Updating because the Washington Post wants a (free) registration when I use that link. I could access the story through google w/o the registration. Now it wants registration if I come in through google too.

I think it's the same article: here

Teenage female fanaticism can move mountains.

Not that I agree with the need to take offense, the complaint and the ruling against a historical artifact, as I fail to see what is the principal distinction between this incident and the Taliban removing statues of Buddha.

How is this a "historical artifact"? This is not like posting the 10 commandments in a social studies classroom when talking about the origin of laws and including other sources. This is the school (read: THE GOVERNMENT) posting a religious prayer in the school. This is clearly a violation of the excessive entanglement concept.

I don't know anymore than the article said. My English is not perfect, but by "mural" I understand a painting on the wall (though it may have also different meanings?), which according to the article has been there a long time and is part of the school history. In my country we have a state church or couple (to which I don't belong to) and I understand the law is different there, but my point was not about US law but about more general principle, that of respecting cultural history. My late mother was a great defender of local cultural history in my old home town, and I have much respect for her wisdom and accomplishments and the values she taught me.

Is it your position that separation of state and church in US trumps preserving any and all cultural history with religious connotations in government premises? That all works of art that have a religious meaning should be removed from all government premises? Damnatio memori, is that your answer?

and maybe you'll understand. Your attempted restatement of the issue is not accurate. It is government support for and promotion of religion that is illegal, and that's clearly what is intended here. "Cultural history" is just a smokescreen to get gullible people to think that this passes constitutional muster, rather like "teaching the controversy" or "scientific balance" with creationism.

as said, those are US legalistics that I won't go into as I couldn't care less, I was speaking on a more general level.

When I read your first response to me, I felt badly. I kind of remember know that you aren't from this country and felt bad that I responded like you were and I should have remembered that. But now you are basically saying you don't care about our laws. This particular case is all about our laws and it is an impact on a general level. We have a secular government that isn't supposed to support one religion over another or religion over non-religion and this is a clear example of it doing so. For the school to say it is a "historical artifact" only indicates that this violation of the 1st amendment goes WAY back in history, not that it is OK. Here, the "historical artifact" discussion is about a social studies teacher posting the 10 Commandments when having a discussion of the historical basis for creating laws. They are fine doing that. As an English teacher not dealing with those historical issues, it would not be OK for me to post the 10 Commandments.

The laws are different in other countries which creates a different culture. I am in no way saying that we need to abandon history. But this is a blatant example of what is supposed to be a secular government advocating religion.

My relation to laws in any country and towards countries is also affected by anarchism, to which I'm partial to. Live and let live, with compassion, is how I understand anarchism, and as was clear from the beginning, this incident does not bring out the best of us on either side.

Very interesting question is the Federal Reserve, the de facto government of US, but with a strange relation to other institutes. And the money issued by FR with reference to God and occult masonic etc. symbolism on their bills. IMO the separation of state and religion (including worship of Mammon) should start with the FR, rest is peanuts and politics of divide and conquer.

someone like you would simply want to make declarations or ask loaded questions from a position of ignorance, rather than taking a few minutes to educate yourself. It's quite all right. But don't expect a friendly response.

BTW, there is no "more general level". This is a United States case, and laws of other countries don't apply, nor do any invented general principles, whether you think they should or not.

As elsewhere, there are lots of patriotic nationalists also in US that are not receptive to anything that challenges their nationalistic belief system, and many from whom friendly response is not be expected.

But great thanks for all those on DU, atheists and theists and what not, who answer friendly even when they disagree with me...

finding people to be meek and polite when they've directed you to information central to answering a question you've posed, only to have you respond that you refuse to read it. Stating an informed opinion that others happen to disagree with is one thing, and blathering on in a state of willful ignorance is quite another.

If you ever wish to enter a discussion about the separation of church and state in the US in an informed state, I'm sure there will be plenty of people willing to enlighten you. Until then...

besserwisser attitude is seldom helpful. Based on what I knew before and what I've learned from this thread, I understand that in terms of US law the case is closed and nothing more needs to be said, and if there is willful ignorance to discuss this case on any other level besides from purely legal point of view, I can't help.

So a work of art (that I actually find beautiful) and part of school history needs to be destroyed, lots of very negative and inflammatory feelings and language raised, that leaves scars of bitterness on both sides and strengthens the negative stereotypes, because of the the law. I don't see much wisdom in such a law, seeing what it causes in this case.

however much you might want to avoid the fact that this girl was quite right in terms of the law and Constution by referring to this ugly artefact as such.


You "don't see much wisdom in such a law"? I think that's your problem, right there.

put up whatever religious prayers and "art" work they wish?

How do you define a "separation" between church and state?

How do you interpret "Congress shall make no law..." Does it mean ONLY IF you object to the religion, and, instead, if you AGREE with the religious viewpoint, you are just fine with displays of religious beliefs in public schools?

Just what SHOULD the court have decided, from your viewpoint?

in a public, tax-supported, operational school building where such "historical artifacts" can become damaged.

The "historical artifact" argument, like the artifact itself, holds no water.

Separation of church and state is just that, separation. There's not an opportunity for religious folks to stick their religious "artifacts" upon the walls of public school buildings and still claim that there's a true separation.

I don't think those Buddhas would fit in a museum.

The prayer and whatever it's printed on is not an historical artifact in any sense.... unlike the very ancient, (and very far to the west) Buddha statues.

as long as we come up with other thingsto classify it as, we can slip it under the RADAR.

By that method kids can bring guns to school, as long as they don't call them guns. Let's label them as "self-esteem enhancers", then I don't see the need to take offense...

and simply point out that school prayer is a violation of the United States Constitution. There is a large body of case law involving prayer in public schools in the US. It is a clear-cut violation of the law, and there was no chance whatsoever that once it saw the inside of a courtroom it would not be removed. This decision is only controversial in the minds of religious fundamentalists. Anybody who knows anything at all about American law and jurisprudence knew how this case was going to come out.

This mural was not a historical artifact. It was an unambiguous violation of the law. To compare the efforts of this little girl to the Taliban is unspeakably vile. This young woman is interested in upholding American law, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Taliban were acting for the glory of god. These two motivations could not be more different.

Typing in live time here. I was doing a radio-recon of the Buybull-thumpers tonight and heard - "the Rhode Island atheist who got the prayer banner removed will be on our show NEXT."

The station: KK(K)LA, the local Salem Comm. Fundie outlet here in Los Angeles.

The show: "The Intersection of Faith and Reason." Insert mega-ROFLs for that title, as usual. Hosted by a former jock named Frank Pastore.

I've heard this gasbag Pastore "debate" non-believers before. Usually he just talks over them and doesn't let them say much.

6:09 PM - the usual chain of commercials for Xian weight loss, debt repair and work-at-home schemes.

6:14 PM - Pastore is recapping the story. He already poisoned the well by claiming "most atheists are mad at Gawd because he didn't fix their toy or make Mommy better." He also keeps calling her "little girl."

6:16 - BAIT & SWITCH! She's NOT on the show. Pastore is cherry-picking "excerpts" from Ahlquist's address to the Secular Alliance last year. What a fucking weasel! I already knew that, but this is a new high in weaseldom, even for this jackhole.

He's talking over the damn recording, too. And stopping it so he can explain what Ahlquist REALLY means.

Now he's playing a clip where Ahlquist talks about her mother getting sick. I guess that explains the intro, where he explained all atheists have been hurt bla-bla-bla. One of the favorite Xian myths, endlessly recycled.

6:20 - now Ahlquist is talking about Hitler being a Xian. Pastore says that's "historically incorrect." I wonder what part of "Catholic altar boy" he doesn't understand.

OK, I've heard enough. He just referred to "Christopher Dawkins." (Caught himself pretty quickly, but still...)

Wow! That debating stuff sure is easy, when your opponent's not in the same room...or even in the same state.

Neither are stupid reactions.

Feel free to carry on.

Other than post links to things seemingly designed to stir up unreat and argument which you then do your best to stay loftily above?

Pretty rarified, I would imagine.

Though we both know it's not true.

But I'd wager that most of those nasty threats and insults come from keyboard warriors who would proudly - though ignorantly - call themselves Christian.

'Cause it sounds like that's what you're saying.

I was replying to rug's usual snarky comment with which he was, without saying it, accusing me of mocking/attacking "believers". He seems convinced that the poor oppressed Christians need protecting from the scorn of us nasty atheists.

If you read back you'll see that I said "we both know it's not true" (that "Vile reactions are the exclusive province of believers") .

As you seem unable to understand, let me be clear: the outpouring of vile, threatening, bullying comments directed at a 16-year-old girl who dares to not believe in the supernatural and was actually asking the school to observe the law as it is framed in your Constitution, could only have come, in my opinion, from those who proudly and unthinkingly label themselves as "Christian". As far as I'm concerned that makes them "real Christians".

Christians don't need atheists to condemn them, they manage it quite well themselves.

1. Sorry for the mis-read first time through. Been a long week.
2. A simple "Hey, dumbass, reread for sarcasm" would have sufficed.

It has, as you say, been a long week.

Can't you just say that the believers here had a shitty fucking response? Can't you just bring yourself to say that some people, in defense of their religion and privilege, are fucking assholes? No?

That includes Christians, atheists and internet warriors against privilege.

And these are particularly vile and violent. And I notice you still haven't come out saying they are out of place.

Thou shall not talk ill of fellow Christians, lest you reveal your own hypocrisy.

Except for a few posters who apparently need it.

Oh - make that never.

Vile reactions can come from anywhere, believers and non.

Are you excusing these filthy comments from disgusting people who call themselves christians just because there might be vile reactions by non-believers on some other issue? Some other issue that is not the point of this thread? Because those other issues that hypothetically exist don't mean jack squat in this discussion of very real things that actually did happen.

What I object to is knee jerk reactions using what is happening to this young woman as a platform for the usual one dimensional religion bashing.

I saw "check out vile reactions from some christians and others..." so the poster was not accusing all religion and was even including non-religious people who made vile comments.


Maybe the sub-thread would have devolved into that but it hadn't yet. All I can see here is that some nasty people are getting called out for their disgusting reactions to an innocent girl.

The results are replicable.