Atheist girl gets death threats at school

[VOLatile]

No. Public schools are public schools because they are publicly administered. A business that takes public funds in the form of subsidies or bailouts is not a public business. It's still private.

K. In a publicly funded, private school would all students in the area have equal chance for admission, i.e., not based on family income, social status, or religious affiliation?

 

[n_huffhines]

K. In a publicly funded, private school would all students in the area have equal chance for admission, i.e., not based on family income, social status, or religious affiliation?

I can't promise that. Even if they have laws in place to enforce that, it's not likely to happen.

What I am pretty damn sure of is that every child would have access to better education than what they are currently getting from government schools, while the rich are sending their kids to private school.

 

[VOLatile]

I just don't see how privatizing all schools but using tax money to subsidize them would be any different except lining private administrators's pockets.

 

[rjd970]

I just don't see how privatizing all schools but using tax money to subsidize them would be any different except lining private administrators's pockets.

I kind of agree. In terms of corruption at the administration level, it would be worse than what we already have. It would be like pouring gasoline on a fire.

 

[Gramps]

No. Public schools are public schools because they are publicly administered. A business that takes public funds in the form of subsidies or bailouts is not a public business. It's still private.

Another welfare program, that's all we need.

 

[n_huffhines]

I just don't see how privatizing all schools but using tax money to subsidize them would be any different except lining private administrators's pockets.

We could probably cut costs to the taxpayer by 50%. That good enough for you?

 

[n_huffhines]

Another welfare program, that's all we need.

This wouldn't be "another" this would replace the one we have. It would be a lot cheaper. It would eliminate the politically powerful and corrupt teacher's union. It would give parent's choice. Yeah, the private administrators may "line their pockets", but they'll do it by enticing parents with desired curriculum and quality teachers. Much better than the one-size-fits-all factories we call public schools.

 

[VOLatile]

This wouldn't be "another" this would replace the one we have. It would be a lot cheaper. It would eliminate the politically powerful and corrupt teacher's union. It would give parent's choice. Yeah, the private administrators may "line their pockets", but they'll do it by enticing parents with desired curriculum and quality teachers. Much better than the one-size-fits-all factories we call public schools.

Right, but how does one ensure equal opportunity? I mean, we don't have equality right now, but I'd think the rich would get preferential treatment on this platform.

 

[n_huffhines]

Right, but how does one ensure equal opportunity? I mean, we don't have equality right now, but I'd think the rich would get preferential treatment on this platform.

Actually you don't get equality through government programs. You get more equality out of voting with your dollars* than you do out of voting with your ballot. If I'm rich and live in a rich neighborhood, it doesn't matter that I only have 1 vote the same as you, my public schools are going to be a lot better than the ones you'll find in poor neighborhoods. Same goes for police protection, etc.

I guess I don't really understand your question. Currently the poor go to bad schools and the rich go to private schools. Under this proposed system, all would go to private schools. All would get more "equal" education.

*Poor people tend to get the same DVD players, plasma TVs, etc. as the rich. Just about whatever they want to prioritize, they can get on equal footing with the rich. This is not the case when it comes to publicly provided goods.

 

[YorkVol]

Wow, this thread has wandered around a bit. Not that I care to take it back to the original premise, but I found it interesting that no one had linked the actual article. My impression by the word banner was a temporary sign of some sort. This was a large banner permanently affixed to the wall back in 1963. The only semi-Christian reference is the term "Heavenly Father" at the beginning and the word "Amen" at the end. The rest is pretty much pie in the sky good values for anyone to strive for during high school.

I think the girl just wanted to pick a cause to make a name for herself.

Here are a couple of links, the first doesn't highlight the threats but gives some background: RI School to Remove Prayer Banner After Atheist Teen Wins Lawsuit, Christian News

Here are some of the threats:

why are christians threatening to rape and murder an atheist high school student?

Here is the actual prayer:

Our Heavenly Father. Grant us each day the desire to do our best. To grow mentally and morally as well as physically. To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers. To be honest with ourselves as well as with others. Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win. Teach us the value of true friendship. Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West. Amen.

 

[volinbham]

With so many apparent definitions of terrorism we could argue the semantics all day. Of course these people will not be tried in court as terrorist, nor do I even believe they should be.

Seems to be that the difference in terrorism and bullying is politics. The OED defines terrorism as: the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Now, whether religion is a political element or not is up for argument. It has incredible sway in the political arena, so I'd say it falls in line with the pursuit of political aims. Now, do I believe it should? No and if it didn't then that would kill my argument for the terrorism label and I would concede that's this case is just bullying in the name of religion.

My take on this is that the aims of the threateners isn't political in the sense it is trying to impact politics or a group of people. It appears to be aimed at one person. It is hateful, bigoted and any number of things but I don't see it as trying to effect political change; it is revenge more than terrorism.

Of course I'm making some assumptions about the intent of the threats. If the intent is to intimidate a larger pool of atheists so they don't similarly complain about religion in school then I'd say it looks more like terrorism.

 

[VOLatile]

In Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Judge Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

Emphasis mine and is applicable, IMO, to this case. The prayer does not specifically endorse one religion over another, but does endorse religion over non-religion.

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

A very small percent of peolpe who call themselves Christians are actually Christians.
It's just a name of a religion they claim to be a part of because Grandpa was a deacon at the church or Uncle Johnny is a preacher.

Just curious...can you give me the study that found this? One that has been peer reviewed? Or is this your personal assumption of Christianity as a whole.

Not to say that it may not be true but just curious

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

Of course these people will not be tried in court as terrorist, nor do I even believe they should be.

Honestly this statement right here is all that I cared about. I made the assumption that you were arguing for the children to be tried as terrorists in a court of law. I completely disagree with anyone who would try to argue punishment from this point of view

 

[BigOrange15]

Despicable acts to threaten her. Don't agree with her whining about the banner either.

Pretty much.

 

[Slydell]

They may not be deemed terrorists in most/all acceptable definitions, but the actions they took were to terrorize someone.

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

As far as definitions go I was referring to it being used in a legal sense. You are correct that they did terrorize the girl, but in a legal sense this does not constitute terrorism. Just dont want to be labeled a terrorist because I call someone on here a douchebag and they complain that they feel threatned.

 

[YorkVol]

Wouldn't the legal term be "harassment?"

 

[joevol320]

A banner with a Christian prayer on it at a public school has been taken down because a girl who is an atheist complained that it violated the constitution.

Since then, this girl has gotten death and rape threats from her "Christian" peers.

Such hypocrisy by these Christian fundamentalists. They don't really believe in anything Jesus said.

They sound a lot like Al Qaeda right here.

"What? You don't agree with my religion? Then I'll kill you, and you'll get raped in Hell! Muwahaha!"

If these threats were made by someone named Muhammad, no one would hesitate to call it terrorism. I am calling it terrorism.

1st of all if a muslim was making these threats, you lib asses would be defending the muslim. secondly, you don't know who's doing the threatening. you don't if those people are actually Christian. so get off your high horse krab and wait for some facts to come out.

people make think you're being a dumbass if you're not carefull.

 

[KiffinKiller]

1st of all if a muslim was making these threats, you lib asses would be defending the muslim. secondly, you don't know who's doing the threatening. you don't if those people are actually Christian. so get off your high horse krab and wait for some facts to come out.

people make think you're being a dumbass if you're not carefull.

:lolabove:

 

[utvolpj]

1st of all if a muslim was making these threats, you lib asses would be defending the muslim. secondly, you don't know who's doing the threatening. you don't if those people are actually Christian. so get off your high horse krab and wait for some facts to come out.

people make think you're being a dumbass if you're not carefull.

so you're saying people would be doing exactly what you are? Don't you find that just a tad bit funny?

 

[volfanjustin]

It's kind of hard to stay away from a huge banner that's displayed in your public school. And besides, it is unconstitutional for a school to endorse a certain type of prayer.

It's the cowards sending death threats who need to "stay away from it." If they truly love their country and support the Constitution, they would understand why the banner was taken down. But of course they don't.

It is? Show me where you found that in the constitution.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I don't see ahuge issue about whining about the banner, anymore than I would see an issue with a Muslim making the same grievance.

Nevertheless, there is a little bit of showcasing and stupidity by both sides here. I'm just to the point where I say eff it...if Muslims want to pray 5 times a day at school, Christians want to formally gather and say prayer, atheists just want to complain about something...then whatever. As long as I am not required to participate in any of it, what do I care.

the argument that it encroached upon her freedom is utter garbage.

 

[KiffinKiller]

the death threats were an appropriate response.

 

[BigPapaVol]

the death threats were an appropriate response.

they were pathetic and likely massively exaggerated. Attention whores, like the gal in question, are very unlikely to ever limit the story for the news to anything akin to reality.