Today's Times tells the story of Jessica Ahlquist, 16, of Cranston, Rhode Island -- clearly a remarkable young woman, who has taken a courageous stand in favor of the American Constitution, and against the American religious fanaticism which constantly seeks to undermine it.
Ms. Ahlquist is a student at Cranston High School West. Attached to the wall of the school's auditorium, there is an eight-foot-tall sheet on which a prayer is printed. Above the text is a headline: "SCHOOL PRAYER." Perhaps coincidentally (but I doubt it), the prayer was installed there in 1963, just after the Supreme Court decisions (Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp) which established the prohibition of prayer in public schools.
In 2010, an anonymous parent filed a complaint about the prayer with the ACLU, and Ms. Ahlquist emerged as a passionate voice against theocracy during the ensuing school board hearings. She advocated removing the prayer, and started a Facebook group devoted to the cause. In March of 2011, the school board voted (4 to 3) not to remove the prayer, and the ACLU asked Ms. Ahlquist to serve as a plaintiff in a lawsuit. This month, a federal judge ruled, correctly, that the prayer's presence on the wall of a public school was unconstitutional, and it was covered with a tarp. Some angry and deluded residents of Cranston are demanding an appeal. Relying on the usual tactics of people who know they are wrong, and are unable to offer an coherent argument, they're abusing and threatening her. Police have had to escort her to school. Florists have refused to deliver roses sent to Jessica from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. A state representative, Peter G. Palumbo, called her "an evil little thing." (Please help flood his office with pointed commentary.)
Cranston West graduate Donald Fox, speaking in favor of theocratic oppression, told the Times that "the prayer banner espouses nothing more than those values which we all hope for our children." Mr. Fox is wrong. The "prayer banner" espouses other things as well. It begins with the phrase "Our Heavenly Father," implicitly espousing the view that the universe was created by, and is controlled by, a fictional character. Its first line, "Grant us each day the desire to do our best," espouses the insulting notion that such things can (or even must) be "granted" by said fictional character. And then there's that smug heading, "SCHOOL PRAYER." Do the walls of the school have any other examples of massive signage which boastfully defies the United States Constitution?
The president of the Cranston West student council, Pat McAssey, admitted to the Times that the threats made against Jessica Ahlquist are "completely inexcusable." But, Goodnough writes, McAssey "added that Jessica had upset some of her classmates by mocking religion online. 'Their frustration kind of came from that,' he said."
Ah, I see. Some of Jessica's classmates were frustrated, because she exercised her right to free speech. Poor things. Is there any part of the First Amendment which they approve of?
In solidarity with Jessica Ahlquist, I suggest that we all mock religion online. Ready?
In honor of the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and in protest against the clowns competing for the Republican nomination -- each of whom gleefully advocates the continued erosion of women's rights -- here's one of our favorite Nero Fiddled sketches.
This begins Nero Fiddled's inadequate, intermittent coverage of the 2012 presidential election!
I know: You came here for comprehensive analysis of the Iowa caucus. Well, at this time, Nero Fiddled can project that the United States, with its 538 electoral votes, will go to President Barack Obama.
Mr. Obama's re-election needn't have been a sure thing. As you may have heard, the economy is lousy, and even the president's supporters have accumulated quite a list of frustrations and disappointments. To understand the projected landslide, we have to take a look at the losers.
It's been clear for a long time that Mitt Romney is the Republican frontrunner, and he is an ideal frontrunner in many respects. But despite Romney's handsome face, business experience, and magical underwear, his political ambitions are frustrated by the fact that nobody likes him.
We were surprised to learn that Santorum was doing so well among Iowa Republicans. The name sounded familiar, so we Googled it. Now we remember. The frothy Santorum surge was remarkable, but when an Iowa pizzeria put Santorum salad on the menu, everyone got sick and left the room.
Ron Paul's supporters certainly are enthusiastic! Luckily, there are only about four of them.
Not long ago, Newt Gingrich was doing well in the polls, but in the days leading up to Iowa he was crippled by attack ads from Romney-affiliated PACs. Since then, Newt's signature issue has been his staunch opposition to negative politics. (No punchline necessary.)
Michelle Bachmann was once thought to be a contender, but since her Ames straw poll victory in August, the anti-Romney vote fragmented. If you wanted paranoia, there was Ron Paul. If you wanted religious fanaticism, there was Santorum. If you wanted someone incapable of formulating a coherent sentence, there was...
There was another candidate in this race, but I can't remember who. Oops.
This concludes Nero Fiddled's in-depth coverage of the 2012 Iowa caucus. But this was only the first contest of many, and as the presidential race continues, who knows, maybe Nero Fiddled will bring you an occasional comment about it, with all the intermittent inadequacy you've come to expect.
Like most New Yorkers, I have mixed feelings about Mayor Bloomberg. I deplore his tendency to switch parties whenever it's politically convenient, and his overturning of term limits. I've liked some of the changes he's made to the city (the Broadway promenade is wonderful, and far more consistent with the city's traditions than some critics have claimed), and disliked others (non-smokers would be less annoyed with smokers if smokers had places to smoke). Like President Obama, Bloomberg always benefits from comparisons with his predecessor. But unlike Obama, Bloomberg is now above pandering. His independence sometimes allows him to make brave, intelligent choices that few other American politicians, if any, would dream of.
Even so, I was astonished and delighted to learn that Bloomberg was excluding clergy from the 9/11 memorial services this weekend. The astonishment itself says something about our twisted culture. Religion, whatever you might think of it, has no rightful place in the official business of our cities, states, and nation. But in flagrant violation of both the Constitution and rational thought, our currency says "in god we trust" (while neglecting to proclaim credence in any other fictional characters); Congressional sessions begin with prayers; and before taking an oath, we're asked to place our hands on that ridiculous book. So instances of genuine separation of church and state are always striking.
But 9/11 makes this a special case. The 9/11 attacks, as I've said here many times, were the ultimate faith-based initiative -- a successful attempt, by deeply religious, god-loving, god-fearing men, to kill people they saw as insufficiently pious. They were doing god's work, acting in accordance with the mandates of their religion; the Koran, like the Torah and the Bible, explicitly encourages and celebrates the slaughter of infidels. Islam did not attack a Christian nation. Religion attacked a secular one.
And that's why, in some 9/11 memorial events, the inclusion of religious dogma has stung a little more painfully than usual. Taking an oath on the Bible can be attributed to the fact that longstanding traditions are hard to shake. But 9/11 is new, and it happened because of religion, and there is no way to move forward from the events of that awful morning until we recognize that god is just another word for war.
Of course, religious zealots have been quick to condemn the mayor's decision. Writing for the conservative website Free Republic, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt calls it "a sad display of anti-Christian censorship." How revealing it is that to Mr. Klingenschmitt, the exclusion of religion in general is "anti-Christian." That's how he really feels. Like many religious people, even the sweetest and best-intentioned, Klingenschmitt can't think outside the conviction that his religion is the one true faith. He thinks his coreligionists are virtuous and will be rewarded, and that everyone else faces, and deserves, eternal suffering. If Klingenschmitt had called it "a sad display of anti-religious censorship," he would still be wrong, but his choice of words reveals him as a bigot.
Klingenschmitt goes on to quote Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association: "What's a memorial service if you are going to leave god out of it completely?" The answer: An emotionally honest and intellectually responsible occasion. Klingenschmitt's article is followed by an unintentionally hilarious passage which is headlined "A PRAYER TO ALMIGHTY GOD and A PETITION TO NYC MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG," and which begins, "Dear Sirs." You'd think a chaplain would have addressed god and simply CCed Bloomberg.
Meanwhile, over at catholic.org, Deacon Keith Fournier says, "We will not be 'allowed' to pray at Ground Zero if the Mayor of New York has his way." In fact, people who gather at the World Trade Center site, or anywhere, on September 11 or anytime, are welcome to pretend to communicate with the imaginary friend of their choice. There will simply be no religious element in the official service. As Bloomberg press secretary Stu Loeser told the New York Times, the memorial service will include six moments of silence, and "we think most people use those moments of silence for reflection and prayer."
The mayor and his administration have admirably stood by their decision, despite predictable outcry from dimly-lit corners. "It's a civil ceremony," Bloomberg has said. "There are plenty of opportunities for people to have their religious ceremonies. Some people don't want to go to a religious ceremony with another religion. And the number of different religions in this city [is] really quite amazing." This is a wise and fair judgment, one I only wish the United States Congress were capable of making. A while back, some Bloomberg aides said that clergy was being excluded because there's no fair way to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't -- a cop-out which the administration has rightly retracted. "It isn't that you can't pick and choose," Bloomberg said last week. "If you want to have a service for your religion, you can have it in your church or in a field, or whatever."
I am writing to thank the Bloomberg administration for its wise and courageous decision to exclude clergy from the 9/11 memorial service this weekend. I know that some are displeased with this choice, and I'm sure your office is hearing plenty from them. But there are many other New Yorkers who see that the inclusion of religious dogma in a 9/11 memorial is not only inappropriate, but a bitter insult to those who perished at the hands of religious extremists.
My sincere gratitude to you, to the mayor, and to the administration, for a brave decision worthy of the world's greatest city.
I don't doubt it. I've never said that religion wasn't useful. It obviously is useful, partly because it provides comfort in tough times. But I think religion's claims are lies, and I'd rather be upset by the truth than comforted by a lie. Faith, whatever one thinks of it, is unswerving trust in what is not demonstrably true. I don't see that as a virtue. Especially in the face of a human calamity like 9/11, I think rational thought is a more appropriate response. Religious faith did help people get through that day, but if there were no such thing as religious faith, the attacks wouldn't have happened in the first place. At best, it's a wash.
Noah, I have to agree with Shea. I absolutely disagree with pretty much everything you said this time (which is unusual for me), but I still respect your right to your opinion, and think you stated your position very eloquently!
Would those who disagree care to elaborate? I assume you have a higher regard for religious faith than I do, but what about the core issue of whether clergy should be included in the city's official memorial service? Does Bloomberg's answer (basically, if you want to have a religious service, have it in a house of worship) seem reasonable to you?
Are the clergy citizens of this country and are they part of the city? Do they pay taxes and support the local economy? Is their voice as important as their vote?
to call the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran, "that silly book" is really beneath your intelligence, Noah, and is mean and petty. I have friends who are atheists, one of my good friends is one. He has never stooped to belittling the Bible/Torah/Koran in such a way. I am sending you our church service used today and an online site where you can hear the homily given by both the Episcopal clergy and a member of the Islamic faith in Memphis ( a heat surgeon who practices in Memphis, please. as a courtesy to me read and listen. Thanks, Ginny
It's not that clergy weren't allowed to attend the memorial; it's just that they weren't invited to speak as part of the official service. If clergy have a right to make speeches at the 9/11 memorial simply because they pay taxes and vote, then what about teachers? Small business owners? Costumed animal characters? The official service was led by the current and former presidents of the United States, mayors of New York City, and governors of New York State, and the governor of New Jersey -- officials whose job is to represent all of the people, not only those of a particular denomination.
No apologies for calling those books silly. I've read them and that's what I think of them. I'm not saying it to be "mean and petty" to those who feel otherwise; they're entitled to their opinions too.
Perhaps the atheist friend you mention feels differently about the books than I do. I know atheists who reject the notion of god, yet consider the Bible great literature and a valuable moral guide. My opinion is that the Bible is without literary merit, and that its moral teachings are wildly inconsistent at best. Atheists are no more monolithic in their ideas than believers are. Atheism isn't a belief system; it's simply the rejection of one specific belief.
Thank you, as always, for the stimulating exchange, and please do send me the service and the homily -- of course I will be happy to read, listen, consider, and respond.
