Fresh from her high school prayer banner victory, Jessica Ahlquist throws her hat into another ring.

I would like to start this post by saying two things.

First, I absolutely hate the cruel and violent words that have been used against Jessica Ahlquist. You will not find me on friendly terms with anyone who I find have insulted her.

Secondly, I would like to note that I have read her blog and it reads like the blog I kept at the age of 16.* I was also a very adamant atheist at the age of 16 and I believed I would never change my mind on the subject. I regularly sought out Christians to argue with and reading over the old posts I offered in arguments with Christians is actually an embarrassment to myself. I give age and overabundance of zeal, though not knowledge, as an excuse for my words at the time.** I did not remain in my atheism, not that I claim Ahlquist will change her mind on that, and my ignorance and need to change other people’s minds or even to police the public expressions of religion.

Now I want to address what this post is actually about.

Jessica Ahlquist and her fellow atheists who are extremely talented at making mountains out of molehills.

I will admit that, constitutionally, she had a case when it came to the school prayer at her school in Rhode Island. This isn’t about that.

I can empathize with some of what Atheist’s do, especially when it comes to say…the Ten Commandments being placed on courthouses. After all, I’m not a Christian and I don’t want to be judged by the Ten Commandments in court, neither does anyone else of other religions in this country.

But then there are things like this. Where atheists, who Jessica Ahlquist has thrown her hat in with, are protesting the existence of a WWI/WWII memorial in Woonsocket, R.I. which has a cross on top of it.

As previously reported, the Christian cross, which was built in Woonsocket back in 1921, is causing a great deal of angst among secularists who stand firmly opposed to its presence on public property. Taking on even more significance beyond WWI, the monument was re-dedicated back in 1952 to honor three fallen WWII soldiers who lived in the area and has since been a public statement of remembrance.

In a April 13 letter sent from the FFRF to Leo Fontaine, the city’s mayor, FFRF staff attorney Rebecca Markert called the presence of the cross “unconstitutional” and claimed that a concerned citizen made the group aware of its presence.

– The Blaze

Jessica threw in her hat by tweeting, recently, that she supported the removal.

My question is…why?

Sure it’s on public property.

Sure, it’s a war memorial.

But it’s not like they are using current tax money to put the memorial up.*** In fact, I’m quite sure that if the issue was that the state was using tax money for upkeep of the statue, that the more than 1,000 people who have gathered to support it would be willing to pay for the cleaning and upkeep of the memorial.

But that isn’t what the Atheist organizations want. They want the monument gone.

Why?

Is it causing them undue emotional distress to even see a cross or walk past one? In which case, why aren’t they trying to sue every church they walk past for pain and suffering?

Is it uncomfortable for them to have to explain what that strange T shaped object on top of that stone is to their children?

Does the idea of Christianity just offend them so much that historical monuments and memorials to our service men just have to go?

There are crosses and religious symbols on many of the historic monuments in this country. Should we tear down every single one of those as well, because atheist just can’t handle the stress.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that cross on a historic monument is creating a situation where you can’t live comfortably. Nor do I think it is making you a second class citizen, nor do I honestly believe it is constitutionally wrong.

There are many issues in this country that you could be starting useful fights about, but this is not one of them.

Teen Atheist Jessica Ahlquist Supports Removing Woonsocket Cross | Rhode Island

Image Credit: ABC6

Jessica, I fully believe that, no matter what your religious beliefs in the future, you will regret getting involved in this fight at such a young age. No matter how mature you think you are, or you actually are, you will not keep the same 16 year old beliefs, all your life.

_____________________________________________________________

*No, I can’t show it to you. I cleaned out the old posts on my old blog a long time ago…because most of them, quite frankly, embarrassed me.

**Though I must admit that the Christians I debated often had an overabundance of zeal and an underabundance of knowledge on their side.

***In which case I would understand their upset and even support their case.

Advertisements

24 Comments

  1. Offense simply isn’t the issue with establishment clause cases; it’s entanglement. Which is why the best angle for defending this sort of thing really is the mountain-out-of-molehill one. I..e, you can say it’s a de minimis violation – no harm no foul – but of course that amounts to conceding the point of principle. Once folks start standing up and saying the reason for things like the cross sis that this is a Christian country, the molehill very quickly proves itself to be a real mountain.

    • It doesn’t matter WHY anyone says it’s there. I could say the cross is there because our country secretly has ties back to ancient rome and we should go back to crucifying people as punishment. It still wouldn’t mean we should get rid of the cross.

      It hurts no one, the government is not currently putting it up and using current tax money for it’s construction (so Atheist’s can’t claim their money is being used to fund a religious monument), and it’s a historical monument in a public place for the public to visit it if they so choose. There is no reason to remove it.

            • The reason is irrelevant, I merely gave you the reason because you wanted it. It was not placed there to establish religion.

              How could you tell if was placed there to establish religion? I suppose if there was a plaque that said “you must pray to God at this statue whenever you pass it”.

              You didn’t answer my question. Should we tear down all historic monuments that have religious symbols on them?

            • And I must point out, I was saying originally that it didn’t matter what people SAID was the reason for it being placed there. Which is completely and utterly irrelevant, even if you hold that the ACTUAL reason for it’s placement is important.

              You said “Once folks start standing up and saying the reason for things like the cross sis that this is a Christian country, the molehill very quickly proves itself to be a real mountain.” and I told you that anyone could give any reason for it’s placement, that wouldn’t change whether it should be removed or not.

              Then you said “It absolutely matters why it was there as the reason is key to determining whether or not its purpose facilitates establishment of religion.” So which is it? Is it the reason people NOW claim it’s there, or the original reason for it’s placement that is important.

              I will likely return to this argument tomorrow. Any inconsistency on my part tonight I apologize for. I’ve been sick for the past week and I’m using Codeine cough syrup, which fuzzies my brain up horribly.

    • In the end, the cross is there because in the 1920s and through the 1950s, Christianity was a very big and important part of our country and the citizen’s day to day life. They chose that cross as a way to honor fallen soldiers. It is disrespectful to the memory of those soldiers to say that, because someone disagrees with the religious symbolism on the monument, that the monument should be gotten rid of or moved to private property.

      At that point, this isn’t about religion for me, it’s about common decency and respect for our soldiers. If Atheists can’t see that and can’t get their panties out a bunch over a cross on public property then…well I feel sorry for them that they feel so victimized all the time, but we can’t bend over backwards to their demands every time they feel offended by something.

  2. “Should we tear down every single one of those as well, because atheist just can’t handle the stress.”

    No. We should tear them down because they’re unconstitutional.

    You say it is honorable to the troops. I’m sure the non-Christian troops will disagree with you.

    • I doubt it. I’ve known some troops of non-Christian faiths, they find any monument a sign of respect and understand that it would just be illogical to put up representation of every single religion in the world at every site. Now what these non-Christians veterans that I’ve known do get offended by is people missing and misinterpreting the First Amendment they fought to protect.

      • “I’ve known some troops of non-Christian faiths, they find any monument a sign of respect ”

        And I’ve known some who dislike a monument that implies (whether intentionally or not) that the only troops are Christian troops.

        “and understand that it would just be illogical to put up representation of every single religion in the world at every site. ”

        Correct. It would be illogical. Which is why no religion should be put up at all. Not just one.

        • I can guarantee your bunch of veterans (if you actually know any) are in the minority…and that’s brilliant so because we can’t embrace all religions let’s embrace the most brained and hate filled faith around: atheism. That’s brilliant.

          • “I can guarantee your bunch of veterans (if you actually know any) are in the minority”

            Good thing the opinions of the majority don’t automatically rule the country.

            “and that’s brilliant so because we can’t embrace all religions let’s embrace the most brained and hate filled faith around: atheism. That’s brilliant.”

            I have two pieces of paper. One piece of paper tells you to embrace Jesus as your savior. The other piece of paper is blank.

            Is the blank piece of paper promoting or embracing atheism?

            • One atheism, no matter what it likes to claim is a religion (http://conservativenewager.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/why-atheists-are-pretty-much-the-dumbest-people-i-know…/) unless you have proof that God doesn’t exist? Other wise that belief is based on faith. As to you silly paper comment, when it comes to telling me I have to believe everyone on the page…yes it is embracing atheism. And as shown by their repeated pettiness, atheism tends to be the most vicious of religions (http://conservativenewager.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/atheists-try-and-portray-themselves-as-the-religion-of-peacewhen-they-are-anything-but/)

              Two: you are right, there are minority right in this country, which makes us better than a lot of other government. But what you’re suggesting is the tyranny of the minority to repress all belief that it does not agree with.

            • “One atheism, no matter what it likes to claim is a religion ”

              Good thing you included ‘no matter what’. Otherwise, you might learn something.

              That’s the written equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying ‘lalalala’.

              “As to you silly paper comment, when it comes to telling me I have to believe everyone on the page”

              So you’re saying that a cross on a memorial is telling everyone they have to believe it? So it’s even more firmly against the First Amendment than you made it out to be at first.

              “But what you’re suggesting is the tyranny of the minority to repress all belief that it does not agree with.”

              If you can’t believe something without your religion being proclaimed by the government, then your belief is very weak.

            • Ah so linking an entire article of proof to back up that statement is lalalalala…and not actually reading it is on the other hand very intellectually deep.

              No I’m saying Atheists are requiring everyone to believe what they believe and are suing everyone who dares to not cower to them. My apologies if I didn’t make that distinction clear at first.

              And if you can’t live your religion with having courts striking down other people’s religions how strong is your religion?

            • Crisap,

              There’s no real point in arguing or engaging with things like NotAScientist. It’s a waste of time and energy. We have the numbers, the power – and the firepower, if it comes down to it – and the will to largely do as we as please without bothering with with their thoughts or opinions on the matter.

              Their attempts at lawfare and paper terrorism can only take them so far and, in point of fact, can only work if we allow them to do so.

            • To Jonolan:
              Your posts are coming perilously close to violent and that’s not what my blog is for. This is a place for discussion and you are welcome to participate, but if you don’t want to leave your veiled threats at the door you will have to remove yourself.
              Now, I’m going back to bed for a few hours before I tackle any more comments because my brain is still under the influence of massive amounts of codeine.

    • If this was a current monument to troops I could see what you are saying. However, this is a historical monument. Why do you feel it is unconstitutional for a historical monument to have a religious symbol on it? Why do you feel it’s necessary to destroy or remove historical monuments because, at the time of their creation, a religion you find distasteful was the most predominant one in our country?

      How is a historical monument “establishing a religion”?

      • While trying to remain within your limits on discourse, I have to point out to you the same thing that I pointed out to crisap: there’s no point in asking that sort these types of questions.

        Their goal is the destruction of all religions and any part of America’s national character that is founded upon religion.

        The only answer you’ll ever get is some variant of, “It’s unconstitutional!” because the only things that they’ve got going for themselves is their misinterpretation of the First Amendment and their false beliefs – or, at least arguments – of the religiosity of the Founding Fathers.

  3. Better than tearing down bits and pieces of America would be tearing the filthy, Godless vermin who wish to do so.

    A few object lessons should do the trick if they’re strong enough.

    Believe or disbelieve whatever you want, but if you start attacking America and Americana, especially while hiding behind a perverted distortion of the Holy Document known as the US Constitution, anything an American does to you or your kin – and I do mean anything at all – is morally justified.

Comments are closed.