Cranston Commenters #1

The posts on this site, including all the Cranston Commenters posts, reflect the opinions of JT Eberhard, not the Secular Student Alliance.

The commenters in the Providence Journal article on the Cranston banner are a bunch of animals.  I’ve decided to dissect a bunch of them over the course of the next few days.  I just spent my lunch hour going through a bunch of them.  Enjoy.

Wake up RI says:

“Cranston – please appeal.

To the Court:

Uh…. so should we file a “Prayer for Relief” or not? We don’t want to harm the ACLU’s delicate sensibilities any further with historical jargon that has become meaningless except as polite introductory verbiage. Like in the banner.

The defendants should appeal.”

If the jargon is meaningless, why does it matter if it stays up?  Why should they waste money and time appealing if it’s meaningless?

Unless, of course, you don’t really think it’s meaningless.  This would make you a liar.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • Brownian

    Yep. Ceremonial deism: things are secular-when-we-need-it-to-be-but-religious-when-we-need-it-to-be. It’s as magical as transubstantiation.

    “Oh, it’s just historical. It’s not a religious prayer.”

    Clickety-click, barbatrick!

    “See! Prayers in school, like the “In God We Trust” on currency, proves the US is a Christian nation!”

  • fastlane

    I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve pointed out the lie of ceremonial deism.

    The real irony, of course, being that it’s not put to a lie so much by those who protest the ceremonial deism, like atheist groups and the various (usually) minority religious groups, but the real lie is shown in the reactions of those who support said ‘ceremonial’ deism.

    Look at the vilification of Michael Newdow. Look at all the letters to the editors of newspapers across the country to Newdow’s case, and to cases like this, which is even more blatant a violation of the first amendment. All of those letters, and claims of ‘xian nation’ nonsense, continue to make ceremonial deism a clear sham.

    Yet, that sham continues to be upheld because the 1) SCOTUS is too afraid to make a truly unpopular decision; 2) Many members of the SCOTUS don’t really care that much about the constitution.