Meat Loaf Says Jessica Ahlquist is What’s Wrong with America

You can say the same thing about the people that defended the banner so vigorously, so why single out one side?  The district chose to spend a lot of taxpayer money defending an illegal banner.

This is a fallacy that pops up all the time. Instead of debating the merits of the argument, just say that there is something more important the person could be doing. Meatloaf, instead of writing that article, could also have spent that time helping the homeless.

The thing is we all have our pet causes and we are all passionate about different things. Some people are passionate about helping the homeless, others for AIDS advocacy, etc. etc. The fact that one has political opinions regarding disestablishmentarianism, and advocates to advance those political beliefs, is not invalidated because they do not fit Meatloaf’s personal hierarchization of advocacy.

It’s funny that he makes the same argument against Jessica in both a written interview with LFpress and on a video interview with PBS. Maybe he’s even mentioned it in other interviews too. He keeps bringing this up, but never refines his lame argument.

False dichotomy. Just because he has time to record an album does not mean his/that time should necessarily be used to “help people out”. It is like the tired old argument, “if he has that much money, he should give it to someone who needs it”. One does not necessarily follow from the other. 

Oh well. Now we know his thinkings as much rubbish as his “music”.

I’m getting tired of the “history” argument. Should America have continued to allow segregated schools because it was historical? Just because something’s been hanging there a while doesn’t make it right.

And I grow weary of the “too much time on your hands” argument, too. If I complain about something, I have too much time on my hands and should be doing something more worthwhile– but if you turn around and complain about ME, presumably that’s a valuable use of your time. That makes no sense. In any event, pointing out violations of the Constitution DOES help people; it makes society more accepting and welcoming, and prevents some citizens from feeling excluded or diminished. Moreover, it’s simply the right thing to do.

From Wikipedia:

“Each verse mentions two things that he would do for love, followed by one thing that he will not do. The title phrase repetition reasserts that he “won’t do that”. Each mention of “that” is a reference to the particular promise that he made earlier in the same verse.  In addition, at the song’s conclusion, the female vocalist predicts two other things that he will do: “You’ll see that it’s time to move on” and “You’ll be screwing around”. To both of these, he emphatically responds, “I won’t do that!”

In his 1998 VH1 Storytellers special, he even explained it on stage using a blackboard and a pointing stick.  In a 1993 promotional interview, Steinman states that the definition of “that” is fully revealed in the song in each of the several verses in which it is mentioned.”

Way to miss the point. “Go help people out” was Meat Loaf’s whole argument. Why should it apply to other people but not to him? Is Mr. Loaf the final arbiter of what is worthy to spend our time doing?

Huh.  Who knew he had the reasoning power of an actual meat loaf.  Go figure.

Just because something’s been around for awhile doesn’t make it good, right, or just. Unless God says it’s okay. Then everything’s cool, apparently.

 OK. I’ll admit that I didn’t pay too much attention to the song. In my defense, it is no way as good as Mr Loaf’s  truly epic “Paradise by the Dashboard Light.”  I just always saw “I’ll do anything for love” as an argument. He doesn’t like her dog, and She hates his poet’s blouse. Therefor they cannot agree to live together. I’m sure it’s an annoying tiny dog that wants nothing more to bite some ankles, and the poet’s blouse is a poet’s blouse.

It’s still a false dichotomy, even when applied **BY** Mr. Loaf.

That was the point jdm8 was making.

 And doesn’t it make you wonder how long something has to be there before it gets a Get Out of Obeying the Constitution Free card? Like, would it have been OK if someone had challenged it 10 years ago? 20? 30?

“People don’t even see it anymore…” which is why nobody complained or sent death threats to Jessica when she asked them to take it down. Yep.

 It’s sorta like the term “traditional values”. There was a time when a man beating his wife and children was called “home correction.” There was a time when white supremacy and slavery were the norm.  I hate traditional values. All they do is hamper the future.

High praise from the single biggest promoter of date rape of the last century. What a putz. He missed a good chance to be quiet. I don’t see anymore castings in Brad Pitt movies for you now meatboy.

“We got here because people stopped caring about other people and only care about their beliefs and what they want.”
Mote . . . own eye?  Apparently he doesn’t realize that this is exactly what ~he~ is doing, and what the banner supporters were trying to do.

So really it should be called “There are whole bunch of things I would do for love, but a few things I wouldn’t”.  Obviously he ‘s misusing the word ‘but’, he should be using ‘and’.

Flight of the Conchords do a great parody of the concept.

 He does perform a lot for charities.  He was on “Don’t Forget the Lyrics” and “Celebrity Apprentice” and won a boatload of money for the Painted Turtle children’s camp.  He and his band have performed at benefits for Starkey Hearing Foundation, breast cancer research, children’s hospitals, and Hurricane Katrina relief.

 Not only that, but if it was true that “nobody notices it anymore”, then Ahlquist would have never filed suit in the first place because she wouldn’t have noticed it!  The very fact that there was a complaint proves that his statement is a lie.

Yes, thank you! I was reading the comments hoping someone had noticed the ridiculous irony of that statement.

I kinda like his music.  But the guy’s brains have been addled more than once.  A shot-put throw to the head will do that.

Ok this question is serious- I understand the idea of protecting the constitution and the need for separation of church and state so without going to the simple “its the constitution and it should be followed” argument, what harm was that banner doing to anyone?  Just like the ten commandments on a plague outside a public building.  Beyond the idea that the constitution should be followed as an end of itself, (and I am not diminishing that) what harm did Jessica or any other student in that school suffer as a result of that banner? A banner that other students put up to express their free speech by the way which is also their right under the constitution.  This is not like segregation laws which were noticeably harmful to minorities nor is it like religion is being pressed on any student in that school or on anyone walking  a plague of the ten commandments.  If you can point to a policy of the school or the government that effects others based upon this banner or on a plaque of the ten commandments  then please tell me.  That is why courts require some tangible harm to have standing in these disputes. Otherwise it does look like what Meatloaf is saying. 

Meatloaf is just upset that a normal teenage girl’s opinion is more correct and more relevant than his own.

You will recall that Jessica naively assumed that they would just take it down.  So I would turn that around.  Why did the community fight so hard to keep it there?  I think that is the harm.  It wasn’t the banner itself.  It is the notion that as long as the majority want something, everyone else can be damned.

And I know people like to couch this as the minority getting their way.  I hope you’ll agree that she wasn’t asking for a banner disclaiming God.  She was just asking for God to not be brought up by the school.

“As a Christian walking by a Muslim prayer on the wall, I would not be harmed individually just because it is not my belief”

That’s an incredibly safe position for you to take, as there is ZERO chance that an invocation to Allah would have been installed as the school’s official prayer, and would have been defaced within days by the “good Christians” of Cranston.

Was the American civil rights movement all about “whites-only” water fountains?  No.  Was it right that they were removed?  Absolutely.  Even though the colored water-fountains, I’m sure, worked perfectly well.

I take that as another way of saying because the constitution says it shouldn’t be there.

No, I’m still not expressing myself well enough.  What if the school decided to have an official eye color: blue.  Or brown, it doesn’t matter.  The other eye color can still come to school, and participate in every way.  But all images on the walls will be of people with the official eye color.  And let’s make most of the kids in the school the official eye color.  And nobody is making anyone wear color contacts.  Who is being ‘harmed’?  Nobody.  Nobody is forced to do anything, or even excluded from anything.  There’s just an official declaration that explicitly leaves out some of the students.

And for the sake of trying to make the analogy fit, let’s say someone suggests putting up some images of kids with other eye colors, and they’re shot down.  If kids don’t like the official images, they can just ignore them.

Not to mention said lawsuit is establishing universal good for this entire country. The Constitution needs to be upheld. When we let it slip, we come that much closer to living in a theocracy, and even conservative Christians ought to realize that they will not be benefited by that.

The fact that the school hung it up implies that they believe and presumably endorse the Christian point of view, possibly including the belief that non-Christians are worth less/immoral/not as good. Even if they weren’t acting on that – even if they didn’t really believe it –  the implication is there – “Christians are better, and if you’re not Christian, this school isn’t meant for you”.

But I think the most important reason is shown through the response. Christian privilege in this country is enormous. It should *not* be a big deal to say “Hey, that banner is illegal, can you take it down?” But the school wasted thousands of dollars fighting it. Jessica was harassed and received death threats over it. People fought tooth and nail to keep an illegal, unnecessary banner that they’d probably never see hanging up.

It all feeds into the idea that since Christians are the majority in the country, they should be allowed to do whatever they want, that anything religious is untouchable and always right, and that any attempt to fight Christian privilege is ‘persecution’.

 Only by fighting acts like these can we prove them wrong. Only by fighting their blatant religious displays can we remind everyone that atheists exist and prefer not to have religion constantly shoved down our throats. It shows people that being Christian or any other religion doesn’t give them the right to trample the minority, to make them second-class citizens, or to imply that they are lesser. It shows that religion needs to be held accountable, both morally and legally. And it shows that we’re not going to sit here and suck it up anymore.

Christians need to follow the law now too. Period.  Atheists exist, and we’re not going to let Christians run the country according to their religion just because it’s the majority.

I have grave doubts that the colored fountains worked perfectly well, myself…

Apart from the illegality, can you come up with any reason why a banner reading ‘White people have superior morals’ would do any harm to any non-white individual? After all, it wouldn’t be saying that whites should harm any non-white individual, nor would it claim that non-whites can’t have morality at all, it wouldn’t be saying non-whites aren’t welcome, it wouldn’t affect peoples right to believe otherwise, etc., etc….

I suggest that any reason you can find for the above imaginary banner not being displayed (apart from the illegality) will work equally well for the actual situation.

I’m sad.

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE.

The cup or irony overfloweth!

What you did there?  I see it and I approve.

Who cares what Meat Loaf thinks about anything anyway??  He’s not even the mastermind of his own greatest successes (Jim Steinman is).  The Loaf’s not remotely relevant as an artist or entertainer anymore, much less as a commentator on anything.

Americans don’t realise that the immediate post-war era was probably the most radical times in US history. Think of all of the things that were unprecedented: Newly-gained superpower status, the military-industrial complex, television, the cold war and the second “red scare”…

The context in which the banner was put up was not “traditional”. It was crazy.

Freddie was so talented, it’s hard to think of Meatloaf like that. Unless you’re talking homeopathy levels  of watering down.

Shame on you Mr Meat Loaf. And I really like his music, and his performer persona…

And his comments show what I think are really wrong in society, American in particular, but occidental society at large: the assumed privilege, the half blindness towards “the others”… 

Sad indeed

 “what harm was that banner doing to anyone?”

Considering the reaction, which was in sharp contrast with the sentiments held in the banner, it would seem the banner ultimately  hurt Christian credibility.

Snark aside, a government agency which can promote one faith, is free to dictate one faith over another. The only way to preserve your faith is to ensure government never has that much control. However, if you would rather talk about what it “looks like” as opposed to what it is…

 I hope so. It’s such a stupid, self-contradicting statement. Please be the drugs.

 Don’t forget that when someone with the “wrong” eye color tries to speak or do anything at all that the people with the “right” eye color don’t like, or suggest that they are equal members of the community, those images and posters and bits of propaganda lining the walls  will be pointed at indignantly by the “right” eye color people as “evidence” that this is a BLUE EYED NATION and everyone else needs to either accept their second- or even third-class status or GET OUT!!!!1!!!!  And don’t you dare try to argue with that poster about the superiority of blue-eyed people over all others, because that is traditional wisdom and common knowledge and you have no right to contradict that poster when it has been there proclaiming blue-eyed glory for fifty years or more.

“Does no harm” indeed.

 I love you so much, GloomCookie613.  That was absolutely perfect.

Also, @realmeatloaf?  Is that like the Real Ghostbusters, not to be confused with Filmation’s Ghostbusters?  Is there an imposter Loaf running around somewhere, from whom he needs to be differentiated?

You will recall that Jessica naively assumed that they would just take it down. So I would turn that around. Why did the community fight so hard to keep it there? I think that is the harm. It wasn’t the banner itself. It is the notion that as long as the majority want something, everyone else can be damned.

Bingo.

oh, Mr. Loaf…i always thought you were awesome. unfortunately i can’t think that anymore.

and is it just me, or does anyone else see the irony of the statements coming from the same guy that played a pivotal part in “Rocky Horror Picture Show”?

 Government agencies do not have first ammendment rights to endorse any particular religious viewpoint. This is very simple.

Of course this is not what this banner said or anything like it.  It didn’t say that atheists had less morals nor did it say that Christians were more moral.  Its not even implied.  So again I ask you, without changing the facts and without simply saying because the constitution says you can’t have it, what harm was there?

Not an analogous situation. Black only water fountains were part of an institutionalized and overall scheme of discrimination that went well beyond the simple existence of water fountains. 

 “All of the posters who have responded have done the same thing- changed
the facts and tried to compare it to things that are not analogous in an
effort to find harm that isn’t there.”

Yourself included. You admit to understanding the idea of following the constitution and you don’t “diminish it” but simultaneously you want to grant an exception because of some harm to the Christian mindset that isn’t there.

There is no, “whats the harm”, there is only the risk of granting too much power over “your” faith to the government. It would not be that difficult to change the banner from “Our Heavenly Father…” to “Our Heavenly Father who resides on Kolob…”.

Better to ensure the government and its agencies have no opinion, so the individual can worship or not as they choose.

My point in asking the question was to see what harm there could be beyond the mere presence of the banner itself. It is evident that there wasn’t.  And what that means is that Meatloaf made a valid point- it is removed because Jessica wanted it removed and not because she was harmed by it being there, either in theory or in reality.

Were there facts in the case showing that other banners were submitted and rejected?  Did Jessica try to submit a banner that was rejected?  if so then I would see that as some harm.

To answer your question about why they didn’t just take it down I would say that until it is shown that there is harm they should not be obligated to change. Just because there is a minority position it doesn’t mean that the majority has to cater to that position.  Being in the majority is not wrong in and of itself.

Saying that there is harm in the majority simply by there being a majority , I am reminded about the comments I see here on occasion where people look forward to the day where they think there will be a secular majority and they can put Christians in their place. Would you agree with that?

The actual banner called upon ‘Our heavenly father’ to grant, enable and teach various moral and physical strengths. Given that there was no suggestion these were achievable without divine intervention, which atheists do not believe in; yes, it clearly does suggest that atheists cannot be as good as Christians. You’re wrong, so again I ask you, without changing the facts and without simply saying because the constitution says you can’t have it, what harm was there?

Just because the banner says call upon our heavenly father, it doesn’t say that you can’t have morals without calling upon him and you immoral if you don’t.  Jessica I am sure looked at this banner and said she didn’t need that. The only way for you to get this message from the banner is through projection. So again I say, what was the harm? And without a harm why should the majority bend to the minority?  Otherwise it looks like- remove it because the minority doesn’t like it and nothing more.

All I can say is that until I read this post, I thought Meatloaf was a band.

Did you read the comments after the judge’s decision? Former Jewish students had been made very uncomfortable by the banner, but were afraid to speak out against it.

The problem is not that the officially sanctioned “School Prayer” is driving policy. The problem is that there shouldn’t BE an officially sanctioned prayer. The harm is that it excludes and divides people on the basis of their religion.  Why is this hard for you to understand?

Slavery was fine for a while too. Who decided that it wasn’t?

If you wonder where the harm was, just take the time and read the judge’s ruling. It is well-written, sourced and thought out. It was worth my time.

Saying that there is harm in the majority simply by there being a majority , I am reminded about the comments I see here on occasion where people look forward to the day where they think there will be a secular majority and they can put Christians in their place. Would you agree with that?

It’s been a long day.  A good day, doing things completely unrelated to advocating separation of church and state, but long.

I’d hope that after all the ‘discussions’ we’ve had that you wouldn’t need to even ask that.  In fact, I’m probably going to almost reiterate what I said during our Santorum v. JFK debate.

I’m not looking for anyone to be ‘put in their place’ other than them being in the same place as everyone else.  We often talk about Christian privilege on here, and I honestly think you’re so used to getting things your way, that, in the words of Jon Stewart, you confuse a war on religion with not getting things your way.  

That’s not to say I think things should be ‘my way’.  I want the chance to state my views, and listen to yours.  And I want us each to have the chance to counter.

I spent a year in Georgia, and I was amused when shopping one Sunday evening to see all the beer and wine covered up.  I don’t drink, so it didn’t affect me, but I thought it amusing that on one particular day, nobody is allowed to buy alcohol in grocery stores.

But if that’s what God wants, who are we to argue?  Yes I know, we can add context, but really, should your God be telling me what days I can buy alcohol on?  Should Allah be telling you what direction to face when you pray?

I don’t want an atheist government.  I don’t want government saying “There is no God”.  But I also don’t want government saying there is either.  Let us all listen to, or not, our own God(s), lest we end up forced to eat Pasta on Sundays trying to pray towards a teapot in orbit between earth and mars.

Thank you Rich.  I am curious about Jessica’s feelings.  How can a banner by itself make her feel devalued? Or conversely, how can removing it make her feel more valued? She drives be churches, does she feel devalued? When she hears a preacher on tv, does she feel devalued? When she see a Bible in the library does she feel devalued? If that is so then I believe that says more about her sense of herself and less about a few words on a banner. That is the kind of “feeling offended” type of harm that the religious community is told we don’t have the right to complain about. That is the type of harm that sounds like I didn’t like it so take it down.  Now if her fellow students made her feel bad about it, or the school had the students recite it and she was singled out, or things of that nature took place then it would remove this from just a banner to more active events that would be harmful.

A church and a TV channel aren’t hers.  The library is, but that library also contains copies of the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Book of Mormon and The God Delusion.

It is HER school (as well as well as all the other student’s).  I couldn’t care less about churches on every corner (well, ok, I care, but I don’t think for a nano-second that I have any right to say anything about their presence).  But when I pull out a dollar bill, that’s MY dollar bill, and it has a lie on it.  Even if I was the ONLY atheist in the country, I am a US citizen too.  In God WE Trust means EVERYone.  But I don’t trust God.  Nothing there to trust, and if God did exist, and was as described, I wouldn’t trust him anyways.

It’s not about being a minority.  It’s not about anyone else’s private (publicly stated, but owned by private individuals/entities) opinions.  It’s about MY government telling me what I am, or I believe, or I trust, or I am under.

Sure, on paper you’re one of us, but heh heh, you’re not really one of us 🙂 

If you didn’t catch it, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/24/bullying-children-because-of-religious-faith/ is 30 min video that goes more in depth into the damages suffered by students when church and school mix.

Are you kidding me? No standing? She’s a student in that school; she damn well has standing, regardless of whether or not you think she received some actual harm, and the banner was still unconstitional.

Just for those of us who are not Americans, what is a “children’s centre”?

Google suggest the phrase is used for British government agencies (would those take volunteers?) and a Maryland based daycare that advertises all its staff is certified and college educated, so not a great volunteering opportunity for Jessica either.

It sounds like something some people might come up with when they want to sound all morally righteous but all they remember when looking for a metaphor for altruism is the corny homeless shelter and how impressed they were when they heard someone saying “I have never seen you serve soup at the homeless shelter”. But then while saying it they realize: “meh, f#$ it, I dont actually care about the homeless and I bet nobody in my audience does…  So, since the homeless lever isn`t functioning with me, what emotional lever should I pull instead even though I am already half-way into constructing this sentence? I know… children! Obviously everyone would be able to see I don’t actual care about children either because otherwise they would have been the first thing I came up with and, you know, if I cared about kids I would actually be able to name an actual charity… but that wont matter!”Why wont it matter”  they might think ” eventhough using using children as moral pawns suggest I didn`t look into the story of the very person I an bashing enough to realise I am actually talking about a young person working to make it so children can be sure whether their school has their back if they end up getting bullied for being anything other than christian thus actually making personal sacrifices to improve the lives of kids in a tangible way?” “It wont matter because my audience is so stupid they will just be too distracted by the emotional impact of me accusing Jessica of not caring about poor defenseless children to notice anything”What could be more heroic than the sight of someone stepping on the backs of children to climb on  a massive moral highhorse?Or maybe there actually is such things called “children centers” and they really are looking for pretty much random volunteers to work with kids and I am just a cynical European who has never heard of them despite me having slightly less apparent  trouble naminng a couple of breathtakingly universally non-offensive childrens charities. Charities  like unicef (obviously) but also a local one that build playgrounds and lobbies for places kids can safely play away from traffic and the make a wish foundation.All charities that, except for maybe unicef, I could defend Jessica for taking a couple of days off from to do what she did. As awesome as the make a wish foundation makes us feel the numbers probably suggest that teaching enough kids biology instead of pseudoscience might mean the next generation has the scientist to have a chance to cure everyone for life of that for which one western kid might suffer enough to deserve to be cheered up for a day, as important as that is sometimes.

Who care what he said?

Jessica is a hero, and Meatloaf is a fool with no respect or knowledge of our constitution. He has no compassion for those offended by a religious banner that had no right hanging in a public school, for a day, a week, or for years as it did. I’m burning my Meatloaf albums. The bat is going back to hell.

If people “don’t see it anymore” then where is the harm in removing it?

Tsk tsk such a fuss about one little spoiled brat. Meat Loaf is right she needs something to keep her busy. At least all the “friendly” atheists here have proved that they are better than the religious nuts. When atheists disagree with someone they don’t resort to nasty personal attacks..oh no wait,they do.

Thanks for the response, but that case had nothing to do with someone’s “discomfort” over the banner. It was simply about whether or not it was legal. It wasn’t. Jessica forced the school to obey the law.

Meat Loaf has turned into Pink Slime.

This is the most that anybody has talked about Meat Loaf in at least 20 years.