If you don’t know, Jessica Ahlquist is a 16 year old girl who wanted a school prayer mural removed as it was unconstitutional. A judge ruled in her favour. You should see the disgusting abuse she’s getting. From every angle; Twitter, Facebook, comments sections of any site running articles on the story. Her home address is being posted around by people hoping to exact some sort of revenge. She has already had to leave the school.
Here’s just an example of the things people are saying to her. Feel the Christian love, eh?
I joined twitter yesterday, and it took me like 5 minutes to realize that it’s a cesspool of ignorance and stupidity.
This what the future of our country sounds like America. These are the automatons that seem independent, yet are run on the hatred programmed by their parents, and will grow up to continue the cycle of ignorance and intolerance. I’m pretty sure their parents are good God fearing Christians too. These are the people who don’t have the strength to stand up publicly like Jessica did and fight for their rights. Social media has made everyone tough. I’d love to know why none of them were doing anything in real life to stop her if they felt so strongly. These are the moments that I’m glad I have not bought a child into this ugly hate-filled world. Wow, just unbelievably disgusting. ~ Kim
I love how they’re all pissed at her for complaining about something that is against the law under the constitution.
Some of the statements about this by the staff at the school are even ridiculous, a school committee member, Michael Traficante, was quoted as saying, “What’s ironic is this banner has to be removed because one individual after 50 years believed it to be offensive because of her disbelief in any religion,”
It doesn’t fucking matter how long it was there, it’s unconstitutional, and she had every right to complain.
This is bullying because someone upset the status quo and these people are a fine example as to why I have such a problem with organized religion.
The Educated Response: Wow, this has far reaching geopolitical consequences and gives the American government the ability to kill terrorists without due process. I am against this because it will effectively make targeted killings such as Anwar al-Awlaki legal.
The Ignorant Alarmist Response: AMERICA IS NOW UNDER MARTIAL LAW! GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO TAKE YOU AWAY FOREVER! SAY GOODBYE TO YOUR FREEDOMS!
It’s almost like people are excited to live in a V For Vendetta/1984 civilization that they’ll take anything as evidence of the end of civil liberties. Shit is going down but it’s not this and not in the way you think it is.
My main problem with it is the wording seems to be vague, and I fear that it could be misused against american citizens because of said wording.
For noncitizens, such detention would be mandatory. And while news agencies from Reuters to the Huffington Post have recently reported that American citizens would be “exempt” from this requirement, the truth is more complicated. Military detention would still be the default, even for citizens, but at the discretion of the president, it could be waived in favor of handing over the case to domestic law enforcement. Under this law, if the Defense Department thinks you’re a terrorist, there would be no presumption of innocence; you would be presumed a detainee of the military unless the executive decides otherwise. Without such a waiver, again, even if you’re a citizen, you will never hear words like “alleged” or “suspected.” You will be an “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” with limited rights to appeal that status, no rights to due process, or to a jury, or to a speedy trial guided by the rules of evidence.
According to the “law of war” invoked by these sections of the NDAA, a person in military custody can be held indefinitely, without charge and without access to civilian courts. Perhaps most significant, with the suspension of constitutional provisions for due process, there would be no Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. During the Congressional debate over the NDAA, proponents like Senators Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham argued that when we capture someone who is deemed an enemy, we must start with the presumption that “the goal is to gather intelligence” and “prosecution is a secondary concern.” In numbingly infantile terms, they declared that “the meanest, nastiest killers in the world” should be questioned for “as long as it takes,” without them “lawyering up.” This need to make “them” talk was cited repeatedly, endlessly, as the main justification for military detention, with references to “surprise” technologies to get prisoners to speak.
Al Stefanelli – Georgia State Director, American Atheists, Inc.
It is suggested by many people that atheism is a religion. Before we can examine why atheism is sometimes defined as a belief, it is important to understand who defines it as such. Rarely, if ever, will you find another atheist, agnostic, freethinker, humanist, secularist, etc., putting the definition of religion in the context of atheism. Almost without exception, it is the religious who do so. The reason is simple. The religious are are so caught up in their own beliefs that imagining another person without having any religious beliefs is largely incomprehensible. Those who claim that atheism is a religion do not only lack a clear understanding of what atheism is, they also tend to use religious terms to describe atheism.
Just because you can’t imagine and don’t know how something can be true does not automatically make that thing false. It merely says that you lack imagination and the will to gain knowledge. Ignorance is never something to be proud of.
This post reeks of arrogance. I am sorry but that is how it comes across. Simply because we don’t believe in evolution means we “lack imagination and the will to gain knowledge”? Who now is the close-minded one.
No one thinks that something is false because they can’t understand it. No one says, “I haven’t taken the time to understand and study evolution, therefore it’s false.”
So your statement “just because you can’t imagine and don’t know how something can be true does not automatically make that thing false” is redundant.
I for example hold a disbelief in evolution because it is biologically and mathematically impossible. The odds are too far against it. And don’t reply by saying “your worldview isn’t any better,” that does nothing but shift the blame. We’re talking about evolution here.
You hold a very tunnel-visioned view of theists, good sir, which is why you think that all Christians reject evolution simply because they don’t study or understand it. I believe that a true understanding of evolution is precisely what drives one to a disbelief in it.
You know, with all the “we can be moral without God” talk recently in atheist circles, you atheists would do good to be an example. Have some respect.
Sorry, my bullshit alarm went off way too hard to just ignore this.
Mathematically impossible? I would understand claim that it was mathematically impossible if we had to use imaginary or complex number within biological calculations regarding evolution, but we don’t. We work specifically within the realm of real numbers and we get real results to the calculations.
How is that mathematically impossible?
It’s not. You’re bullshitting your way by pulling bullshit excuses out of your ass.
Anybody with basic knowledge in statistics, mathematics, and biology would and will tell you, it’s mathematically improbable, not impossible. Yes there is a large difference and anybody who is literate in the three topics I mentioned prior would know this and also know that to claim it is impossible is utter bullshit.
But you want to talk about mathematical improbabilities and evolution? Let’s examine the ERV placements in the genome of a human and a chimpanzee. ERVs are about 300 base pair long viruses which insert themselves into the genome of the host. If the ERVs reach a gamete, then the offsprings, and their offsprings, and their offsprings would have these same ERVs, in the same placement in the genome. Keep this in mind.
Both the human and chimpanzee genome is about 3 billion base pairs long. So if there was one pair of identical ERVs in the same placement in both the human and chimpanzee genome, the probability of that without a common ancestor to pass on these ERVs would be (1/3000000000)*(1/3000000000), or (1/9000000000000000000), or (1/(9*10^18)). The human genome is about 10% ERV, LINE, and SINEs, most commonly the Alu sequence. Out of that 10% of ERVs, 40% of the humans’ and chimpanzees’ match up both in base pair sequence and in placement. So let’s calculate the probability of both species obtaining said ERVs without a common ancestor
This is equal to the following.
That’s a 1 divided by a 1 with 7581697 0s after it (I would type it out, but that’s equal to about 2432 pages of 0s on single-spaced, font size 10, times new roman with no commas or spaces in between the 0s). That’s a mathematical improbability so great that it is pretty much conclusive in falsifying the claim that humans and chimpanzees cannot have a common ancestor. Ergo, humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor. This validates evolution.
“evolution is mathematically impossible”, but let’s just ignore the parts where pure math and probability itself validate evolution.
As for biologically impossible? Most of the laws and advancements in modern biology stem from evolution or work centered in evolution and in which evolution is a key component. Evolution is not in violation in any biological, chemical, or physical law, so I ask, why do you lay out even more bullshit reasoning trying to defend your factually incorrect stance? Oh wait, it’s factually incorrect.
But go on, ignore all the evidence. Scientists have already empirically caused macroevolution in experiments in labs, but by ignoring those advancements and achievements just so you can maintain your claim that some supernatural being waved his hands and everything just appeared, that isn’t being closed minded or lacking the will to gain knowledge at all. I mean, it’s only disregarding evidence accumulated for decades, if not centuries to advocate a stance which has no factual backing, that’s not intellectually dishonest at all.
As for respect, I don’t have to respect you when you go around perpetrating lies. Evolution is a fact, but you claim a stance that has no factual basing and is, by all evidence we have today, most probably false.
If I may, would you please refer to the Eighth Commandment? I believe it translate to Thou. Shalt. Not. Lie, or at least bear false witness in which advocating creationism is.
14-billion-years-later said: I view it as more justification for ignorance. And I think ignorance of the greater picture is the only reason why people persist in their petty squabbles.
I tend to agree, this is probably why in more socially and economically developed countries that rank among the higher standards of living, religion is less prevalent.
— Charles Darwin
— Isaac Asimov