The Lone Atheist vs. The Prayer Banner

[PrincessFirefighter]

Jessica Alquist from Rhode Island filed suit against her high school for having a prayer banner hanging in the school. Alquist, a self-proclaimed atheist, argued to the court that the banner was unconstitutional. She stated that the banner goes against the First Amendment of the Constitution and a Supreme Court ruling from 1962 that banned state-mandated schools from ordered prayer.

The banner read:
Our Heavenly Father.
Grant us each day the desire to do our best.
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically.
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers.
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others.
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.
Teach us the value of true friendship.
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.
Amen.

 

[Matt3737]

Do you believe in what she did? What do you think she hoped to accomplish by doing so? Did she improve the welfare of her community in your opinion?

Do you think others shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions about this individual (disregarding threats of violence), but that other people aren't allowed to be upset and angry towards this person? I disagree with the threats of violence, but I believe she earned exactly what she hoped to achieve; a self-inflicted ostracism.

 

[invisible]

totally third world.

 

[acd]

She did a great job of shedding light on how worthless religion is.

 

[invisible]

Do you believe in what she did? What do you think she hoped to accomplish by doing so? Did she improve the welfare of her community in your opinion?

Do you think others shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions about this individual (disregarding threats of violence), but that other people aren't allowed to be upset and angry towards this person? I disagree with the threats of violence, but I believe she earned exactly what she hoped to achieve; a self-inflicted ostracism.

i believe in what she did.

i think she hoped to disrupt the rigid belief-based expectations of her community. this is obviously a community where people are not allowed to believe what they want to. they have beliefs thrust upon them from every side, even when they are trying to learn to read and write and do arithmetic.

if she has been treated this way just for asking for a prayer banner to be down, just for asking to be allowed to be free in her beliefs, i think it must be terrible to live in this community. the community must have many, many rules for what is and is not allowed, and people must be constantly socially punished for transgressing even the most minor of these rules - for dating the wrong man perhaps, for missing church accidentally, for showing insufficient devotion - who knows?

it is not cool for people to be punished for being different, for wanting to be different. it is not good for communities to pretend that there aren't other people who believe different things, and it is bad for communities to resist outside ideas and influences, because they trap their members, they fail to grow, and when people leave they are lost forever, leaving parents without children, and unable to understand why their children have not been able to conform to the community rules. it is totally unrealistic and very childish to expect others to conform to our own beliefs. people have to learn to let go of this expectation. i think this is what she was standing up for.

 

[Entyqua]

In my daughters school she can't even dress up for Halloween because it affects the constitutional rights of other students. There are not Holliday celebrations of any kind anymore. It makes me angry, but I'm not deevolved enough to make threats. I agree with invisible here. If the community is so distraught about their school losing its prayer. Then perhaps the parents and other community leaders should turn it into a private school where these things are allowed. Public school is not the place for intolerance. It's hard enough for kids to make it through the public school system with out being faced with issues like these.

 

[magister343]

If the banner was officially endorsed by a public school then it is a problem. If it was merely an exercise in free speech by individual students or even teachers who were also free to hang similar non religious banners there then I see no problem with it.


The reaction is certainly uncalled for, and certainly runs counter the principles of Christian Love. Those who attacked here are in at least as much danger of hellfire as she is. Christ had a much bigger problem with hypocrites who falsely claim to honor God than with those who simply reject Him. Scripture is clear that it is impossible to love God and hate your brother, so any one of these people who claims to be a Christian is actually just a liar. A Christian would love even his enemies, and would always address his own shortcomings before those of others. True Christians are told not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian brother but shows otherwise through his actions, yet to continue to interact with and minister to honest non-believers who do the same things.

If she is damned, it will certainly not be for this action in particular.

Personally I believe that the Doctrine of Conditional Immortality is better supported by scripture than the Doctrine of Eternal Damnation. The term Hell or Hades properly refers to the grave where dead bodies are buried. Gehenna refers literally to Jerusalem's garbage dump/trash incinerator, or figuratively to complete destruction of body and soul. I do not believe that an atheist would receive the gift of eternal life that Christ offers, but that does not mean eternal torture. At worst it would mean being resurrected only to experience temporary suffering and shame before again ceasing to exist.

 

[This]

I think her and many other atheists need to learn to pick their battles more carefully.

Shit like this is what makes legitimate atheist complaints fall on deaf ears when it actually matters, because people will think they are just bringing up more petty shit like money saying "God" on it or something. Who gives a shit if the school hung some stupid banner? how does that effect anything? I don't at all agree to the reaction she received (especially not the physical threats), but if she lives in this community with these people she much have known that would be the reaction she would receive.

I am an agnostic and I go to church when it's an occasion that it's appropriate to do so, I will say "under God" if for some reason I need to say the pledge of allegiance. Why? because it makes people happy, it indicates a certain respect and I really don't give a shit, I'll use biblical quotes if they are good and I like the message of them. If I was in japan and the custom was to bow I would bow, If the custom was to kneel I would kneel. If you try and fight all the little battles you may lose the big ones.

 

[Trifoilum]

Cannot say she is wrong; nor unjustified;

However, neither is their outrage wrong. Unjustified; maybe. Extreme, definitely. Rude and crass and Unchristianlike? Oh, sure. What if it's a fellow Christian saying it?

Wrong? Not really. It's only a switch of position.

 

[this is only temporary]

I wholly do not support those awful comments made by so-called “Christians”.

I can explain, but I cannot excuse, their reaction.

The situation is something like this: In the US, most public schools these days are making a concerted effort to remove overt references to religion, and schools’ primary interest lies in ensuring that a very diverse group of students learns well, makes good grades, and generally gets along. This is constitutional, to de-religify schools, and it is fair; after all, public schools are not religious institutions. All good.

Public schools DO exist within a culture and a community, and some of those communities are majority Christian, if not theologically, at least culturally. Christians (usually very moderate ones) often make a large majority of the population where these schools are located. There are exceptions of course, depending on location. You get your religious whack-jobs, unfortunately, and you get your schools that have large Jewish and Muslim populations, and you get your schools that are largely atheist/agnostic, and most schools are highly diverse. But most schools in the US exist in a culture that could be called casually Christian.

So, the majority of the population are being told by a distinct minority that they cannot pray, (okay, fair enough… it is in the constitution) and that they cannot celebrate Halloween (buzz kill…) or Christmas (…um? Really? Now you’re hating on Santa Claus?? Just go… kill bunnies or something…) or basically any other holiday that might be considered offensive. People are required to speak in this odd, stilted P.C. code. “Happy Candy Giving Day That Has Nothing Whatsoever To Do With God. Or Satan. Here. Just Have Some Skittles.” is now code for Happy Halloween.

That P.C.-ness and forced change annoys the majority of the population. Whether they’re right or wrong, they’re annoyed. Making threats like that was waaaaay wrong, however, and I am sorry for that girl. And NO, she is not going to hell, how absurd, and those comments were probably made by the same 5 people posing as different individuals.

To me, however, it does seem like going to a school in a Muslim country and telling everyone they have to stop being even casually Muslim and to take down any references to Allah. That, I am sure, would go over like a ton of bricks.

Also, atheists are not like blacks in the 60s, it is nowhere near that extreme.

P.S. I also find it ironic that this took place in Rhode Island, which was founded on principles of religious tolerance. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/God-Government-and-Roger-Williams-Big-Idea.html

Williams believed that preventing error in religion was impossible, for it required people to interpret God’s law, and people would inevitably err. He therefore concluded that government must remove itself from anything that touched upon human beings’ relationship with God. A society built on the principles Massachusetts espoused would lead at best to hypocrisy, because forced worship, he wrote, “stincks in God’s nostrils.”

^^^ The Puritan preacher who founded Rhode Island. I wonder if forced non-worship also applies.

 

[PrincessFirefighter]

I think her and many other atheists need to learn to pick their battles more carefully.

Shit like this is what makes legitimate atheist complaints fall on deaf ears when it actually matters, because people will think they are just bringing up more petty shit like money saying "God" on it or something. Who gives a shit if the school hung some stupid banner? how does that effect anything? I don't at all agree to the reaction she received (especially not the physical threats), but if she lives in this community with these people she much have known that would be the reaction she would receive.

I am an agnostic and I go to church when it's an occasion that it's appropriate to do so, I will say "under God" if for some reason I need to say the pledge of allegiance. Why? because it makes people happy, it indicates a certain respect and I really don't give a shit, I'll use biblical quotes if they are good and I like the message of them. If I was in japan and the custom was to bow I would bow, If the custom was to kneel I would kneel. If you try and fight all the little battles you may lose the big ones.

So...basically you're arguing that cultural customs like bowing in Japan (which is equivalent to us saying "hello" or "thank you") is comparable to religious rule within society? You're saying that religious minorities like atheists, agnostics, buddhists, or taoists should abandon their sense of spiritual identity to "make others happy"? You're arguing that, because we're minorities, it's just easier to let other dominant belief systems disrespect us and walk all over us in order to keep them happy?

Wow.

*raises hand* I have an issue with some stupid prayer banner in a school. I have an issue with God being included in our currency. I have an issue with "under God" being in the pledge. Why? Because I'm an atheist American who is being neglected and disrespected by the inculcation of religion into everyday symbols that are inevitably pervasive in one's life. I haven't said the pledge since 8th grade. Why? Because it doesn't pertain to me. So many times people would tell me, "Why don't you just stop complaining and just leave out the "under God" part?" Because that's not the point. The point is that the pledge, as a whole, does not include me. My country is not under God. My country is under the blue sky and endless cosmos. The pledge doesn't include me as a citizen. It excludes 13% of the population. If the words were "my creator" I wouldn't have a single issue with it, since my creator is mother earth. My creator is my mother and father. But as long as the words "under God" are in the pledge, I'm not allowed to say it, in my opinion. It's not my pledge to say.

Same thing with a banner. If my school had a banner that claimed that my school was related to monotheistic faith, I would be offended. I would be stepped on. Again.

As an agnostic, I would hope that you would understand her efforts better than most.

Bowing to say "thank you" is completely incongruous to bowing to a faith population and sacrificing your own spiritual identity in order to ingratiate yourself.

 

[This]

You asked for opinions on the matter, mine is that it makes very little difference to me whether or not it says "God" on things or not, as "God" could essentially mean anything depending on your interpretation and honestly I don't really care, now if someone tries to CENSOR me in the name of religion that's different, but I don't see me trying to censor them as any better. I think it detracts from more serious matters like Gay marriage which IS a real issue being held back by the church. I respect your stance on it though as I too didn't say the pledge in high school although for me it had nothing to do with religion but rather because I don't believe in nationalism.

 

[Matt3737]

So...basically you're arguing that cultural customs like bowing in Japan (which is equivalent to us saying "hello" or "thank you") is comparable to religious rule within society? You're saying that religious minorities like atheists, agnostics, buddhists, or taoists should abandon their sense of spiritual identity to "make others happy"? You're arguing that, because we're minorities, it's just easier to let other dominant belief systems disrespect us and walk all over us in order to keep them happy?

Wow.

*raises hand* I have an issue with some stupid prayer banner in a school. I have an issue with God being included in our currency. I have an issue with "under God" being in the pledge. Why? Because I'm an atheist American who is being neglected and disrespected by the inculcation of religion into everyday symbols that are inevitably pervasive in one's life. I haven't said the pledge since 8th grade. Why? Because it doesn't pertain to me. So many times people would tell me, "Why don't you just stop complaining and just leave out the "under God" part?" Because that's not the point. The point is that the pledge, as a whole, does not include me. My country is not under God. My country is under the blue sky and endless cosmos. The pledge doesn't include me as a citizen. It excludes 13% of the population. If the words were "my creator" I wouldn't have a single issue with it, since my creator is mother earth. My creator is my mother and father. But as long as the words "under God" are in the pledge, I'm not allowed to say it, in my opinion. It's not my pledge to say.

Same thing with a banner. If my school had a banner that claimed that my school was related to monotheistic faith, I would be offended. I would be stepped on. Again.

As an agnostic, I would hope that you would understand her efforts better than most.

Bowing to say "thank you" is completely incongruous to bowing to a faith population and sacrificing your own spiritual identity in order to ingratiate yourself.

This has to be the most disgraceful display of a martyr complex I've come across. Your whole argument consists of you being intolerant of any other religious expression, while being semantically valid it is not in good taste and few people would be willing to indulge. Good luck with getting people to humor your right to self indulgence. You act like the inscription on money is the end all be all of your life, and I cannot abide such a narrow-minded view.

 

[894tt3h9]

This has to be the most disgraceful display of a martyr complex I've come across. Your whole argument consists of you being intolerant of any other religious expression, while being semantically valid it is not in good taste and few people would be willing to indulge. Good luck with getting people to humor your right to self indulgence. You act like the inscription on money is the end all be all of your life, and I cannot abide such a narrow-minded view.

+1

 

[the]

This has to be the most disgraceful display of a martyr complex I've come across. Your whole argument consists of you being intolerant of any other religious expression, while being semantically valid it is not in good taste and few people would be willing to indulge. Good luck with getting people to humor your right to self indulgence. You act like the inscription on money is the end all be all of your life, and I cannot abide such a narrow-minded view.

+2

 

[Radiantshadow]

This has to be the most disgraceful display of a martyr complex I've come across. Your whole argument consists of you being intolerant of any other religious expression, while being semantically valid it is not in good taste and few people would be willing to indulge. Good luck with getting people to humor your right to self indulgence. You act like the inscription on money is the end all be all of your life, and I cannot abide such a narrow-minded view.

Seconded. It is one thing to stand up for personal beliefs, but quite another to disrespect the history of the nation that allows you to do so.
---

The statement that Miss Alquist made is valid, but she would have been better served by picking her battleground tactfully. A little patience and tolerance, even of those who have little of either, will go a long way.

 

[PrincessFirefighter]

Seconded. It is one thing to stand up for personal beliefs, but quite another to disrespect the history of the nation that allows you to do so.
---

The statement that Miss Alquist made is valid, but she would have been better served by picking her battleground tactfully. A little patience and tolerance, even of those who have little of either, will go a long way.

We're not a Christian nation, if that's what you're suggesting. That's exactly the false mentality that is causing so many religious groups to be marginalized.

 

[PrincessFirefighter]

This has to be the most disgraceful display of a martyr complex I've come across. Your whole argument consists of you being intolerant of any other religious expression, while being semantically valid it is not in good taste and few people would be willing to indulge. Good luck with getting people to humor your right to self indulgence. You act like the inscription on money is the end all be all of your life, and I cannot abide such a narrow-minded view.

Let me be clear: my rant was not speaking to the original issue. My rant was speaking to Sali, who apparently believes that people should fake, for lack of a better word, their actual feelings about such religious inculcations and just go along with it to "make others happy." That we should just step out of the way and keep our feelings to ourselves while the big boys play. Then she made it apparent that she thought it was an intelligent thing to compare that to bowing in Japanese culture. I'm absolutely going to get impassioned about such things. Non-theists and the non-religious are marginalized and denied constitutional fairness. No, I'm not saying that God on the currency is the end all be all of my life. And I suggest you take the time to learn more about my past and my current philosophy than assuming that I hate all religious expression. I will defend to the death anyone's right to express their religious beliefs as long as it does not step on someone else's rights.

Religious expression is GREAT! Just keep it out of government.

I read bits of the Bible every night. I've read through it all once.

I went to church recently too. Interesting.

Oh, and Sali, I too am against nationalism. That was originally why I stopped saying the pledge. I was searching for religion in eighth grade.

 

[Radiantshadow]

We're not a Christian nation, if that's what you're suggesting. That's exactly the false mentality that is causing so many religious groups to be marginalized.

That is not at all what I suggest, nor do I support religion in any government.

I am referencing the fact that Christian ideals influenced the groundwork for the United States through the Constitution (three unalienable rights, thought to be God-given, ultimately creating the Bill of Rights, specifically); the freedom of speech that you used so passionately sprang, in part, from this. Raging against a tradition that allows you to rage struck me as hypocritical and self-indulging. To be clear: the message behind your rant is valid - no one should be diminished on account of personal beliefs - but your self-contradictory and intolerant presentation discounts your argument and credibility. You are not the only minority member in America and there are better ways to release your frustrations.

 

[PrincessFirefighter]

That is not at all what I suggest, nor do I support religion in any government.

I am referencing the fact that Christian ideals influenced the groundwork for the United States through the Constitution (three unalienable rights, thought to be God-given, ultimately creating the Bill of Rights, specifically); the freedom of speech that you used so passionately sprang, in part, from this. Raging against a tradition that allows you to rage struck me as hypocritical and self-indulging. To be clear: the message behind your rant is valid - no one should be diminished on account of personal beliefs - but your self-contradictory and intolerant presentation discounts your argument and credibility. You are not the only minority member in America and there are better ways to release your frustrations.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Not God-given. But I can understand where you're coming from. Sure, I'd be an idiot to say that religion, or Christianity more specifically, played no part in the development of the United States. However, I'd also be an idiot to say that our laws, regulations and rights were inspired only by religion. By that token, our laws and rights also came from the Tanakh, the Koran, and the Tao Te Ching. An argument that always bothers me is, "Of course our government was inspired by Christianity. Where do you think we got the idea to make murder illegal? The Ten Commandments, of course." Really? How about just human sentiment and natural morality? I'm not suggesting that this is what you're arguing, I'm just trying to make my point.

I accredit my freedom of speech the the brilliance or the Founding Fathers, who were, in large part, agnostics.

I'm perfectly aware that I'm not the only minority member. I don't believe I ever attested to that. In fact, I believe I mentioned that the atheist, taoist, buddhist and agnostic communities are all minorities, speaking religiously. And, no, we're not treated fairly.