 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
And you are coming across as a petulant little child, Joey.
Art Rigsby
9:27 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Brad, 5 stars!
RDT
1:11 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Jesus is the evidence.
Richard Brum
12:10 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
No, Jesus is not the evidence. Jesus is the CLAIM. If you, or anybody else, are to make this claim a statement of proposed fact, then you need evidence to back up that claim. The Bible is also not evidence; it is the claim. The Bible (and the events therein) are not evidence for itself.
Elana Carello
10:35 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Culhane and Ruggieri making excellent points. Totally forgot they killed the gifted program. :(
Richard Brum
10:41 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Haha, 4-2 against an appeal. This is a win for the Constitution, separation of church and state, and legal precedent. Thanks for playing! Also, apparently the mob screamed at the 4th committee member who casted that vote. Nice way to follow exactly what the prayer tells you to do. First they demand the prayer stay, then they refuse to follow its advice, to be good sports win or lose. That's hypocrisy right there, and THAT is exactly why Christian beliefs tend to not get much respect from atheists. It has yet to EARN our respect, especially when followers of these beliefs act like spoiled children.
Joe The Plumber
10:44 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
We do not want or need the respect of ignorant atheists.
Lew Payne
10:49 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Your comments about how the mob acted are spot-in. It just proves that there is no reasoning with superstition, because superstition is faith-based. You cannot expect to rationalize with someone whose sole source of "evidence" is faith and inspiration, nor do their viewpoints deserve respect. Just as I would not respect someone whose opinion is derived from Voodoo and Witchcraft, I cannot respect someone who's opinion is derived from any other form of religious superstition.
Richard Brum
10:58 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Joe: Then don't whine and complain when we atheists refuse to respect your beliefs. You can't complain about disrespect, then claim that you don't want/need respect. It doesn't work that way.
RDT
1:13 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
glad you explained this to Joe and the rest of us, not.... maybe you should be to another country that does not have any relgion, now which one would that be??
Richard Brum
12:12 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
RDT: Sweden is the most atheistic country in the world. It also has one of the lowest crime rates, murder rates, etc.
That notwithstanding, I love how you completely ignored what I had to say and went with the predictable "Love it or leave it" routine. The U.S. is a secular nation, thanks to our Constitution (specifically the First Amendment and Article VI, paragraph 3). No matter how much you wish this were a Christian nation, it will not make it so.
Brad Edwards
10:44 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Joe The Plumber,
Any time you want to provide evidence that your deity exists the whole world will be listening intently.
You'd be the first. No one's done it yet
Richard Brum
10:51 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Ah, yes: faith. Faith is not a pathway to truth, nor is it evidence for anything. You cannot say you have "faith" in something, while at the same time declaring it to be absolutely, without a doubt, TRUE.
More on the cost of faith and why it always comes back to reason and evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuFJKQh83Y
Lew Payne
10:54 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I have faith the banner will be taken down, and religious indoctrination will be kept out of public schools. Oh look... I was right! The nice part about all this is that it doesn't matter how hard the faithful pray... because nothing fails like prayer!
Joe The Plumber
1:06 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Richard, someone called Thomas once said the same thing.
Richard Brum
12:24 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Are you mentioning something from your Bible, Joe? You know that's not evidence, right? The Bible cannot be used as evidence for its own claims. Lex Luthor also doubted Superman's will and power, and look where that got him. Still, that's not proof that Superman is real.
Elana Carello
10:44 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Christian or Atheist, it is a WIN for the school district. Atheists and Christians have acted badly. Stop calling the kettle black.
Richard Brum
10:54 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
False equivocation. We atheists are not the ones misunderstanding the Establishment Clause and the long-standing legal precedence establishing a separation of church and state. We are not the ones using mob mentality and force to heckle school administrators who had to follow their conscience (or at least their collective wallets) to vote against an appeal. We are not the ones claiming that our freedoms are being trampled on by the removing of an illegal prayer mural. We are not the ones who made death threats and threats of torture and rape to a teenage girl.
But it is true that this is not a win for atheists. It is a win for separation of church and state, which protects ALL our rights, EQUALLY.
Foxeyroxie15
11:12 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Elana - Absolutely a win! All sides have acted VERY badly. I've never heard such name calling. The Projo blog was horrendous, as was their reporting.
This never should have been an issue - when offered to revise the words of the Banner, the school committee should have done so.
However, I do know where my votes will or will not be going in the next election. Some people have been in place far too long, have no objectivity. It became too personal.
Sooo glad this is over and done.
Mark Schieldrop
10:45 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Internet died at the worst time. Will expand quotes from MacFarland, Iannazzi, Culhane and Bloom a little later. Thanks for following, this folks.
Lew Payne
10:56 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
You did a great job, Mark... thank you for being a diligent and dedicated reporter!
Richard Brum
10:57 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Yes, awesome work! I was refreshing every few minutes until the climactic finish. :D
Jeff Berard
12:55 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
@Mark
My iPhone died as I was live-tweeting the event sometime around 10:15.
I feel your pain!
;)
Art Rigsby
9:31 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Mark, a pat on the back.
Mark Schieldrop
10:45 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Please keep the comments civil. Consider it my reward for working so hard for the community tonight.
Foxeyroxie15
11:00 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Thanks, Mark. Too bad you don't work for Projo - you are always objective and provide all the facts.
Great job to Patch!!!
Brad Edwards
10:50 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Don't forget, Joe, faith is not evidence, it's just belief.
Joe The Plumber
1:00 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Correct. And Thomas said the same thing.
RDT
8:22 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Read the book the Case for Christ if you are looking for evidence.
Liberty Janus
8:46 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
The Case Against the Case for Christ
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329529183&sr=1-1
Sven Hartley
10:51 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
The school board did the right thing. Cranston West should use this as a teaching moment; that the Bill of Rights is not up to majority vote and the courts are there to protect minority rights, especially in the case of religion.
Foxeyroxie15
10:52 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Thanks, Patch, for the feed. I was hoping it would on local programming - over 1000 channels and nothing. 15 minutes till the local news.
Those who are willing to pay for the appeal, be my guest. The taxpayers can't afford it.
I would like to know, however, why Jessica still has police details. That's on my dime and it is unwarranted. We have more reason to be afraid to walk our streets at night than she needing a police detail at school !! Crime is rampant - we are walking targets. I won't walk my dog at night. May I have a police officer, please?
That won't happen - the only officer I see is the one sitting in front of my house during the day to catch people running the stop sign at the end of my street.
Please justify the expense!
Richard Brum
10:57 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
When you have a teenaged daughter who get harassed both online and in person, gets threats of bodily harm, rape, torture, and even death... THEN you can say whether or not the police detail is warranted or not. The police certainly thought so. A 16-year-old girl should not have to be afraid in her own school. You can thank the children of pro-banner supporters for that. Don't blame Jessica or the police; blame the people who made the threats.
Art Rigsby
9:33 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Foxeyroxie15: She needs protection even more now because some "Christians" are really angry about the appeal denial. There are wackos in this world that will not hesitate to use violence to get their word across.
Foxeyroxie15
10:57 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I just refreshed the browser - the appeal failed ... Hallelujah, Lord !!!!
Deirdre M. Abbott
12:07 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Great coverage, thank you..well written, honest, impartial...I too wish you wrote for the ProJo...they are so biased..
Prof. Frederick Sweet
12:39 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Excellent journalism ... refreshingly impartial.
Richard Brum is correct.
It is pathetic that in a supposedly civilized American community, Cranston residents have citizens with terrorist tendencies ... I mean that literally. To encourage violent threats against a 16-year old high school girl because she blew the whistle on a school district's illegal activity is cowardly, frightening, and pathetic. There is good reason that this event made world news ... and it has. The hypocrisy of an American community terrorizing this high school girl for her doing the right thing while at the same time their country leads the War on Terror is ironic. Those Cranston "taxpayers" encouraging this outrage bring shame to their community and to our nation.
Signed, An Old American Cold Warrior
Joe The Plumber
12:56 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Why do Prof.'s feel a need to always put it at the beginning of their names?
I do not include and MP (Master Plumber) after my name.....There's no need.
People just know I can fix pipes good when I'm done fixin 'em.
The same I think is true of people who are smart. People just know it when they speak.
Freddy Sweet ...... not so much.
Art Rigsby
9:35 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Hey Professor, appears you got under old Joe the Plumber's skin. Good move.
Richard Brum
12:28 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
I love how Joe calls out Prof Sweet for putting his title in his name, while "the Plumber" is at the end of HIS. It's called hypocrisy, Joe, and nobody likes it.
Also, you didn't argue any one of his points. You focused on something trivial and made that the focus of your comment. Care to refute anything the professor said?
Finally, professors earn respect because of the hard work, dedication, education, experience, and intelligence that comes with such a title. "The Plumber" isn't really a title I can respect with regard to debating. You can fix pipes. How does that help you in an intellectual debate?
Jeff Berard
12:54 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
A couple of takeaways from tonight:
1) I was fascinated by the legal tact pursued by the School Committee; that this was a Display Case rather than a Prayer Case, and that would have been the potential course taken if the school committee had voted to appeal.
But calling the prayer banner a "historical artifact" is completely disingenuous, and while potentially an interesting legal tactic, it isn't one which I believe would have led to the original ruling being overturned.
2) The behavior of those in favor of appeal was at times deplorable and reprehensible. I was embarrassed for my fellow residents. Shame on you.
In the end, the members did the right thing. Good on them. Time to move on.
Mark J Chambers, PhD
12:54 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
The comments of the banner supporters at tonight's meeting provide a perfect composite of their misguided thinking and their misunderstanding of the issues: To wit: "Attacks on religion" -- no, just on government-endorsement of religion; go ahead and make your Facebook pages and sell your t-shirts, nobody cares. "She could have just moved to Cranston East" -- why stop there, how 'bout a "separate but equal" school for atheists? "I asked dozens of people and only one said take it down" -- nope, civil rights are not subject to popular vote. "What about my rights as an American citizen to keep the banner up?" Sorry, which Amendment was that, again? Michael Taficante: “this country was built on Christian principles” but “the banner is secular in nature” -- so what then was the point of the "Christian principles" comment? Also, can someone please explain exactly what "Christian principles" are and in what way the country was founded on them? Frank Lombardi: "I believe this is a winnable case" – if a Catholic, Reagan appointee didn’t side with you, who will? Maybe the Cranston high schools should be devoting less energy to putting up religious banners and more energy to civics instruction and logical reasoning. Just sayin'.
Joe The Plumber
1:27 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
hey Mark,
Any relation to Marylyn?
Art Rigsby
9:37 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Joe the Plumber: Why do you think Mark knows your wife?
Robin Lionheart
4:57 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
⁃ “why stop there, how 'bout a "separate but equal" school for atheists?”
That plan might satisfy Donna Higgins, who atheophobically posted “Well, I want the immediate removal of all atheist from the school, how about that?”
Joe The Plumber
1:15 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
While the atheists gloat we can all take comfort in the fact that even with this hollow victory, their numbers only amount to an insignificant 0.7% of our society.
They would like to think that their popularity increases with thes events, but everyone sees their false beliefs and the futility of their lives and we can only feel pity for them.
Richard Brum
12:32 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
You love to play the numbers game, don't you Joe? What do the numbers matter in cases like this? Popularity doesn't determine accuracy or correctness of a set of beliefs, nor does it matter when we're talking about legal infractions on the part of a majority-siding group of people.
The banner was illegal. School prayer has been illegal for nearly 50 years (since the 1963 case of Abington School District v. Schempp). It doesn't matter if there is only one atheist in the entire country... the government and this nation belong to ALL of us, not just a 76% majority of people. The Constitution was put in place for a reason: to ensure the rights of a minority and protect them against the will and brute force of the majority.
You know, at one point, 99% of the population believed the world was flat. And later, 99% of the population believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Just because everybody believed it, did not make it true.
Remember that for the future, Joe.
Mark J Chambers, PhD
2:09 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Joe, I ask this question in all seriousness: Have you ever once made an insightful, relevant comment in any of these forums? I agree that one judges another's intelligence by what they say. What do you think your comments say about yours?
By the way, where do you get your 0.7% statistic? A Pew Forum survey from 2007 found that 4.0% of Americans identified themselves as atheist or agnostic, and another 6.3% said that religion is not important in their lives. Another poll, the American Religious Identification Survey in 2008 found similar numbers, about 3% atheists and agnostics and another 12 percent with "personal beliefs consistent with atheism or agnosticism." This survey also found that the percentage of people unaffiliated with any religion has nearly doubled over the last 20 years. I know, it's shocking that you would be wrong on this issue, given the spot-on accuracy in all of your other comments, but nobody's perfect. I'm sure you'll get right back on track with your next post.
Robin Lionheart
3:19 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Joe the Liar has been repeating that 0.7% lie over and over ad nauseum for the past couple weeks. He may be hoping we'll eventually get tired of correcting him.
Art Rigsby
9:40 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
I am sure that if all the closet atheists came out the percentage would push 10% or higher. I can see why they would not come out in Cranston as the good citizens keep tar and feathers on hand for the heathens.
Joe The Plumber
10:45 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
A member of your own cult of atheists provided these four references:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://chartsbin.com/view/3nr
http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm
http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html
From his first first source:
"Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population"
So your own source puts atheists at less than 0.5%.
OOOPS I guess that make Robin the liar.....
His second source puts atheists at 2.32% WOLDWIDE!
ummm okay.....
His third source show no statistics at all.
His fourth source shows atheists at 3.8% world wide. Which considering Communist China, and Mongolia where most of them live, it is understandable....
So, Art if I guess your invisible army of invisible atheists are pretty crowded in those closets hiding because they are ashamed of doubting their lack of faith.
Mark J Chambers, PhD
12:41 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Joe, I don't know whether you're dishonest or ignorant, but neither is good. Your selective quoting of the sources you reference proves it. As an example, the first quote you cite is incomplete. The full quote is as follows: "People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious)." The source goes on to say that although a small number of people "label" themselves as atheists, a much larger number indicate that they do not believe in God or have no religious affiliation. So if we're talking about labels (which are irrelevant), then you may be right, but if we're talking about belief (which is relevant), you are, as usual, very wrong. As to your China comment, that same source links to a list of the top 50 countries with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics. China was number 36 on that list, behind Italy, Greece, Spain, Canada, the UK, France, and, wait for it, Israel! And by the way, that same list shows the US, which was only 7 spots below China, to have 3-9% of its population atheists/agnostics. Yes, China has a lot of atheists, just like it has a lot of people with 9 fingers, but that has nothing to do with the percentages in the US, which is what you claimed ("our society," remember?).
Art Rigsby
1:32 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Joe The Plumber: What is your point? I never said that any particular survey was wrong. They report what people tell them and most atheist have to stay in the closet to avoid job less, alienation from their family and other stigmas that individual like you place on them.The church has done a very good job of brain washing the flock into thinking atheist are immoral and unworthy misguided buffoons. You know exactly nothing about the problems atheist face if they come out because you are one of the problems. I have many atheist friends that have no choice but to keep their non-belief hidden. Even Pastors and Priest have to hide (http://www.clergyproject.org/) because they know first hand what happens to atheist. The nice thing is that religion is starting to fade in this country. Europe is way ahead of us and it will take a few years to catch them but catch them we will and individuals with your mindset will just be a bad memory.
Robin Lionheart
3:36 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
@Joe
Ah, these figures again, which you spammed three times in the attorney’s fee thread.
⁃ “A member of your own cult of atheists provided these four references:”
Rather like that “superstition” of not believing 13 is unlucky, again.
You keep using that word “cult”:
‣ “And I take great pleasure in exposing the radical lunatic fringe that you represent for the mean, insulting, pompous, cult you all are.”
‣ “I guess that makes you and your rabid militant minority cult of atheists delusional.”
‣ “jAnus and his rabid pack of atheist extremists are very uncomfortable with the notion that people generally view their cult as a negligible minority. I take great comfort in it.”
I do not think it means what you think it means.
⁃ “So your own source puts atheists at less than 0.5%.”
_My_ own source? You cited it, not me.
*Your* own source does not support your conclusion, so you dishonestly quoted half a sentence to misrepresent it, leaving off the half that contradicts you. You engaged in deliberate deception. Judging from your hatemongering, you did so with evident malice.
Though you sanctimoniously call atheists “denizens of immorality”, your malicious lies show how your religion failed to instill good morals in you.
Joe The Plumber
3:53 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Liar liar pants on fire!
You and other atheists quote surveys and then when it backfires you discredit them.
Atheists...... you guys just love to flip flop.
According to what Doc Mark and Arty say, you have a large number of atheists living in closets ashamed to admit they are atheists.........
Yup ....okay.
Maybe we should have an Atheist Liberation Day.
We could make it a national holiday. You could all meet at your local Walmart parking lots on a day that the Church of the Cosmic People of Light Powers are not using it and give each other a secret handshake so that they can still keep their atheism a secret and those who are brave enough could use the WalMart P.A. system between RollBack Price announcements to come out of your closets!
Robin Lionheart
6:11 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
⁃ “...you have a large number of atheists living in closets ashamed to admit they are atheists...”
Yes, we do, because of atheophobes like you, Joe.
In the US, Atheists who come out of the closet face a lot of discrimination:
• People have been bullied, harassed, and threatened for being atheists.
• People have been fired simply for being atheists.
• People have been denied custody of their kids, simply for being atheists.
• Teenagers like Damon Fowler have been disowned and kicked out of their homes for being atheists.
• The U.S. Army institutionally discriminates against atheists with its Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, and there have been many documented incidents of overt discrimination in our military.
• High school students trying to organize atheist groups frequently get stonewalled by school administrators.
• A University of Minnesota study found that atheists are the most distrusted minority in the US, and the minority group Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.
• Only four Americans in ten would vote for well-qualified atheist.
All the more reason to oppose public schools showing religious bias.
RDT
8:28 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions. Most recent poll by ABC in June still more people as Christians in this country,
Art Rigsby
10:51 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
RDT: I took a look at the ABC survey and it was a quick and dirty survey of 1000+ people over 2 days. The ARIS survey (http://livinginliminality.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/aris_report_2008.pdf) in 2008 took 9 months and included 54,000 people. They arrived at 76% Christian in 2008, down from 86% in 1990. The other major survey was the Pew Research survey (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports). They interviewed 35,000 people and came up with 78.4% Christians. In other words, It appears the fat lady is getting ready to the swan song for religion in America.
scott
7:00 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
now that the prayer banner issue has been resolved, i hope the a.c.l.u.'s next step will be to sue to stop the use of tax dollars to fund paid christmas and easter holidays for town, city, and state employees. i can't think of a more blatant violation of the separation of church and state.
Richard Brum
12:36 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Yep, and as soon as somebody is brave enough to contact the ACLU and utilize them for such a lawsuit, they would most likely be willing and ready to take that on. Are you brave enough, Scott, to be the one person who doesn't want any holiday decorations in public? Or do you think the ACLU comes up with these lawsuits on their own? In every single case, the ACLU has been contacted by people wishing to sue, or challenge a government action. They have also defended the freedoms and rights of religious people as well, but nobody likes to talk about them; it destroys their claim that the ACLU is somehow an atheist organization. :P
Thomas DeSio
7:26 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Tommy D
Our rights were taken away from use. That's not right.
Lew Payne
8:51 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
What's right is not as important as what's constitutional. Your right to own slaves was also taken away from you, and (more recently) women were granted the right to vote. Stop being a bigot, and start celebrating the Constitution. If you don't like the laws we live under, you can always move to another country; try China or North Korea.
Art Rigsby
9:41 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Thomas, they can't take away a right you never had in the first place.
Joe The Plumber
9:21 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Next election 5 Committee persons will be voted out of office because they did not vote according to the will of Cranston Voters.
Remember the Banner Vote.
Richard Brum
12:39 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Vindictive and pathetic. You are obviously un-American, Joe, as well as anti-education. They didn't want to appeal mainly because they didn't have the money to do so. Did you really want them to take money away from the education of students in order to mount an appeal that would have surely ended in failure?
This has been established since as early as 1963, where school prayer was decided to be illegal and unconstitutional. A prayer banner, in 2012, was decided to be equally illegal and unconstitutional. There's a pattern here, Joe, one that goes against religious statements made on the walls and in the halls of public schools. Keep your religion in your home and away from other people's children.
Admit it, Joe: had this been a Satanic or an atheistic banner, you would've been right alongside the Plaintiff battling such a statement on a public school's wall.
Robin Lionheart
6:17 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
You’d be voting out Andrea Iannazzi and Paula MacFarland for the opposite reason that you ought. You should also vote out the stubborn deadenders Frank S. Lombardi and Michael A. Traficante, who irresponsibly voted to continue flouting the law.
msnomir
9:27 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
The 8 p.m. speaker was Kate Katzberg. She was excellent & is quoted in the Reuters article.
The battery on my phone went to sleep, too...
Robert OBrien
9:52 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Lew Payne wrote:
"Allah is indeed the name of God... but *not* the Christian God."
Christian Arabs refer to God as Allah.
"There have been thousands of Gods since early man; Krishna, Buddha, Horus, Zoroaster..."
Zoroaster, or more appropriately, Zarathushtra, was an Iranian prophet, not a god. He is not worshiped as a god by Zoroastrians.
"Allah is not the same as the Christian God."
As I wrote previously, Christian Arabs refer to God as Allah.
"Who's the real fool, now?"
You.
Robin Lionheart
6:38 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
And the Holy Qur’an says that for your idolatry of worshipping the prophet Jesus as a god, your judgment shall be a painful doom forever. You will wear garments of fire, and your food shall be to eat from the tree of Zaqqum which will burn in your belly like molten brass. You will have no appeal; Allah will not relax your punishment, and you will be speechless with despair. (Qur’an 98:1-8, 22:19-23, 44:40-49, 43:74)
Just like Yahweh, right?~
Stoney
9:54 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Mark: First, let me say "Nice job!" covering the entire Cranston Prayer Banner controversy in The Patch. As a concerned American citizen who lives more than 800 miles South of RI, I have found 'The Patch' to be an excellent source of information about Cranston and its loud, angry, and mostly mean spirited theocratic population.
I have also learned that there are many people of goodwill in Cranston (of all types - faith and no faith) who support the separation of state and church and have an understanding of why this principle is so important - not just to those who do not hold any supernatural beliefs, but to all citizens - including those of faith.
Thank goodness (not god) that the Cranston School Committee and Cranston's legal counsel have FINALLY taken a step in the right direction by voting NOT to appeal Judge Legreaux's sound decision. There is hope, yet.
I believe that the time is right for the all the people of Cranston to take a step back and engage in some introspection. Those of faith who profess to love your neighbor (or enemy) as you love yourselves - you have an opportunity to show it. Those who believe in the words of Jesus should know that he admonished others for pious public prayer and said, to his followers, to pray in private. To those who would turn our secular hybrid democratic-republic into a theocracy, know that we are legion and will work to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies - foreign and domestic.
Robert OBrien
9:58 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Robin Lionheart wrote:
"Joe the Liar has been repeating that 0.7% lie over and over ad nauseum[sic]..."
It is ad nauseAm. (It is a pet peeve of mine, which has no bearing on the veracity of your comment.)
Robin Lionheart
2:12 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Right you are. Mea culpa.
Robert OBrien
9:59 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
It is unfortunate that the school was bullied into submission by ACLU pettifoggers, abetted by a judge relying on case law which is not faithful to the U.S. Constitution as written and amended but rather a perversion thereof.
Art Rigsby
10:21 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Please provide evidence "the school was bullied into submission by ACLU pettifoggers", I assume you also consider the judge to be of the "activist" variety?
Stoney
10:28 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
O'Brien, what's a shame is your public display of multiple logical fallacies in one sentence. Waste of time, but let’s have a go…
Strawman: School was bullied into submission.... Fact: The School system broke the law and was finally brought to account. The Cranston School System's endorsement of religion was illegal. Their illegal behavior is an example of theocratic bullying.
Ad Hominem: “pettifoggers”. Attacking people for perceived personal shortcomings is a tactic used when one cannot attack the argument. It is childish and the last refuge of scoundrels. Fact: The ACLU protects the rights of all Americans, even the logically challenged – like you.
Strawman: “abetted by a judge relying on case law which is not faithful to the U.S. Constitution as written and amended but rather a perversion thereof.” Fact: The case law is so sound, it’s painful how willfully ignorant and constitutionally perverted the theocrats of Cranston are. Furthermore, the judge in the case is a Reagan appointee and faithful ‘conservative’ Catholic. Hardly someone who is likely to be very sympathetic to the ACLU, much less “evil” atheists, etc.
What’s really a shame is how poorly educated most Americans seem to be. No grasp of logical fallacies; willful ignorance of our shared secular birthright and constitutional history; a desire to institute a scripture based theocracy over the Bill of Rights (a totally secular document). Pathetic and treasonous!
Robert OBrien
10:01 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
Stoney
10:51 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
RO'B: It seems like you feel very strongly about this. Why not launch an appeal? There are many ultra-right wing Christian legal organizations who, I'm sure, will be happy to give you the money and lawers, like the ACLJ. Nothing like taking it all the way to the Supreme Court. They are VERY conservative you know. How about it? Put your money, time and effort where you're mouth is? After all, your god is at stake - never mind the country or law. Because your supernatural beliefs always trump the rule of law and shared secular Constitution. NOT!
Richard Brum
12:42 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." --Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, Jan 1, 1802.
paul
10:44 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Cranston has shown its true color and it's red, very fitting because Cranston is in the red. While the City was fighting over the banner, the devil lawyers were racking up the bills and licking their lips. The joke is on every taxpaying citizen and the devil is laughing at your grief and endless division. Get over it, the devil made her do it.
Stoney
10:47 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Yes, Paul - the devil made her (the town of Cranston) do it.
Robert OBrien
10:50 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
"Please provide evidence 'the school was bullied into submission by ACLU pettifoggers'..."
I refer you to their $153,000 shake down. And I believe their were threats to extract more.
"I assume you also consider the judge to be of the 'activist' variety?"
No. Hugo Black and those who signed on to his nonsense were the activists. If anything, this judge is slavishly bound to case law, which is unfortunate because the case law in question is a perversion of the Constitution.
Robert OBrien
10:51 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
"And I believe their were threats..."
That should be there not their, of course.
Robert OBrien
11:17 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Oh and that should be $173,000 not $153,000.
Richard Brum
12:45 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Shakedown? You DO realize it's the law that the losing party has to pay the attorneys' fees of the winning party... right? And that the ACLU was VERY generous in their quote? A lot of the ACLU's lawyers worked for free much of the time, thus dropping that figure significantly.
I don't know why you see this as a "shakedown". I bet you see child support payments as a "shakedown" too, right? And parking/speeding tickets? And fees at Disneyworld? The ever-increasing costs of sandwiches at Subway?
It's not like the ACLU is holding a gun to the school district's collective heads and demanding this money. The fact that they lost this case means the school was in the WRONG here, and now they have to pay. It's the law. Don't like it? Become active in trying to change it. Good luck.
Robert OBrien
10:51 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Stoney wrote:
"O'Brien, what's a shame is your public display of multiple logical fallacies in one sentence. Waste of time, but let’s have a go…"
Your sophomoric grasp of informal fallacies does not impress me.
"Strawman: School was bullied into submission.... Fact: The School system broke the law and was finally brought to account. The Cranston School System's endorsement of religion was illegal. Their illegal behavior is an example of theocratic bullying."
The informal fallacy known as "strawman" occurs when you attribute to your opponent a claim he did not make. That is not the case here. You may disagree with my characterization of the ACLU's actions, just as I disagree with your characterization of the school's actions, but that has no bearing on whether I am "guilty" of the informal fallacy you attributed to me.
"Ad Hominem: 'pettifoggers'. Attacking people for perceived personal shortcomings is a tactic used when one cannot attack the argument. It is childish and the last refuge of scoundrels. Fact: The ACLU protects the rights of all Americans, even the logically challenged – like you."
My vituperation does not constitute the informal fallacy known as "ad hominem," as I did not claim their arguments were false based on "some irrelevant facts" about the ACLU lawyers in question. If I had written something like, "ACLU lawyer X's is a drunkard and therefore his argument is false then THAT would be an example of the informal fallacy you attributed to me.
Stoney
11:02 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
RO’B: You created a 'man of straw' so you could then knock him down. Bullied into submission is a strawman argument. There is NO evidence they were bulled by anyone – except perhaps the deluded faithful of Cranston into spending time and treasure to defend a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Use of ‘pettifoggers’ is an ad hominem as it does nothing to advance your argument that the case law is suspect and/or the people of Cranston should be allowed to hang sectarian banners in public places funded by all taxpayers (even those of no faith – who deserve equal protection by not being coerced into funding government established religion).
Like I said, waste of time… Happy trails.
wickchevy
10:52 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
The real issue!!
This is all about a spoiled 16 year old girl wanting attention. She even writes it in her old facebook page. well, she found a way.. She dropped the bomb and walked away with all the attention and media fame. May every college and place of possible employment remember her real goal. to get attention!!!!
Robert OBrien
10:59 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Amen to that! (Although, I hasten to add that I rebuke anyone who has made threats against her or written horrible things about her.)
Stoney
11:10 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Once again we are witness to true Christian love. Not the "turn the other cheek" kind of love, but the kind of love that brought us (and history) all the wars, crusades, inquisitions & murder for which Christendom is so infamous.
When people like wickchevy and RO'B get their hands on the reigns of power - we will all be reminded why our founders, as flawed as any human, wanted a government that was earthbound and not celestial.
For when American theocrats have government power over those who do not believe as they do, then we will have become just like Iran, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanastan and the Vatican. We will no longer be a free people, but we will be slaves to the majority religion in power.
Mark Calladus
11:29 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
I don't know about Jessica, but the only hateful words that I see here that may make me reconsider hiring someone are from you. Care to post them under your real name?
Mark J Chambers, PhD
1:06 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Dear Wick: Why do you and your ilk insist on making conclusions for which you have no evidence or information? What, other than the fact that she pursued a course of action of which you disapproved, suggests that she is "spoiled?" How, exactly, did she "drop a bomb and walk away?' As I understand it, she has not shrunken from her cause, despite the threats and venom directed at her from people like you. You have no idea what her "real goal" was, but again, I guess you people of "faith" don't need evidence to reach a conclusion, do you? Aren't the real "spoiled" ones those who insist on having their way and spending hundreds of thousands of the school's money even though the law is against them? The "real issue," Wick, is that the government should not be promoting religion. It's a bad idea for everybody, including you. Do you get it yet?
Robert OBrien
11:09 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Stoney:
You have "just enough of learning to misquote" and I am not interested in going round and round with you re: your vain attempts to pin certain informal fallacies on me.
Robert OBrien
11:21 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Stoney wrote:
"Once again we are witness to true Christian love. Not the 'turn the other cheek' kind of love, but the kind of love that brought us (and history) all the wars, crusades, inquisitions & murder for which Christendom is so infamous."
Atheists Stalin and Mao killed tens of millions between them, which is far more than any Christian pope, prince, or potentate.
Mark Calladus
11:25 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Stalin and Mao never did what they did in the name of "atheism". Unlike Christians who have for generations committed genocide in the name of Christianity. The Crusades come to mind.
Stoney
1:20 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
RO'B shows himself to be a scoundrel when he compares loyal American citizens who refuse to be pushed around by theocrats and who are protecting our shared birthright with tyrants and murders who only lusted for power - thie kind of power RO'B and his kind want. Nice job of projecting, RO'B.
Robin Lionheart
8:37 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
@RO'B
Mao's followers, who committed those atrocities, worshipped _Mao_ as a god.
We don't even need to tote up the crusades and inquistions. Your “tens of millions between them, which is far more than any Christian pope, prince, or potentate” can be easily refuted: the infamous Catholic dictator Adolf Hitler alone is responsible for at least 20 million dead in Christianity’s name.
wickchevy
11:34 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
It was not so much as a prayer but a more as a mission statement since 1963. I think when the old "mission statement" comes down the new one goes up mirroring the old. Lets stop the fighting and move on and focus on some real issues to make this State better as AMERICANS! The faster we do the faster this girls "snookie" type reality show is over... until her next attention getting/ media grab idea comes up. Down with her attention up with the new "mission" statement!
Stoney
1:21 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
wickchevy: What part of the Banner that says "School Prayer", "Heavenly Father" and "Amen" do you not understand? What a tool.
Richard Brum
12:48 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Maybe it's the parts that call for an external force to "grant us", "teach us", and "help us" that confuse him?
Robert OBrien
11:36 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Mark Calladus wrote:
"Stalin and Mao never did what they did in the name of 'atheism'. Unlike Christians who have for generations committed genocide in the name of Christianity. The Crusades come to mind."
"'Communists who hinder the broadest development of
anti-religious propaganda have no place in the ranks of the
Party,' said Stalin." (European Jungle, Francis Yeats-Brown)
Mark Calladus
11:43 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
Mark Calladus
11:46 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
And again, you're quote hasn't refuted what I said. Atheism isn't a principle or philosophy in any way. If Stalin had decided to limit Communism to short people, would you then say that short people are responsible for Communism?
Robert OBrien
11:46 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
I am at least two steps ahead of you Mark:
Journal entry of Goebbels:
“The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of religious rights. Both have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed.”
And Hitler said of Julian the Apostate:
“wie klar ein Mann wie Julian die Christen und das Christentum beurteilte”
How clearly a man like Julian had judged the Christians and Christianity
A Christian would not agree with Julian the Apostate’s criticisms of Christianity.
Ross Stapleton-Gray
12:25 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
The arguments re Mao, Stalin and Hitler give far too much credit to individuals: each of them were able to achieve the horrors that they did because the populations they led supported it. The German population of the 1930s, by and large, was quite content to think of other races and religions as the Other, and even subhuman, or to acquiesce to those who taught that that was so. Had there been more secular humanists, there might have been more resistance to the idea that any population had a divine right to displace or destroy another. Hitler faced little opposition from organized religion, and, in fact, had its support to some degree.
Stoney
2:45 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
"To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred." -- http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
But then again, so many people of Cranston seem to be bent on ignoring the truth, the law and/or history.
Joe The Plumber
4:12 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Bad people do bad things.
Usually having nothing to do with religion.
The only reason atheist are not credited with even more atrocities than they are, is that there were never very many of them.
Mark Calladus
10:18 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
So tell me, Rob ol' boy, when did the Catholic church excommunicate Hitler?
Oh, wait. They didn't.
Mark J Chambers, PhD
1:19 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
All this talk of Hitler and Stalin and judicial review is really just a smoke screen for the real issue, so Robert, I ask again: Do you, or do you not believe that the government, through entities such as the public schools, should endorse and promote specific religious dogma? Please don't try to tell me that the banner was "secular" or not specifically Christian -- those who supported the banner (including the school committee members) were exclusively Christian and often cited their Christian beliefs in the same breath with their arguments in its favor. Unless I miss my guess, you're one of those guys who complains about the government being "too big" and overreaching, so please tell me: Do you think that the same government you do not trust with your money or health care (I got that right, didn't I?) should be in the religion business? Until you answer that question, further discussion on this subject is pointless.
wickchevy
2:14 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Anybody that has to put PhD after their name when blogging has issues.... You are missing the real issue trust me. I dont get upset when my kids dont go to School because of a Jewish Holiday. We are all a melting pot of all Races and Religions and its been fine. "Free Country" I see signs and symbols of different religion everywhere. Are we going to take it all down? Change our money?
Stoney
2:48 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
wickchevy: You're pathetic. More non-sequitur's and ad hominems. Yes, anyone with a Ph.D. must be criticized for being well educated. How dare they! How dare they put it in their name! That's what you got? Pathetic.
wickchevy
3:37 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Its apparent this thread its bringing out psychos..... Police take notice please.
You can have the last word because its clear the real educated people left as i am doing
Carol Drewes
3:41 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Wow great coverage, Patch. Really impressive---I felt like I was there! Thank you.
Joe The Plumber
4:06 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Now come the new crop of better more improved, more nasty, more bitter, more insulting, more militant atheists.
Of course now the aftermath of this is, while the residents of the City of Cranston never even thought about your insignificant cult, you now have caused an entire city to loathe atheists.
Great job!
How are your new PR consultants working out for you?.
Maryann Papa
4:47 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
I believe this issue should have been appealed, it is not always about the money. The school systems take all the money from our tax dollar, I don't have children that attend the school system, so at least I would get some kind of benefit from my tax dollar. I am very disappointed in our school committees vote, I am a voter, and when it comes time to vote this year, I will not support any of you! Charlene Lima, as usual THANK YOU, you stand up for your voters! In the past I have worked on campaigns, you have lost a big tool this time!! As far as the $173K, I don't feel the City should be responsible for that, let that come out of the ACLU, who brought this issue to a head and used a 16 year old girl to do it!! It isn't about the prayer it is the principle, this is not shoved in the students curriculum, and as everybody else has stated, the pledge of allegiance is said every day at school and at all council meetings, what is the ACLU going to do about that, and who are they going to use? There have been many religions that attended Cranston West, and they did that because it was a good school, not because there was a prayer banner in the auditorium! Again, I am very disappointed in the school committees decision, but I guess if I had family members that were teachers and I helped them and their families get city and school jobs, I wouldn't want their pay cut, for a good cause!! As usual it is all political!! Who is going to pay for the extra police and for how long!
Richard Brum
12:52 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
You are completely ignorant of the law. The city of Cranston has to pay the ACLU's fees, because that is THE LAW. The losing party has to pay the fees of the winning party. That's the way it's always been, and it's encoded into law.
Have you even read the judge's decision in this case? It addresses a lot of your concerns, resolves a lot of your misconceptions, and answers any questions you may have.
Also, the ACLU didn't "use" anybody. The ACLU is there for PEOPLE to use, not the other way around. Do you even know how the ACLU works? Are you even aware of how many religious people (mostly Christians) the ACLU has worked to defend their rights and freedoms?
Richard Brum
12:53 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Also, tell the "good" Christians of Cranston to stop harassing and bullying Jessica and threatening her with torture, rape and death, and THEN the police will no longer be needed. You don't like paying for her police protection? Then get at the root of the problem: those who are threatening and harassing Jessica Ahlquist.
Stoney
6:46 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Maryann - Why not launch an appeal? There are many ultra-right wing Christian legal organizations who, I'm sure, will be happy to give you the money and lawers, like the ACLJ. Nothing like taking it all the way to the Supreme Court. They are VERY conservative you know. How about it? Put your money, time and effort where you're mouth is? After all, your god is at stake - never mind the country or law. Because your supernatural beliefs always trump the rule of law and shared secular Constitution.
Oh, and please tell me why anyone - let along a 16 year old public school student, would need police protection in your quaint little town? I thought you all were so holy and 'Christlike' in Cranston? Don't you live by the words in the banner? Let's see.....Yes....Jessica needs police protection from the loving, forgiving, American Christian Taliban of Cranston. You want to pay for an appeal for a banner but not police protection for a threatened fellow citizen. A citizen who is threatened by the like of you? How nice. How special. How Christian of you.
Maryann Papa
9:18 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
@Stoney, first of all, I never debated the religion part. I was speaking of the costs, and let me tell you something I would be happy to contribute and work on a fundraiser as I have in the past for people and politicians, so don't challenge people you don't know what they have done in the past! It sounds like you don't even live in the City and you don't even use your real name just your nickname to hide! So keep getting stoned! I am done with you!
Carol Bragg
11:46 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
The whole thing is quite sad and indicative of intolerance on both sides. It's tragic if a young girl who's an atheist is not raised in a way that she doesn't feel uncomfortable around expressions of faith, Christian or otherwise. And it's sad that those who profess to be Christian don't take seriously Jesus' admonition to go into your closet and pray in secret rather than make a public display of your piety. Watch the movie on hulu.com about Albert Schweitzer. It's very interesting. He was a pastor, theologian, philosopher, great organist. At age 21 he made the decision that at age 30 he was going to "preach the Gospel without words." He spent seven years training as a medical doctor and 50 years as a medical missionary in French Equatorial Africa "preaching the Gospel without words." His Christian faith was not on his lips but in his heart. And Gandhi, a Hindu, was described by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Baptist minister, as "perhaps the greatest Christian of the century." Go figure. A little reflection and self-examination would help all around. There just may be some truth on both sides. Why are we always drawing lines in the sand?
Ross Stapleton-Gray
11:55 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
I'm sorry, but I don't see any tragedy in how Jessica Ahlquist asserted her right under the Constitution to have a public institution disentangle itself from religion. For all you or I know, she may be quite comfortable with those who are religious practicing their religion, in every appropriate manner. Doing so with state support is inappropriate.
The line drawn is the rather bright one, under the law, that protects Americans from state intrusion on their religious life.
Joe The Plumber
1:05 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Hey Ross, I'm very curious about something. If you have two last names, will your children have four? And your grandchildren have eight, and their children have sixteen, etc., ?
Is like some exponentiation name thing?
Jerome
12:04 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Every time this comes up, I am reminded of Gary Christenot, the evangelical christian who, while stationed in Hawai'i, visited the local high school for a football game. Upon rising before the game for the school-sponsored invocation, he was shocked (SHOCKED!) when it was a prayer given by a Buddhist priest.
Proper separation of church and state protects everybody to behave as their conscience dictates, religious and non-religious alike.
"... insistence upon neutrality, vital as it surely is for untrammeled religious liberty, may appear to border upon religious hostility. But in the long view the independence of both church and state in their respective spheres will be better served by close adherence to the neutrality principle." -- SCOTUS, Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963
Liberty Janus
12:07 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
JFK 1960:
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.”
Joe The Plumber
12:44 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
jAnus is at it again!
Telling us all what we should believe while he believes in nothing, no God, no afterlife, no purpose for our life. Atheism, where the futility of existence ends with us being nothing but wormfood.
It is no wonder they are such nasty people.
And why there are so few of them.
Joe The Plumber
8:27 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
jAnus and Fuhrer,
I am very happy in my Faith.
My comment has more to do with the writings of atheists such as Camus and Satre who were honest enough about their atheism, that they submitted to the futility of existence.
Liberty Janus
2:48 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Joe The Liar is now also Joe The Loser.
Andy Furrer
10:28 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
He is the typical Christian hypocrite. He spews his hate and intolerance against those he disagrees with while thinking he is doing God’s work. If there is an afterlife he had better invest in a fire suit, he will need it where he is going!
Robert OBrien
10:41 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Mark Chambers wrote:
"...Robert, I ask again: Do you, or do you not believe that the government, through entities such as the public schools, should endorse and promote specific religious dogma?"
I do not.
"Please don't try to tell me that the banner was 'secular' or not specifically Christian -- those who supported the banner (including the school committee members) were exclusively Christian and often cited their Christian beliefs in the same breath with their arguments in its favor."
While I have little doubt that the people who placed the banner were Christian, its wording is not sectarian. It is an example of civic religion.
"Unless I miss my guess, you're one of those guys who complains about the government being 'too big' and overreaching, so please tell me: Do you think that the same government you do not trust with your money or health care (I got that right, didn't I?)..."
I do not exactly trust government with my money or my health care but I generally support progressive taxation and I currently withhold judgment on the health care affordability act (or whatever it's called).
"...should be in the religion business? Until you answer that question, further discussion on this subject is pointless."
I do not want government advancing specific religious doctrines. However, I support civic religion in most cases.
Robin Lionheart
3:01 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
@RO'B
“While I have little doubt that the people who placed the banner were Christian, its wording is not sectarian.”
Why do people keep calling it Christian?~ Its supplication to a monotheistic male patriarchal “Heavenly Father” [Luke 11:13] includes all sects from Catholic to Protestant to Mormon!~
Robert OBrien
10:44 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Ross Stapleton-Gray wrote:
"...I don't see any tragedy in how Jessica Ahlquist asserted her right under the Constitution to have a public institution disentangle itself from religion."
The prohibition against the banner in question must be written in invisible ink, to the left of the emanation of the penumbra.
Robert OBrien
10:50 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Stoney wrote:
"wickchevy: You're pathetic. More non-sequitur's and ad hominems. Yes, anyone with a Ph.D. must be criticized for being well educated. How dare they! How dare they put it in their name! That's what you got? Pathetic."
This is an example of the informal fallacy known as "strawman" that you accused me of previously. Wickchevy thought Mark Chambers was putting on airs (as did I, until he explained his reason for mentioning his doctorate) and that is what he or she what criticizing. Wickchevy did not criticize him for being well educated.
Robert OBrien
10:55 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Mark Calladus wrote:
"So tell me, Rob ol' boy, when did the Catholic church excommunicate Hitler?
Oh, wait. They didn't."
This is the sort of shallow thinking that I have observed both online and in person among vocal atheists. There are, no doubt, plenty of atheists who are still listed on the Catholic rolls; that does not make them Catholic. A person must believe certain things to be a Catholic.
Robert OBrien
11:05 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Incidentally, I recommend people check out the cloying comments to Jessica on professional atheist (because he cannot get a real job) JT Eberhard's blog to see how certifiably cray cray many of the members of the league of the militant godless are:
freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/02/16/victory-in-cranston/
Joe The Plumber
8:34 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
I checked out that link Robert.
Very creepy.
Stoney
12:29 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
RO'B: Thanks for the link. Btw, one only has to look on The Patch to see how the holy and sacred Christian people of Cranston think. Worshipers of a mangod who is reported to have said: "love thy neighbor (and enemy) as thyself", "turn the other cheek", and "go into a dark room and pray to thy father in private".
RO'B calls those of us who put the Constitution and our secular birthright above any so-called holy book or scripture "the league of the militant godless". Call us what you want, RO'B. Feel free to listen to and read what the godless say and write. We have no secrets. We have no mask of self-serving sanctimonious solipsistic supernatural beliefs to bludgeon our fellow citizens or hide behind.
Let me say it plainly and clearly: To those who put their supernatural beliefs, holy books, or scripture above our shared Constitution and Bill of Rights and would supplant our secular form of government for a theocracy, you are what the Constitution refers to as “domestic enemies”. You are tyrannical, theocratic and treasonous. You belong in the middle-ages, when darkness and religion ruled the world. You are an anachronism. You are neo-Medievalists. You are willfully ignorant and proud of it.
To those who value our secular birthrights and who know those freedoms must be protected in every generation, we have the Constitution and Bill of Rights on our side. We can and will use the legal process, which btw, RO’B, is not militant. It’s American.
Liberty Janus
3:29 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Barry Goldwater 1981:
"By maintaining the separation of church and state the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars . . . Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?"
Joe The Plumber
8:31 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Thank God there are only few of these lunatic atheists.
But boy......... Can they talk a lot!
Melanie Scalera
10:27 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
I call them anti-christians. The normal atheists even think they're morons.
Liberty Janus
8:43 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Barry Goldwater, lunatic atheist, 1981:
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."
Joe The Plumber
11:58 am on Sunday, February 19, 2012
jAnus can really pick role models can't he?
Goldwater had a propensity to use nuclear weapons as a normal course of government as in dealing with Communist Russia, "Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin as an example".
Lunatic.... Yes!
Liberty Janus
12:43 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
All one needs to know about Joe The Liar aka Joe The Theocrat aka Joe The Loser is that he continues to misspell my name like a child scrawling potty humor on a truckstop bathroom wall, but in addition, he confirms his inabilities by missing the point of quoting Goldwater.
The point about Goldwater, as should be obvious to a child, is that even a man formerly universally recognized as a conservative extremist, who got almost everything else wrong, was able to get one thing right; understanding the existence of, and need for, separation of church and state. Today's religious extremists make Goldwater look like an enlightenment genius, which he manifestly was not, which illustrates just how extreme and fanatic the theocratic minority agenda has become in its pursuit of depriving Americans of their liberties.
Fortunately, the majority of Americans support separation, and most believers are not theocrats, and ALL Americans won another victory for their liberties (thanks to Jessica and the ACLU and Judge Lagueux) to add to the long series of court judgments confirming liberty of conscience and belief through separation of church and state.
Small Change
11:56 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012
RL writes-
=@Um Ah
Here’s a similar statement for you to rebut: “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”=
So you derisively sneer only a fool would suggest that atheism is a religion, is that what you are saying?
At least that is how I read it.
But the banner is illegal because even though it favours no particular religion, by referring to a 'heavenly father' it excludes the religion of atheism, thus offending a certain student. Although that isn't a religion, except that it IS when you go to court, but not really, as anyone with any sense knows. Except that it is....''' etc etc
Just as long as you wish to make it clear that your position makes no sense at all, I'm good with that.
Robin Lionheart
11:21 am on Tuesday, March 6, 2012
@Small Change
No, I smile and use humor to poke fun at suggesting that atheism is a religion. (Though in this case, my joke was on a skeptic missing that I meant “like not believing 13 is unlucky is superstitious” ironically.) We in the atheist community often make jokes on this theme. Other versions include “atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color”, “like off is a TV station”, &c.
The school prayer “favours no particular religion”? Why, it includes both kinds, Catholic AND Protestant!~
Cranston West’s “School Prayer” was not a Jewish prayer, nor a Muslim prayer, nor Buddhist, nor Hindu, nor Wiccan, nor native American... their school prayer only favors religions with a monotheistic male parental “Heavenly Father”. How inclusive!~
A few court decisions have called atheism a religion for legal purposes, like in a case a few years ago where a court ruled that prison officials violated an inmate’s right to form an atheist study group. But this makes atheism literally a religion no more than courts construing laws written about “men” to apply to women make women literally men. Argue that that court’s position “makes no sense at all” if you like, it has naught to do with _my_ position.
Small Change
1:02 pm on Tuesday, March 6, 2012
No, RL, you don't smile. You sneer. It is the only expression of which you and you fellow travelers are capable. That is why you are here.
Your weird hangup with 'monotheistic MALE religion' is your own problem. No matter how many times you repeat it, no one here really cares about that one- other than to not take anything you say seriously.
Robin Lionheart
7:35 pm on Tuesday, March 6, 2012
@Small Change
“you fellow travelers”? That’s your generation’s slang for “Communist sympathizers”, right? Your McCarthyite redbaiting insults are 50 years out of date, old-timer.
You say no one here takes me seriously because I have a “weird hangup” with “MALE religion”. No, I don’t care whether you pray to a make-believe sky daddy or a make-believe sky mommy (which should tell you how seriously I take your religion). I only mentioned your “Heavenly Father”’s gender to refute claims that Cranston’s school prayer was nonsectarian.
Small Change
9:29 pm on Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Fair enough RL. We can add 'Old folks' to males and christians as groups whom you are devoting your life to despising.
Hour after hour, day after day.
Everyone needs a hobby, I guess - though you seem to be getting a little obsessive about yours.
Perhaps this mental corrosion is one reason why you keep arguing that it is ridiculous to consider atheism a religion, while simultaneously upholding someone's first amendment claim that they are being 'prohibited from exercising' this same 'religion'.
Robin Lionheart
4:04 pm on Thursday, March 8, 2012
Neither your age, nor your gender, nor your religion are among the reasons I don’t like you, Small Change. Mostly it’s just your habit of insultingly ascribing attitudes and positions to me I haven’t taken.
No atheist in this case made a First Amendment claim they were being prohibited from exercising their “religion”. Such an ignorant claim would be ridiculous.
Melanie Scalera
10:59 am on Tuesday, March 6, 2012
If you weren't an ignorant atheist; you'd know that the native american religion DOES believe in a heavenly father.
Ross Stapleton-Gray
11:14 am on Tuesday, March 6, 2012
"The native american religion?" There were many hundreds of tribes in the Americas when Westerners hit the shores, and they didn't share *a* religion.
But this particular nit is off the point, that the now-departed prayer banner was specific to some religions, not a secular statement.
Melanie Scalera
10:29 pm on Tuesday, March 6, 2012
And, as for the atheists with their rude and offensive comments, and saying no one takes (someone) seriously and no one cares what they think. Well, who are you---some out of stater? We actually don't care what you think. So go take that queer family back to your state with you. No one likes them here.
Melanie Scalera
4:56 pm on Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Next time you make an attempt to sound like a smart ass, check the definition of a word first:
queer [kweer] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, verb, noun
adjective
1.
strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different; singular: a queer notion of justice.
2.
of a questionable nature or character; suspicious; shady: Something queer about the language of the prospectus kept investors away.
3.
not feeling physically right or well; giddy, faint, or qualmish: to feel queer.
4.
mentally unbalanced or deranged.
Melanie Scalera
4:58 pm on Wednesday, March 7, 2012
So,.....is that the best you can do??? Lemme try to be you, Robin Lionheart; "OMG---Robin Lionheart, you hate HISPANICS!!?? What else do you hate; blacks? Asains??" Nah, I'm all set trying to imitate you....feels like I'm losing IQ.
Ross Stapleton-Gray
5:02 pm on Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Firstly, you'd presumably be aware that "queer" is also a synonym for gay, or homosexual... when I was a kid, it would have been wholly derogatory, though many people now use it as a "taken back" self-description (e.g., "We're here, we're queer, get used to it").
Secondly, I was raised to accord others more respect... I don't call other humans "queer" (in any meaning) as a rule, even if their beliefs might differ from mine.
Melanie Scalera
5:04 pm on Wednesday, March 7, 2012
And....your point? I wasn't using it in that sense. Nor do I care if someone is gay, or an atheist, or whatever. What I do care is when some prick tries to cause trouble for no reason but to gain attention. And when someone offends someone else by saying "sky daddy". You wanna be rude??? I'll show you rude.
Melanie Scalera
5:42 pm on Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Really? So you think that if one christian is rude to you; then you should publicly offend everyone of that group? I think the family who caused the banner issue is a bunch of jackasses, but I'm not going to make rude comments that would offend all atheists. Especially since I have nothing against every atheist.
Robin Lionheart
5:46 pm on Wednesday, March 7, 2012
May God strike me dead if I wronged him by calling him a “sky daddy”!
...
Guess He doesn’t care that much. Maybe you should get a thicker skin too.
Melanie Scalera
5:48 pm on Wednesday, March 7, 2012
God doesn't bow down to you, sorry. You don't believe in him, so why do you care? Run into me on the street and we'll see who needs the thicker skin. As for now, stop being a douche and worry about your own state, Thanks.
Robin Lionheart
5:55 pm on Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Nor does he put me in my place. His nonexistence kinda gets in the way.
In defense of my concern with Rhode Island: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” — Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Melanie Scalera
6:00 pm on Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Then maybe you should die and go to hell?
Maybe you're getting in the way in my state? So mind your own business. Go play in your state.