Atheist teen forces school to remove prayer

bcp

In My Opinion
The ho needs to get her ass whipped by the rest of the community.

How one person can change what the rest of the community wants is just beyond me.
a prayer written on the wall does not force anyone to read or believe.
 

Jeter3000

New Member
From what I have read, she has been receiving death threats and lives in fear for her life. Even local florists won't make a delivery (one sent by the ACLU) to her home for fear of retaliation. While I do not condone physical harm, remember, you reap what you sow. Good luck little Jessica. Sounds like you're going to need it.
 

bcp

In My Opinion
From what I have read, she has been receiving death threats and lives in fear for her life. Even local florists won't make a delivery (one sent by the ACLU) to her home for fear of retaliation. While I do not condone physical harm, remember, you reap what you sow. Good luck little Jessica. Sounds like you're going to need it.

If someone can explain the danger of having a prayer on a wall, I will stand beside her 100%. But the cant.
are they afraid that the prayer will force kids to convert, or think about converting?
and if the prayer was there for the last 40 or so years, then suddenly is taken away, does that send a message of a different type?
 

UNA

New Member
Wirelessly posted

Let's turn the tables again. Would everyone who is defending (or making) the threats have been OK with leaving the prayer and adding an equitable banner stating the merits of secularism or atheism? I'm guessing not the censorship of atheism in the past.
 

Zguy28

New Member
Wirelessly posted

Let's turn the tables again. Would everyone who is defending (or making) the threats have been OK with leaving the prayer and adding an equitable banner stating the merits of secularism or atheism? I'm guessing not the censorship of atheism in the past.
The principle of reaping what you sow does not imply that the reaped harvest is good or bad, just expected and not surprising.
 

UNA

New Member
Wirelessly posted

Zguy28 said:
Wirelessly posted

Let's turn the tables again. Would everyone who is defending (or making) the threats have been OK with leaving the prayer and adding an equitable banner stating the merits of secularism or atheism? I'm guessing not the censorship of atheism in the past.
The principle of reaping what you sow does not imply that the reaped harvest is good or bad, just expected and not surprising.

I understand that. But is she really reaping what she sowed? Are the death threats really the appropriate harvest here? She (in a sense) criticized religion and that's going to draw a response; and not nessesarily a good one. But she did not invite violence. The problem here isn't what she did nor that people responded negatively. It's the extreme nature of the backlash. The problem isn't that people are disagreeing with her; the problem is that some people seem to be under the impression that religion is untouchable. That it shouldn't be criticized.

You don have to agree with her to see that the reaction is inappropriate. Her tactics do NOT warrent death threats. This is how OTHER nations work. Not ours.
 

MMM_donuts

New Member
Doesn't anybody else kinda consider it kind of an oxymoron that a bunch of (assuming) Christians would send death threats to a 16yo over having a hanging in a school removed? How very Christ-like of them :sarcasm: That's no way to encourage her to consider Christianity....no wonder she's an atheist. And that's no way for adults to act, period.

I'm also assuming this is a public school. Why don't they just add other prayers to the wall to demonstrate a history of the religions? Or would Christians freak out and demand that Muslim prayer be taken down?

Why do public schools still does this kind of controversial stuff? Are they making a point to "keep God in school"? Just asking out of curiosity and seriousness - please don't attack me, I'm not trying to make any kind of anti-Christian statement.
 

Zguy28

New Member
Wirelessly posted



I understand that. But is she really reaping what she sowed? Are the death threats really the appropriate harvest here? She (in a sense) criticized religion and that's going to draw a response; and not nessesarily a good one. But she did not invite violence. The problem here isn't what she did nor that people responded negatively. It's the extreme nature of the backlash. The problem isn't that people are disagreeing with her; the problem is that some people seem to be under the impression that religion is untouchable. That it shouldn't be criticized.

You don have to agree with her to see that the reaction is inappropriate. Her tactics do NOT warrent death threats. This is how OTHER nations work. Not ours.
Do you believe the reactions are evil?
 

Zguy28

New Member
Doesn't anybody else kinda consider it kind of an oxymoron that a bunch of (assuming) Christians would send death threats to a 16yo over having a hanging in a school removed? How very Christ-like of them :sarcasm: That's no way to encourage her to consider Christianity....no wonder she's an atheist. And that's no way for adults to act, period.

I'm also assuming this is a public school. Why don't they just add other prayers to the wall to demonstrate a history of the religions? Or would Christians freak out and demand that Muslim prayer be taken down?

Why do public schools still does this kind of controversial stuff? Are they making a point to "keep God in school"? Just asking out of curiosity and seriousness - please don't attack me, I'm not trying to make any kind of anti-Christian statement.
The same reason people get ticked with revisionist history or when a school takes down a picture of George Washington.
 

UNA

New Member
Wirelessly posted

Zguy28 said:
Wirelessly posted



I understand that. But is she really reaping what she sowed? Are the death threats really the appropriate harvest here? She (in a sense) criticized religion and that's going to draw a response; and not nessesarily a good one. But she did not invite violence. The problem here isn't what she did nor that people responded negatively. It's the extreme nature of the backlash. The problem isn't that people are disagreeing with her; the problem is that some people seem to be under the impression that religion is untouchable. That it shouldn't be criticized.

You don have to agree with her to see that the reaction is inappropriate. Her tactics do NOT warrent death threats. This is how OTHER nations work. Not ours.
Do you believe the reactions are evil?

It depends on how you're defining 'evil'. They are unwarranted and not particularly 'Christian'. I suspect a great deal of hypocracy one the part of her - verbal - attackers.

Like I said, a lot of it comes back to the prevailing idea in this country that one cannot/should not speak out against religion (Christianity). And God forbid :)lol:) if one does, Christians are being persecuted.
 

Zguy28

New Member
Wirelessly posted



It depends on how you're defining 'evil'. They are unwarranted and not particularly 'Christian'. I suspect a great deal of hypocracy one the part of her - verbal - attackers.
I would prefer it if you answered the question. That's why I asked it of YOU. :howdy:

Like I said, a lot of it comes back to the prevailing idea in this country that one cannot/should not speak out against religion (Christianity). And God forbid :)lol:) if one does, Christians are being persecuted.
Has nothing to do with my question.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
Wirelessly posted



It depends on how you're defining 'evil'. They are unwarranted and not particularly 'Christian'. I suspect a great deal of hypocracy one the part of her - verbal - attackers.

Like I said, a lot of it comes back to the prevailing idea in this country that one cannot/should not speak out against religion (Christianity). And God forbid :)lol:) if one does, Christians are being persecuted.

Maybe it's more about one nut job and one DA judge taking away what everyone else wants and thinks is appropriate.
 

UNA

New Member
Wirelessly posted

Zguy28 said:
Wirelessly posted



It depends on how you're defining 'evil'. They are unwarranted and not particularly 'Christian'. I suspect a great deal of hypocracy one the part of her - verbal - attackers.
I would prefer it if you answered the question. That's why I asked it of YOU. :howdy:

Like I said, a lot of it comes back to the prevailing idea in this country that one cannot/should not speak out against religion (Christianity). And God forbid :)lol:) if one does, Christians are being persecuted.
Has nothing to do with my question.

You aske a question, I asked for clarification. So since you refuse to provide it, I'll go with Webster's first definition of 'evil' as an adjective: 1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>

Yes, IMO these threats are morally reprehensible and arise from bad character.

Maybe the second half of what isaid doesn't directly relate to your unclear and leading question but this is called a discussion :smile: sometimes people discuss the many aspects of a situation rather than answer 'yes' or 'no' directly to you and you alone. Maybe you could respond to it, or just ignore it...IDC.
 

UNA

New Member
Wirelessly posted

nutz said:
Wirelessly posted



It depends on how you're defining 'evil'. They are unwarranted and not particularly 'Christian'. I suspect a great deal of hypocracy one the part of her - verbal - attackers.

Like I said, a lot of it comes back to the prevailing idea in this country that one cannot/should not speak out against religion (Christianity). And God forbid :)lol:) if one does, Christians are being persecuted.

Maybe it's more about one nut job and one DA judge taking away what everyone else wants and thinks is appropriate.

We can certainly discuss the merits of the banner's removal. :yay:

But I was responding to the death threats she received.

How do you figure she's a 'nut job'? ...as you do eloquently put it.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
Because she has decided that whatever she wants is more important than what the group wants. She has no tolerance for others, but others must accept her as is.
 

UNA

New Member
Wirelessly posted

nutz said:
Because she has decided that whatever she wants is more important than what the group wants. She has no tolerance for others, but others must accept her as is.

Are you responding to me? I'll assume that you are.

So, when a bigger group wants to force their opinions on another smaller group, it's OK and because the bigger group Is bigger, they win. OK. Majority rules.

How about an example! MOST people in - say - Dearborn, MI want to force Christians there to convert to Islam and outlaw Christianity. Majority rules! (Note: this is just an example)

She not forcing her opinions on anyone rather she's asking that no one force their opinions on anyone. She didn't insist the banner be replaced with a giant picture of Christopher Hitchens!
 
Last edited:

nutz

Well-Known Member
Wirelessly posted



Are you responding to me? I'll assume that you are.

So, when a bigger group wants to force their opinions on another smaller group, it's OK and because the bigger group Is bigger, they win. OK. Majority rules.

How about an example! MOST people in - say - Dearborn, MI want to force Christians there to convert to Islam and outlaw Christianity. Majority rules! (Note: this is just an example)

She not forcing her opinions on anyone rather she's asking that no one force their opinions on anyone. She didn't insist the banner be replaced with a giant picture of Christopher Hitchens!

Yep, why not? In a true democracy that's how things work.
 

Zguy28

New Member
Wirelessly posted



You aske a question, I asked for clarification. So since you refuse to provide it, I'll go with Webster's first definition of 'evil' as an adjective: 1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
I do apologize for sounding so strong. Don't try to read too much into the question. I am always curious to see what others think about good, evil, etc.

Yes, IMO these threats are morally reprehensible and arise from bad character.

Maybe the second half of what isaid doesn't directly relate to your unclear and leading question but this is called a discussion :smile: sometimes people discuss the many aspects of a situation rather than answer 'yes' or 'no' directly to you and you alone. Maybe you could respond to it, or just ignore it...IDC.
Obviously they are hypocrits. I don't think anybody has missed that. The bible is pretty clear in Romans 12:

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Don't worry about those guys fair Una, God will look after them. Worry about yourself and God. That's what's important. :)
 
Top