Krieger's bad choices I
State Rep. Tim Krieger's proposed legislation forcing plaintiffs to be named in lawsuits challenging religious symbols on public land places an unfair burden on people with minority opinions.
If passed, this legislation would strip plaintiffs of the right to privacy and open them up to vicious attacks. A case in Rhode Island initiated by student Jessica Ahlquist, who successfully challenged an unconstitutional prayer banner hanging in her high school, resulted in bullying and death threats, as well as a Rhode Island state representative calling her “an evil little thing.”
If Rep. Krieger's proposal isn't stopped, people who object to unconstitutional public displays of religious symbols will be forced to choose between being intimidated into staying silent or exposing themselves to potential harm. That's not a choice they should have to make.
The writer is executive director of the American Humanist Association (americanhumanist.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Family first
- Bible under attack
- Voting insanity
- Gruber, then & now III
- Gruber, then & now II
- Postal questions
- Gruber, then & now I
- Party outlook, post-election II
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- Right on Promise
- On right track