Author of Cranston High School West Prayer Banner Lashes Out Against Jessica Ahlquist

How old do you need to be to tell fact from fiction, from probable from highly improbable? It dawns on some kids in kindergarten that Santa is unlikely.

I was brought up religious, went to church every Sunday and often attended Sunday school. I was also interested in science and read lots of books and magazines. I became an atheist at age 11 because I couldn’t square what I was told in church with what I had learned about the universe. So 16 year olds can’t possibly understand the meaning and ramifications of atheism and shouldn’t be exposed to it but it is perfectly ok to teach toddlers and elementary school kids about Jesus in day care and Sunday school because the clearly can understand the moral, social, geo-political and theological ramifications of Christianity? Really? How Interesting…

Looks like somebody is but hurt.
 

A bitter birther methinks.

Wait, so he was old enough at 12 to write the banner, but she isn’t old enough at 16(?) to object to it?

I think his implication that a 12 yr old BOY can masterfully parrot the words of his indoctrinated parents, but a simple minded GIRL has no place to do such a thing. Is he sexist? an idiot? both?

My thoughts exactly.  If she was brainwashed by atheist parents to get rid of the banner, then wasn’t he brainwashed by religious parents to create the banner in the first place?  And if he created the banner at the age of 12, then he was years younger than she was when this whole thing started!

If there is a god, it doesn’t think much of David A. Bradley. I think old David should point his bitter disappointment heavenwards.

I’ve seen this before.  

Child writes devout prayer.  

School displays devout prayer on banner.  

Child grows up to be Rip Taylor look-a-like.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz91DSXCkGY

Why is he dressed like Captain Kangaroo?

What an assclown. So this guy wants money for being a prick? Maybe he should ask his Church for a hand out. As far as I know, Jessica didn’t ask for the scholarship. Atheists donated to it because we think she earned it and deserves it.

Worse argument ever.

Dear Jessica isn’t yet old enough to know the meaning of atheism.

If someone is too young to “know the meaning of atheism,” wouldn’t that person also be too young to know the “meaning” of any religion or religious ideas, especially at the age of 12?

 And, I’d assume, it was taken somewhere else and put back up.

What a condescending asshole.

“Dear Jessica isn’t old enough yet to understand atheism…” and from earlier “she was duped by her ACLU-leaning father and uncle”

What a pathetically backhanded way of saying Jessica is stupid. I suppose I should not expect anything less from a Christian who is told he cannot use a public place to shove his religion down the throats of other people’s children. By pretending concern, Bradley is nothing more than a liar who is too spineless to say out right what he really is saying

Further, he is discrediting the intelligence of every teenager by saying someone of their “tender” age cannot understand the meaning of X-belief.

If, as Bradley erroneously posits, these kids cannot understand atheism at their age, then they cannot understand Christianity or any other belief, and should therefore not have it pushed on them in a public institution where they are a captive audience. Funny how Bradley is too stupid to realize that his own arguments cut both ways. 

Finally Bradley is saying he can dupe these poor dumb, unwitting children into his faith, but the people who are related to Jessica are wrong to impart the way they see the world to her. Mr. Bradley could be in a football stadium and still suffocate under his own hypocrisy. 

“I’d like to think that as the author of the moral and upstanding prayer in question…”.
Well your prayer isn’t moral. Teaching children that they are so worthless and vile that they have to beg your imaginary friend in the sky to make them honest and to work hard is deplorable. How dare you diminish and lie to children in this way. If it gives you a lift in life then good for you. If it gives any individual child a lift then good for them, that doesn’t mean you get to tack it onto everyone else.

Mr Bradley, you presume to push your faith, and only your faith, onto a captive audience of other people’s children. You presume that your faith, and only your faith, is moral or is the key to morality. You have no regard for the beliefs of others. You are arrogant, hypocritical, selfish and worst of all, a great fool to discredit young people. When I was at that young age, I saw that people of any belief or none could be good people. Then I saw the behavior of people just like you and I increasingly became aware of what religion is really about.

Now let me condescend to you Mr. Bradley, there are these buildings in our (and many other) societies where people can voluntarily take their children for religious purposes if they feel it’s important. They are called churches. People are free to go or not go to whatever one they choose. I know, crazy right? Why is it with so much tax free land allowed to these churches it simply isn’t enough for some of you people, that you have to push your belief on property owned by a public comprised of so many differing faiths.

It’s just so sad that the newspaper that published that fellow’s delusional whining doesn’t allow us to comment on it there! But not surprising.

I actually feel a certain amount of sympathy for Mr. Bradley.  I disagree with what the prayer and I feel it is right that it came down.  But at the same time, I understand that he would have a lot of emotional investment in that banner.  It was effectively a piece of art which he had a major role in creating, and I understand how it would hurt to have that work of art removed from public view.  I can understand how a person in Mr. Bradley’s situation might react in a way which isn’t completely rational, and indeed think it would be unfair on our part to expect him to be totally rational about what has happened.  I can even understand how a person in his situation would find psychological comfort in the talking points (“Jessica Ahlquist was used by the ACLU and her family!”  “This ruling flies in the face of all that is decent!”) that opponents of the banner’s removal are making.  Even his comments about money make sense in a strange sort of way: If he believes that the ruling came not as the result of violating the Establishment Clause but rather as the result of Ms. Ahlquist feeling emotional distress (and he probably does believe this, since it’s another one of those talking points I just mentioned), then I can easily see him believing that he is feeling a greater level of emotional distress at its removal and that he thus is entitled in some fashion to a greater level of compensation.

All that being said, when you stand back and think about it his comments actually make no sense.  The talking points have been refuted repeatedly.  Even if the ruling had been the result of emotional distress that Ms. Ahlquist had suffered, the scholarship would still be completely independent of that.  And of course the Courant covered the scholarship fund: it’s news, and the Courant is a newspaper.

But I’m willing to let the market decide.  We all know that there are plenty of people who wanted the banner to stay up.  They can just as easily start a fund for Mr. Bradley as supporters of SOCAS started up a fund for Ms. Ahlquist.  If they do this, and he gets the ten-to-a-hundred times as much money, then more power to him.  And if not, we can only conclude that it isn’t just atheists who think he isn’t as deserving of the money.

I guess he doesn’t take his own advice about being gracious in defeat

Maybe Mr. Bradley was able to understand his religion at age 12 when he wrote the prayer , but the school officials and his parents should have understood the law and constitution a little better. Then this whole mess could have been avoided.

One would think that at 64 years in age, he would be old enough to understand the constitution.   

This guy sounds like he PEAKED at 12.

 Carla – you’re using logic and rational thought in a discussion of a religious believer; there’s no place for critical thinking when dealing with faith.

Mr Bradley is being rather overgenerous to himself with his view of his contribution to the banner.   The text of the school prayer was identical to one which had already been in use by the school for  some years and was broadcast over the school PA until this practice was deemed illegal by the Supreme Court in 1962.  The artwork was almost identical to a similar banner at nearby Hugh B Bain Middle School, except that the school colours were changed from Bain’s to CHSW’s.  There was no student artwork involved whatsoever. Mr Bradley and his group’s major involvement was to raise funds for the project.  The Creed and the School Prayer Banners were painted and erected by a professional.  The whole project was initiated and supervised by the school administration at every stage.

Dear Jessica isn’t yet old enough to know the meaning of atheism.
She was used (and permanently injured) by powers and ideologies in the
name of secular liberal progressivism that she can’t possibly understand
at her tender age.

I love the wooly mammoth-sized pile of shit this part contains. So, Jessica is the victim in all this? A poor misguided pawn, used and thrown away by powers beyond her understanding? Sir, I believe you need to pull your head out of your arse and try listening to her. Just a couple excerpts from her interviews and you’d understand that she’s anything but being carried by the waves. She knew exactly what she was doing.Also, “secular liberal progressivism”?You say that like it’s a bad thing.

Thanks… when I write lots of words I sometimes wonder if I’m getting carried away. I’m sure I repeated some points w/o meaning to, but after typing so much I just kind of end up saying “fuck it, I’m posting this”

 I don’t know whether David Bradley’s prayer was written to defy the 1962 Supreme Court ruling against official school prayers. It may have been written before that ruling. I *am* certain that when the banner was hung in 1963, it was done in deliberate defiance of that ruling. The fact that the defiance went unchallenged for almost half a century, and his prayer was read by thousands, should be enough payment for him. I do feel sorry for him that he’s reduced to public begging at this point in his life.

I’ll leave it to the prayer banner supporters to decide whether they want to add to his reward, after they’ve paid the legal costs they’ve already incurred for failing to understand the law.

 I was thinking Rip Taylor.

Arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity, all in one package.  How efficient of him…

Doesn’t belong there period. It does not matter what age the guy was. Hah! Sorry bunch of chaps.

“Where are my donors?”

The Free Market has spoken, David!

 His face and hair do look a lot like Rip Taylor. And a little research indicates that Captain Kangaroo wore a single-breasted blazer; so I retract my original characterization.

Envy is so unbecoming to him.

He’s just being used by the pro-banner people.

This is just pathetic. Mr. Bradley, you should be the adult in this situation. Instead you, a 64 year old man, are lashing out at a 16 year old with all the childish spite of a twelve year old.

The freedom of religion is not a license to force one’s beliefs on others.  What part of that do the evangelicals fail to understand?  I can only imagine the reaction of these fine folk if someone suggested posting a banner honoring Islam in a public school.

 They’ll pin the full blame on whomever they’re thinking of or talking about at the moment without regard to consistency with their own previous claims. It’s pretty standard neocon methodology.

Oh, abortion should be illegal because the child does not have a say?
Please, tell me more about how old you were when you were baptized and/or circumcised.

It’s shit like this, people…

walkamungus, I would, although I’m sure it would carry more weight if mailed by someone more local than me (I’m in Auckland, NZ).  The information comes straight from the court records, by the way.  There are heaps of good resources at the Support The Removal of The Cranston Banner FB group page, in the document section, which detail the Plaintiff’s Brief and Judges Decision, amongst other things (at 
http://www.facebook.com/groups/179298715436387/ ).  I also have an FAQ page on my own blog which is at 
http://warzytopia.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/jessica-ahlquist-faqs-to-questions-that.html#!http://warzytopia.blogspot.com/2012/01/jessica-ahlquist-faqs-to-questions-that.html which details the many, many erroneous and contentious nonsenses which have been characteristic of this whole extended drama.

Grumpy Captain Kangaroo! ‘Sounds like he missed his nap and now he is going on a public pout.

“Dear Jessica isn’t yet old enough to know the meaning of atheism. ”

Meanwhile all of those little toddlers in Sunday school know exactly what they’re doing and saying as they regurgitate prayers, and you knew it all at the age of 12.

“Where are my donors?”Did you have to go to court to have the prayer banner put up?  Did you face harassment and death threats?  Your unconstitutional banner was up for decades and now you want money to boot?  You’re a real piece of work.

Roflmao – REALLY good one …!

That’s right – “atheism” is the same as “communism” to the children of the post-war world. Even many of my peers born in the late 50’s (or later) treat the two as interchangeable. It harkens back to the placing of “under God” into the Pledge at about the same time.

Step 1: Write a prayer banner
Step 2: Grow old without learning or changing a thing
Step 3: …
Step 4: Profit!

I’m going to have to amend my statement above slightly. CHSW opened in 1959 and Mr Bradley would have been a 7th grader then.  I’m not sure why a 7th grader would have been assigned a task by the Exec Council, rather than have one of them do it, if it was indeed done in 1959, but let’s let that ride for a moment.

 This is what the the Judge said:

“The student council selected the school’s mascot and team colors, and a seventh grader by the name of David Bradley was assigned the task of authoring the school’s creed and school prayer.  As was the wide-spread custom of the time, Cranston West opened its school day with the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.”

“Although Bradley testified that both the Prayer and Creed were his original work, the Creed, at least, most assuredly was not.  With the exception of about five words and substitution of the reference as “Cranston West” instead of “Hugh B. Bain,” the Creed adopted by Cranston West is identical to that already adopted and on display at Bain since at least the 1950s. ” (Lombardi Dep. at 23-24 and Jt. Ex. 7-14).

 So although Bradley might have penned the Prayer from scratch, we have only his word for that, and his recollection that he penned the Creed has already been shown to be false.  The artwork definitely was copied from Bain.

Further, Gerald Zito, who was Vice President of the Class of ’63 testified

 “No one in the senior class designed the art work, wrote the prayer or creed, or participated in the installation of the two displays.  The senior class chose the gift and paid for it to be installed”.  (Zito Dep. at 31-32) “

This was fascinating info. Thanks for posting it!

 Um…

The Pope?

 It was “torn” down, in the same way that seculars “rip” christ out of christmas and wage “war” on their religion. It’s hyperbole, exaggeration, fairy tales… thats all they know how to speak in.

And if he needs money, he should pray harder.

He obvious has not heard her speak. She is a very articulate and intelligent young lady.

Sounds like this automoton still has the mentality and intellectual level of a 12 year old kid. Some people are just too far gone.

Captain*

Screw him.  I’m so glad Jessica got that money.  She’s going to do some amazing things to help shape secular society, I can feel it.    

His credibility gets a big boost from the fact that he misspelled both “Ahlquist” and (twice) “atheist.” (Or perhaps the “atheist” misspellings were the work of a copy editor? If so, that’s a shot to the credibility of the Courant.)

This is in reply to a post of Crystal Jenae Hollis of about a month ago…..I don’t think she has read the Constitution. I take that back maybe she has she  just doesn’t understand it. Having religious symbols or prayers etc. in a public building is not unconstitutional the reason people think that is true is because of the 1947 case of Everson vs The Board of Education where a sentence of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Danbury, CT church was taken out of context.  The original intent in the first amendment was to prevent the government from forcing a particular religion on the people, Which was done many times before in history. Answer this: if the founders intended separation of church and state like she says, which by the way those words are not even in the Constitution. Why is it that if you go Washington, DC that you find all kinds of religious symbols in the Federal buildings. The Capital has a prayer room and at one time they even use to hold church services there.   And just for information I am a” atheist” I can’t stand groups like The Freedom of Religion Foundation  who go around the country causing law suits. Hopefully someday the Supreme Court will get their head out of their asses stop this crap.