Good points from two of my heroes on the Jessica Ahlquist situation. The first from Dr. David Burger.
Funny how theists are quick to attack Ahlquist with threats of violence. It’s not like she forced the school to take the banner down, a judge did that. She was just the one who asked the judge via civil action to enforce a law, then a judge was the one who forced the school into action.
How come theists don’t post violent hate filled messages about a judge, with that judge’s home address? It’s almost like picking on one person is easier than the other.
The next from my dad. Father’s comment deals with the loudest howl of all from the faithful: if she was offended by the wholesome message she could not look/move away/whatever.
“If she feels that a banner hanging in the hallway makes her “subject” to a particular religion, then she truly has more problems than this one court case could ever fix.”
So what? Even if I were to grant she has “more problems than this one court case could ever fix”, what possible connection does that have to the banner being there illegally? Are you saying, “She has problems so that makes it desirable or acceptable for somebody else to break the law”? What kind of sense does that make? How about your next door neighbor is a creep, so it makes it desirable and acceptable for you to be a serial killer? Makes as much sense. Or, are you just venting on a defenseless 16 year old girl who hasn’t been harassed, bullied, ostrasized, and threatened enough to suit you?
Not quite done with this one yet. It isn’t only her–again, it appears you didn’t even bother to read the judge’s decision so that you could understand the reasoning and legal basis behind it. Of course, if you have already decided his reasoning MUST be wrong so “Why bother?”, that would explain it. You have no interest in established jurisprudence, which you should understand stands on prior decisions. You can’t have a nation of laws where the interpretation changes from day to day, and that is exactly what you are demanding.
As David I think confirms, it is precisely the case: they are venting on a 16 year-old girl who hasn’t been harassed, bullied, ostrasized, and threatened enough to suit them. But make no mistakes, this girl is not defenseless. She has the law on her side, and more eloquence and moxy than an army of these cowards.
Another commenter on the thread my dad was commenting in left a good one.
There was a recent court case in Australia, where a woman sexually sued for harassment when a mostly male workplace refused to take down pornography.
The thing that amazes me if that the complaints of the Cranston Christians almost exactly mirror that of the pro-porn guys. Quotes from guys who felt that they had the right to put up pornography:
“The majority here were happy with it. Why should we be put out by one person?”
“She di’n't have to look at it if she didn’t want to.”
“She’s a troublemaker with a lot of issues”
“If she didn’t like it, she should have gone elsewhere!”
“We shouldn’t give her kind special treatment”
Hell hath no outraged bleating like a bigoted group having their privileges taken away.