Ironically, it was a believer friend who sent this to me.
I’m always so pleased when not only atheist-related projects get off the ground, but those that are focused solely on the positive aspects of atheism rather than just more bitching.
After checking out the list of contributors, I was a little bored to see the usual Richard Dawkinses and Lawrence Krausses (can’t we get SOME non-famous, non-scientist people??) and downright irritated to see my old pal Rebecca “Professional Whiner” Watson (here’s what I’ve had to say about her bullshit), but I was delighted to see former-regular atheist Jessica Ahlquist.
As reported by Fox News, a Cranston School committee threw in the towel!
By 5-2, they decided not to further appeal the removal of the prayer mural. Cited reasons were the escalating cost it would take to further appeal. This is hilarious as I’m pretty sure certain members of the supporters of the mural vowed to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. Although I haven’t been able to find any sources for that, so maybe I’m just making it up.
In any case, the case is settled. Jessica and the constitution won. Theists who can’t read or couldn’t be bothered to read the constitution or realize that it applies not just when it’s convenient, but especially when it’s not, lost. ratio semper vincet. (Or maybe inopia pecuniae semper vincet. Whichever.)
We won! Or rather she won! Senior District Judge Ronald Lagueux handed in his decision yesterday that the prayer display at Cranston West is unconstitutional and must be removed. Here’s the full press conference, courtesy of atomicsteve.
I have to admit I didn’t think this would happen. Not for any lack of evidence, competence, or merit on Ahlquist’s part, but because in cases like this, such as the granite 10 Commandments display in Alabama, courts have often cited the “historic” or “cultural” significance, rather than the religious significance, as being acceptable motivations for displaying such blatantly religious symbols. They often also cite a sort of “no one’s ever complained about this before, therefore it shouldn’t matter” plea.
Not this time.
This time, reason won out, or as I like to say “ratio semper vincet.” (Yes, I’m always this level of a pretentious, linguistic douchebag!) Word is that city officials may appeal, but I honestly don’t think they’ll win. They’d end up looking like jerks (thought that’s never stopped the religious before) and I think they know that Ahlquist has little things like the Establishment Clause on her side.
It’s not all puppies and rainbows. Ahlquist has faced her share of backlash, as seen here (courtesy of JesusFetusFajitaFishsticks):
And those were just the ones that jumped out at me!
In the end, though, this is a wonderful thing for no other reason than in the American justice system, we operate on an establishment of precedents. Hey, Sydney, Rachel, and Alyssa. Suck on this precedent, bitches.
I heard an interview with Ahlquist on a recent Non-Prophets podcast, the same one in which I heard an interview with Damon Fowler. I instantly forgot Ahlquist’s name and googled like a madman. I wanted, like with Fowler, to promote Ahlquist and what she’s been doing. I thought, “I have to post about this–It’s important!” Then I realized:
But I felt I should again because, among other things, unlike in Fowler’s case, Ahlquist is still at school with two more years to go. So here’s an interview with Ahlquist from Atheist Soapbox. And following is an interview video by AtomicSteve (because you gotta have videos!).
It’s always the same fucking story. The religious put up some bullshit sign or banner or whatever else, someone complains, and the religious rely on appeals to history, emotion, and popularity. I’m glad the rabbi and reverend were ethical enough to say that yes, the prayer is unconstitutional and the popularity or historic precedent of the prayer are irrelevant.
And of course the school’s fighting it. They can’t just be big enough to admit that Ahlquist is right, the prayer shouldn’t be there, remove it, and current parent/student ire and that of alumni be damned.
I hope that legal precedent, logic, reason, and the ethical
application of those will prevail.
