Christian Professor to Christian Preacher: Don’t Be a Dick

Preacher John Chisham recently came to St. Cloud State University to preach against homosexuality and loose women and whatever other things appear on those Bingo cards.

But students were ready with a response:

(Photo by Molly English)

Christian blogger Tony Jones writes about this man because he argues (mostly to fellow Christians) that “[h]is bad version of the gospel must be countered with a better version of the gospel.”

I would add that that’s hard to do when you’re all quoting the same awful book.

But I appreciate that Jones is taking the side of the students here:

Kudos to the students who protested Pastorboy’s preaching, and kudos to Ms. English for writing to me about how it feels to be an atheist and a GLBT ally when these idiots come to campus.

The preacher does nothing to win people over to his side and Christians, even more than the rest of us, would help themselves out by countering such horrible people. If I didn’t know better, I would argue he’s a plant by a campus atheist group.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • corps_suk

    Love this technique, I do it all the time.
    Once at PP there was a family with a 10 year old and my sign said “F@€k this family of bigots” The dad got all hurt that I would swear in front of his kid so I told the kid there was no god just like there was no Santa…it was just mom and dad lying to control him, they promptly left. The irony of the first amendment not protecting people from offense was totally lost on them.

    • StanW

      Good thing you did not try that on my children, SUK. I would consider it assault and respond accordingly. Typical of a pathetic coward like you to attack children!

      • Reginald Selkirk

        If you actually act out your idiot fantasies in the real world, you should expect to spend some time in prison. Why do you place no responsibility on the family for bringing their children along to such an occasion?

        • StanW

          As I expected, you also have no problem attacking children to get your insipid political point out.

          Threats to my children and grandchildren will be dealt with, Reggie. Your rights are NOT superior to mine!

          • dorcheat

            Get over yourself Stanley. You and your children have every right to respond with free speech to demonstrators and protestors.

            • StanW

              Free speech and threats are two different things, DOR!

              • Speedwell

                Nobody can figure out what you mean by “threats” in this context.

                • StanW

                  That does not surprise me, Speed, as you have all collectively decided to attack me over my taking issue with something SUK said.

                • Speedwell

                  You still haven’t demonstrated a threat or assault took place. Still waiting.

                • StanW

                  Speed, I was talking to SUK, not you. He gave what I considered a less-than-truthful scenario, and I responded to him. I am not trying to convince you of anything.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Evans/1017276335 John Evans

                  So you are saying SUK assaulted the family (or possibly just the child), though nothing in his comment suggested such, because you have decided he is lying?

                • Speedwell

                  “I was talking to him, not you” is a classic Internet way to say “I don’t want to address your point so I am voting you off the conversation”. Sorry, you don’t have that vote.

                • StanW

                  You are welcome to keep whining about this, Speed. But my point was addressed to SUK. I just wish he had enough stones to confront me over the issue. Alas, his courage only extends to verbal threats to children.

                • Speedwell

                  You mean you actually want him to confront you? Wouldn’t that be “assault”?

                • StanW

                  Got that proof yet, Speed?

                • Speedwell

                  Proof of what now? Have you read the links provided to you, or are you too busy proving yourself a good Christian?

                • Wild Rumpus

                  Telling the kids that God and Santa aren’t real threaten the blind faith of StanW. If you told his kids that, he would enact Texas Justice on you for threatening his belief in the supernatural.

              • dorcheat

                I do not see any evidence of Corp_Suk threatening children.
                He used his free speech right to say to the child as he quoted from his post, “there was no god just like there was no Santa…it was just mom and dad lying to control him.”

                • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

                  I’m still waiting for Stan to prove it’s a lie and only someones opinion that there is no Santa Claus.

              • Kinky F.

                You just threatened someone about five posts up. Dumb fuck.

                • StanW

                  Really, please show me where.

              • Reginald Selkirk

                Free speech and threats are two different things, DOR!

                That’s a good point, StanW. So stop threatening others with violence. You are a bad person.

                • StanW

                  I have done no such thing, Reggie.

              • sara

                That’s exactly what everyone is trying to explain to you.

          • http://twitter.com/Kardashev1 Kardashev

            Your rights are not superior to his, so what’s your point? If a kid is out preaching against homosexuals and claims to believe it because a book says that their god says so, then they are a bigot. It’s known as “calling a spade a spade”.

            • StanW

              And where did SUK say that the KID was doing anything. SUK had an issue with what the father said, and instead of getting in the face of the father, SUK ‘told’ the kid something.

              • http://twitter.com/Kardashev1 Kardashev

                Why not? I would have too. The father was an obvious lost cause, the child was not. Would you rather bang your head on a brick wall, or go for something less severe? Strange how the only ones who see an opposing view point as being “assault” would be the same ones that can’t stand up to criticism.

                • StanW

                  Kard, an opposing view is fine with me, else I would not be here and respond to DOZENS of personal attacks for offering my opinion.

                  My issue is that SUK is a coward for directing his verbal attacks at a child and not at the person who made the statement.

                  It is also disappointing that you all want to defend this attack, while SUK so cowardly refuses to respond.

                • allein

                  While I wouldn’t say such a thing to a child, were I to find myself in a similar situation, a “verbal attack” is not assault.

                • Carpinions

                  “DOZENS of personal attacks…” that are pointing out the flaws in what you yourself said, your first post of which was the original problem.

          • Reginald Selkirk

            Dear idiot: you characterize speech as “attacking” and “assault” when someone else does it, and then threaten others with violence. My rights, including the right to free speech, as just exactly equal to mine*. I also have the right not to be physically assaulted by you.

            * Duh. If one person has it but another doesn’t it’s not a right but a privilege.

            • StanW

              When you direct a verbal assault at my child, you do not have the right to claim free speech!

          • Kinky F.

            Oooooo tough guy behind a wall of HTMlL…..frankly, dumb fucks like you need to actually read a book other than the bible from time to time.

            • StanW

              hahahahaha

          • Baby_Raptor

            You’re on crack, bro. There was no threat to your children in there. You’re the one doing the threatening.

            • StanW

              hahahahahaha

              • John (not McCain)

                Hope you and your kids are in heaven soon!

              • Carpinions

                The response of someone who has nothing good to say and no defense to offer.

      • dorcheat

        Sorry Stan, but I do not see any evidence for assault. As for attacking children, Corps_Suk had a free speech right to display a sign and to also say to your child that “there was no god just like there was no Santa.”

        • StanW

          Suk does not have a right to get in the face of my child and tell them ANYTHING. That is verbal assault. Again, your rights are NOT superior to mine!

          • CelticWhisper

            Corps_suk never said anything about getting in anyone’s face. Simply speaking aloud in a public place is not a violation of anyone’s rights.

            • StanW

              Re-Read what he said, Celt.

              • CelticWhisper

                “The dad got all hurt that I would swear in front of his kid so I told the kid there was no god just like there was no Santa”

                I’m still not seeing anything about violating the kid’s personal space or being threatening. I’m picturing a person holding a sign, perhaps directing their speech to a child and making eye contact, but still speaking from where they’re standing, behind their sign. It could be construed to mean corps_suk bent/knelt down in front of the child and closed in, but that’s pure speculation on the part of the reader.

                • StanW

                  Holding a sing? What is the matter with you?

                  SUK said clearing that he ‘told the kid’. TOLD. Open your eyes!

                • Speedwell

                  I’m sorry, I think we are speaking a different version of the English language from you. In your version, does “told” actually mean “assaulted”?

                • http://twitter.com/Kardashev1 Kardashev

                  Why shouldn’t he? What he stated was true. Religion has been hoisted on to children before they could reach the age of reason, I mean why else do religions go on for so long? They catch them while they are young, drilling in these notions, then reinforcing them through out their childhood. It’s called indoctrination.

                • StanW

                  That is YOUR opinion, Kard. It is not YOUR job to tell them different.

                • http://twitter.com/Kardashev1 Kardashev

                  Actually, that’s how religion has survived. Do you not know what you are talking about? Evolution has ingrained people with an innate sense to trust their parents, because they look after them. They use this innate trust to reach their child with religion at an early age. Children do not get that some times their parents can be wrong, or lie, so they trust them without thinking about it. This is how indoctrination works, bub. It’s not really an opinion. No, it’s not my job. However, if I can get the light turned on, and the cogs in their brain working again, then I will try.

                • StanW

                  Kard, your opinions about religion are nothing more than YOUR OPINIONS. They are not fact and therefore you have NO RIGHT to tell another persons child ANYTHING!

                • http://twitter.com/Kardashev1 Kardashev

                  They are not opinions but I doubt someone like you can figure that out. I lived in Texas, knew many people who weren’t very intelligent. Their “it’s your opinion” is nothing more than a way to shut someone up because a precious belief is being challenged. Yes, I have no right to tell him anything. I guess if something dropped out of his pocket, then I shouldn’t tell him. You show no signs of being able to silence someone, and it is driving you insane.

                • StanW

                  Kard, I am not trying to silence anyone. I am here debating. The constant barrage of idiocy being throw at me is not going to silence me either.

                  How you feel about religion is VERY MUCH your opinion. Religion is faith and believe. We are not talking about a math problem or something falling out of their pocket.

                  Why are you so enamored with trying to silence me?

                • http://twitter.com/Kardashev1 Kardashev

                  No, this would be an opinion. I think religion is vile, disgusting and a pox on humanity. That’s an opinion. Defining indoctrination is not an opinion. Religion isn’t the only thing that uses indoctrination. >.> Jeez, I may as well be banging my head against said brick wall right now. I am not trying to silence you, but you would think that since your being challenged. You made the statement that I had no right to tell another person’s child “ANYTHING”. Do you not understand how words work? Anything is an all encompassing word, just like all, or everything. You realize that includes a toy or a math problem, yes? I don’t want to silence you, but you feel that way because you are scared of someone holding an opposing view point.

                • StanW

                  Kard, listen carefully. I will try to use small words just for you.

                  You do not have the RIGHT to tell my children ANYTHING. And yes I mean ANYTHING! I am their parent, not you. I am responsible for them, NOT YOU. You are welcome to your opposing viewpoint, and you are welcome to tell me all about it ad nausem. But you are NOT to force that opinion on my child.

                • http://twitter.com/Kardashev1 Kardashev

                  Okay then, next time I hear someone tell their child that they will go to hell if they act up, then I won’t do anything and just let the mental abuse continue. Seems legit, if you’re stupid. So I wouldn’t be able to tell a four year old boy that he wasn’t a rapist when his daddy calls him one, because he tried to steal a kiss from a girl he liked while on the playground? Yeah, okay. Sad thing is, I am not even making that scenario up.

                • StanW

                  Of course you are not, Kard. I’m sure you fell, as many here do, that you have the right to force your OPINION onto the children of everyone you encounter.

                • http://twitter.com/Kardashev1 Kardashev

                  Okay then, thanks for clearing that up. I am so relieved that I don’t have to worry about a child’s future because his dad is some nut job. Yes, I was being sarcastic. Why should I not have the right to tell the child they are not a rapist? Because I am not their parents? Seems legit, oh wait, no it doesn’t. You have proven time and time again that it is your job to instill your own opinions in your children while protecting them from any outside information that might make them challenge a view you gave them. I was the product of someone like you, until I realized that opposing view points are healthy to hear.

                • Speedwell

                  Force wasn’t involved.

                • Glasofruix

                  So under this assumption religious idiots such as yourself have no right to tell other children about their vile cult, but that rarely stops them.

                • Michael

                  hmmm… Hey kid… don’t step off that cliff… oh wait his daddy doesn’t want me to say ANYTHING to him…

                • TheG

                  *Citation needed.

                • StanW

                  Citation for my opinion? Seriously?

                • Carmelita Spats

                  If you approach me outside a Planned Parenthood clinic with YOUR child as a shield, I won’t “mince” words. You are a fu)kwit and a half if you drag your kid into MY gynecological decisions and attack me because I use chemical contraception (pill and IUD) which “kills” tiny people…

                  http://www.thepillkills.com/

                  If you choose to involve your kid in discussions about MY birth control of choice, you WILL get an earful and so will your kid as an innocent bystander.

                • StanW

                  At least you consider the child innocent. That is a step up from SUK.

                  And I would never get involved in your decisions Spats, except when it comes to the life of a child.

                • FBG

                  An adult’s wanting access to other people’s children so he can tamper with them in any way – physically, psychologically, religiously – for his own ends is pretty creepy.

                • corps_suk

                  An adult providing an opportunity for strangers to tamper and interact with their children is even creepier.

                • Speedwell

                  We aren’t trying to silence you, but we wouldn’t exactly cry if you decided to go away and think for a while, either.

                • Edmond

                  I think everyone is just trying to get you to admit that if you drag a CHILD to an ABORTION CLINIC for the purposes of staging a PROTEST, then you should expect your child to hear some grown-up talk, possibly even directed at them. It almost seems like someone who does this is deliberately ASKING for trouble, so they can complain about what happened later, as if it wasn’t their own fault for bringing their children to a completely inappropriate event.

                • baal

                  Actually, you do. There is no law against talking to children.

                • StanW

                  Really, are you sure?

                • TheG

                  You seem to be intent on people on the site providing citations. Do you have a source for YOUR claim that there is a law against talking to children.?

                • StanW

                  And where did I make that claim, G?

                • TheG

                  Unless the definition of “assault” has changed, you made the claim. If you think “assault” doesn’t have a meaning that is solely legal, why use any words at all? Making up your own definitions negates the entire purpose of a language.

                • baal

                  Unless your words are already otherwise illegal (i.e. defamation, suborning perjury, perjury or other actual crime) yes. I’m 100% sure. Did you have a cite to caselaw, statute or ordinance (something!) that says otherwise? Really, I’d like to see it. Even ‘verbal assault’ needs an imminent threat of personal harm for the victim to be afraid of (in fact and objectively). ‘There is no santa’ just isn’t in the same class as ‘i’m going to take my baseball bat, start by breaking your car windows and then you knee caps’.

                  I’m starting to get an inkling of a notion that you were prosecuted for verbal assault StanW, but please note that’s just mindreading on my part and I’m not actually intending this supposition as a factual statement.

                • StanW

                  Again, this is not about legality, baal, but about a parent protecting their child from a crazy person.

                • allein

                  I think anyone who takes a young child to an abortion protest is the crazy one.

                • StanW

                  Thank you for your opinion.

                  Personally, I think anyone who can justify the killing of a child as ‘choice’ is the crazy one.

                • allein

                  My opinion on the ethics of abortion is irrelevant to my opinion on whether such a protest is an appropriate place for a young child.

                • Edmond

                  No children have ever been harmed in any abortion. Perhaps you’re thinking of “zygotes” or “embryos” rather than “children”.

                • rwlawoffice

                  Really, are you following the trial in Philadelphia?

                • Edmond

                  “Following”? No. But I’m aware of it enough to know that what Dr. Gosnell has (allegedly) been doing is FAR outside the medical definitions of abortion. I don’t think that StanW is upset that Gosnell, or anyone else, is performing abortions past 24 weeks. I think he’s upset that ANYONE is performing ANY abortions at ANY point in gestation, which has nothing to do with what’s happening in Philly. Gosnell is being tried for acting outside the standards of medicine. I get the impression that StanW would prefer for ALL abortion doctors to get the same criminal treatment, regardless of their medical standards.

                • Artor

                  Killing children is murder. Killing a fetus is abortion. The Philly trial is about murder, not abortion.

                • Carmelita Spats

                  So why do you kiss Biblegawd’s a$$? Your GAWD, the crazed sociopath known as Dr. YAHWEH-the-YAHOO, butchered children…and FAVORS coerced abortion.
                  1. He “aborted” the world when He REGRETTED
                  humanity and drowned them in the Flood…BIG ABORTION….http://bible.cc/genesis/6-6.htm
                  2. He slaughtered Egyptian firstborns
                  3. He devised the first “morning after” pill
                  whereby an adulterous woman was forced to miscarry…
                  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5%3A11-31&version=NIV
                  4. He punishes David for adultery by slaughtering his child.
                  5. He commits genocides
                  6. Yahweh love abortion and infanticide…
                  a. Hosea 9:11-16
                  b. Numbers 5:11-21
                  c. Numbers 31:17
                  d. 2 Kings 15:16
                  e. 1 Samuel 15:3
                  f. Psalms 135:8 & 136:10

                  g. Psalms 137:9

                • StanW

                  Curious how an atheist and God-hater like you thinks you can lecture me about God using out of context Bible verses. I’m sure if I countered with any passage from God’s Holy Word, you would lecture me on how the book was nothing but ‘fairy tales’ and dismiss it out of hand.

                  And I hope you understand that you are not God and do not get to make these types of live and death decisions.

                • Tweekus

                  i agree.

                • baal

                  “but about a parent protecting their child from a crazy person”
                  This isn’t the position you started with. I grant you one micro-evolution point. I fully agree that parents should protect their children from crazy people but would disagree that the instances of the counter protestors recited above were crazy people. They were merely offensive.

                • StanW

                  That is EXACTLY the position I started with, baal. Please at least pretend to keep up!

                • Speedwell

                  I must have missed where corps_suk did anything “crazy”. Perhaps you could elaborate?

                • Edmond

                  If this is to be the rule of etiquette, then it will quickly become standard practice to bring children to every protest, demonstration or march, so that no one with an opinion may express it in their presence.
                  Fools who take their children with them to protest in front of PP should EXPECT that their children are going to hear passionate speech, some of it NSFW. That is no place or time for children, and no one should be championing the idea of using children as “human shields” against free speech.

                • Kinky F.

                  Again Tex, but it is okay for you to preach the gospel to children, even though this is nothing but your opinion? You are a fucktard who couldn’t find your own anus.

                • StanW

                  Got that proof yet, Kink?

                • your fuckin nightmare

                  lol @edfc573c31bafb7972cf708ca63c5a50:disqus

                • sara

                  Whether any god exists or does not exist is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. We can disagree about that fact, but we don’t have different opinions. One or the other of us is just plain wrong.

                • StanW

                  A matter of fact? REALLY?

                  Please prove that God exists. Or prove that He doesn’t exist. Your choice!

                • JA

                  Non-believers don’t have to prove anything, since they simply do not believe God exists. I do not believe unicorns exist, does that mean I have to provide proof that they don’t exist? However, since you claim that God does exist, the burden of proof rests on you, the claim-maker.

                • Kejora

                  Try it this way round StanW

                  Preacher, your opinions about religion are nothing more than YOUR OPINIONS. They
                  are not fact and therefore you have NO RIGHT to tell another persons
                  child ANYTHING!

                • Kinky F.

                  But it is AOK with you for others to tell kids about the glories of Jesus and pals? Even though that is nothing but opinion (unless you mriaculously discovered proof of the long-haired Jew down in ol Texas…)

                • CelticWhisper

                  Yes, told. With words. That does not necessarily mean that any physical advance was made. Words do not constitute assault.

                • StanW

                  You may want to reconsider that, Celt!

                • CelticWhisper

                  Can you cite a law that says words such as what corps_suk spoke, without threats of bodily harm or defamation, constitute assault (or even a tort)? If not, I see no reason to reconsider.

                • your fuckin nightmare

                  ooooo

                • pete084

                  Do you tell your children there are the fires of hell awaiting them if they deviate from the path of righteousness, the path YOU have decided you are going to force them to follow?

          • baal

            Some places have ordinances about swearing in public and you might be able to get a cop interested in a he said / she said after the fact but it’s not likely. Assault as a legal charge needs an imminent physical threat and ‘getting in the face’ doesn’t usually reach that bar. Merely talking to your kids, especially if you’re there, is not illegal even if the content is otherwise offensive.

            Your idea that this impinges on your rights is well, strange. You don’t have a right to prevent the free speech of others and otherwise live a life without being offended.

            • StanW

              Why are you so hung up on the legality of this, Baal?

              • Reginald Selkirk

                Why are you so hung up on the legality of this, Baal

                Probably because some ignorant idiot keeps rattling on about “assault.”

              • Kinky F.

                Because dingleberry, you are claiming it is not legal, which it is. But we understand, you are Texan, so we get it. You are already lower on the evolutionary scale and your still forming reptilian cerebral cortex cannot handle complex thoughts.

          • blasphemous_kansan

            >>”That is verbal assault. ”

            Citation needed. Especially since this seems to be the point of your entire rant; your contention that SUK’s comments constitute a crime against you and/or your child. It sure would be interesting if you could prove that.

            • StanW

              How boring…

              Show me where I said it was a crime, Kan. Do it now!

              • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Evans/1017276335 John Evans

                “That is verbal assault. Again, your rights are NOT superior to mine!” Assault is a crime.

              • Speedwell

                “Assault” is a crime, same as if you had said “shoplifting”, “murder”, or “going 45 in a school zone”. Duh, you.

              • blasphemous_kansan

                >>”How boring..”
                I agree. Your comments are kind of boring.

                >>”Show me where I said it was a crime, Kan. Do it now!”

                Challenge accepted.

                You used the word “assault”.

                Assault = crime.

                So, you can’t prove that any assault has taken place, then?

              • 3lemenope

                I’m just disappointed you didn’t do that last part in ALL CAPS. You know, “DO IT NOW!”. I mean, elsewhere on the thread you’ve just been randomly capitalizing LIKE A BOSS, so I figured when a prime opportunity to make it really count presented itself, you’d be all over it.

          • Kinky F.

            No, it isn’t.

            Yes, they are.

            Go home to Texas Y’all, don’t let the bible-hatred hit you on yer behind whilst you leave…..

          • Baby_Raptor

            Really? Fucking really? Saying words you don’t like at your child is NOT assault! Further, you don’t HAVE a right for your kids to not hear things you disagree with. Jesus, you need a dose of reality….

            • Speedwell

              Stan probably also wants to charge the TV with assault and threats.

          • allein

            assault:

            Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.

            words are not assault

          • Spuddie

            You have no right to be free of being offended. There is no such thing as verbal assault. At no point was there a threat or an intimation of immediate bodily harm would occur.

            I can tell your kid that his father is an ignoramus who is lying to you and be free of any consequences under the law. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t do anything about it under the law.

          • Michael

            But it is perfectly ok for this ass to come to campus and “assault” other people’s children?

          • Brian

            No, it is not assault. Stop trying to demonize our free speech.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

        Stan – Be wary of tossing out words like ‘typical’ and ‘coward’ you’re acting like a hormonal knee jerk reactionary. Corps_suk might be more ‘in your face’ than people are comfortable with but I’m willing to bet you are grossly over reacting to him to claim he was ‘attacking’ children,

        • StanW

          SUK is an in-your-face type of person, and that is a fine political tactic… FOR ADULTS. When it is done to children, it is intimidation and verbal assault.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

            You were not there so it would be safe to say that you can’t reasonably know what he said and what he didn’t say, how he said it or how he meant it. If you actually have a logical brain Stan then use it. I promise it doesn’t hurt. ;)

            • StanW

              Seriously? You were not there either, so you know NOTHING!

              He said clearly that he spoke directly to the child. You your own brain!

              • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

                In my line of work I occasionally talk to kids just as I talk to their parents – so in your line of reasoning I’m also ‘attacking’ them?

                You are making a hyperbolic assertion based on your assumption of what you THINK he said and how he said it. Quit while you’re behind Stan, you’re only digging yourself into a deeper hole.

                • StanW

                  Is your line of working telling children that their parents have been lying to them and to destroy the children’s opinion of their parents, David?

                • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

                  And there we have it, the truth comes out.

                  You are reacting like corps_suk physically got in the kids face like a yelling, screaming drill sergeant. If that was actually what he did then yes, he’s a dick for yelling his point at a kid. But calmly, reasonably stating his view to a kid is not the same thing. Your knickers are just all in a twist because he told the kid the truth and that is supposed to be mommy and daddies job.

                • StanW

                  He did not tell the kid the truth, just his bigoted version of the truth.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

                  So you still believe in Santa Claus Stan?

                • Kinky F.

                  Yes, if it is for the better of the kids and their future – YOU FUCKING BET.

                  And even “getting in their face to say it” is still no assault or violation.

                  I feel very very sorry for your kids.

                  Tell me Tex, you advocate corporal punishment for kids? At home? In school? You see, that is real assault, not someone telling your ungrateful little bags of skin the truth.

                • StanW

                  Kink, when you are done having an argument with the voices in your head, let us know. I’ll be right here!

              • Reginald Selkirk

                He said clearly that he spoke directly to the child

                And who brought the child into this situation? Why do you not hold the parents accountable for putting their child in this position?

                • http://www.facebook.com/Scott.McElhiney Redorblack Nigelbottom

                  Not actually what he said. What he said was, “The dad got all hurt that I would swear in front of his kid so I told the kid there was no god just like there was no Santa…it was just mom and dad lying to control him, they promptly left.” You make it sound like he dragged the kid off a playground and into the bushes to indoctrinate the child without the parents having a say in it. Since they left… I’d say they were not being held down against their will while the crazy liberal leftist ‘merica hating meanies assaulted their child.

              • CelticWhisper

                Speech can be directed to someone without being threatening to that person. If I call my friend’s name across a crowded convention hall, for example, I’m directing my speech to them (albeit inefficiently) but there’s nothing about that that could be construed as threatening.

                This applies even to negative/uncomfortable/undesirable speech. I could be at a sci-fi convention, and Joss Whedon could come onstage to give a presentation, and I could yell “Firefly sucked and you’re a hack!” Sure, it would make me an asshole (and get me lynched by everyone else in the room) but it’s still not threatening or invasive just because it’s unpleasant. I’d be yelling words to someone on a stage 20 feet away. The absolute worst thing that could happen as a direct result is that feelings would be hurt. Certainly not anywhere near grounds to justify physical violence (though from what I’ve seen of some Whedon fans, that wouldn’t necessarily stop them. But I digress.).

                If corps_suk had physically advanced on the child or made aggressive or threatening motions, then I would say you’re absolutely justified in defending yourself or your child. However, as it is, all we know is that corps_suk directed words to the child. We don’t know tone of voice, facial expression, distance from the child, or any other important details to determine whether or not a threat was made. While we must acknowledge that this doesn’t prove there WASN’T a threat, it similarly doesn’t prove that there was. Following the principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” we must then assume there was no threat unless we can prove that there was. Thus, your talk of physical violence is talk of a grossly disproportionate response to a person in a public place exercising their right to free speech in a manner with which you disagree.

                • StanW

                  Interesting, Celt. You are still taking what SUK said, sanitizing it out of existence, and then criticizing me for making things up.

                  SUK clearing stated that he had an issue with the parents, yet TOLD the child that their parents were LIARS. And I never talked about physical violence. Perhaps you should accord me the same benefit of the doubt you are so willing to give SUK.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

                  You might not have explicitly talked about physical violence but that was what you implied. You’re also backpedaling and stubbornly holding onto your beliefs at the same time. Celt perfectly explained how you were wrong, where you were wrong in your assessment and why. Be a man and own up to it. Admit you were wrong to over react and lets move on.

                • StanW

                  Implied? Seriously?

                  SUK IMPLIED that he got in the child’s face and told them that their parents were liars, yet you have no problem with that.

                  The part you are not seeing is that NONE OF YOU HERE have any right to tell my child anything. Your opinions are meaningless. Admit that and let’s move on!

                • Kinky F.

                  No dipshit, he said he would “get in their face and use words”…..you IMPLIED this meant violence – but nowhere was violence mentioned.

                  You do know the difference between implied and inferred, right cowboy?

                • CelticWhisper

                  You had the benefit of the doubt until you said “I would consider it assault and respond accordingly.” This suggests escalation in response to a perfectly lawful action.

                  You want me to address what corps_suk said? Fine. I happen to agree with it. I think that more children should be told, by strangers, in a nonthreatening and non-aggressive manner, to question the assumptions given them by their parents. If that means insinuating, or flat-out stating, that those parents are liars…well, then, that gives the child something to think about. If the parents actually are liars (such as the case with Santa Claus), then it ends up being a valuable life lesson in self-reliance and skepticism for the child.

                • StanW

                  And why do you assume that what SUK said was said “in a nonthreatening and non-aggressive manner”.

                  And why do you consider it YOUR business to tell someone else how to raise their children.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

                  Why do you assume that it WAS said in a “threatening and aggressive” manner? Why do you assume it is YOUR business to decide what they can say and to whom in a public venue? You see two can play this game Stan.

                • StanW

                  Read some of SUK’s pasts posts, David. To believe he said what he claims to have said in a threatening manner is not a stretch AT ALL!

                • CelticWhisper

                  Oh, I’m not telling anyone else how to raise their child. I’m simply making a statement to the child. The parent still has every right to go home and excoriate me to the kid in private. In public, however, free speech is free speech.

                • StanW

                  So I am free to tell everyone that you like to rape kittens and tell your children that you kill little boys and girls that do not do as their told?

                  Free speech, Celt.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Evans/1017276335 John Evans

                  Provided you don’t fall afoul of defamation laws, yes Stan, you are.

                • StanW

                  And I am sure Celt would stand by while I told their children that, don’t you agree John?

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Evans/1017276335 John Evans

                  I doubt it. But I have no reason to believe that Celt would treat it as a criminal action, or respond to it with a criminal action.

                • StanW

                  He might.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Evans/1017276335 John Evans

                  I might also win a million dollars tomorrow. Rather than deal with hypotheticals I am only dealing with the known fact that you stated you would treat it like assault – that is, treat it like a criminal action.

                • StanW

                  I am not sure why you are so hung up on the legal definition, John. But in a small sense, you are correct. If SUK were to approach my child and start telling them that I am a liar and cannot be trusted, I would take that verbal assault as a threat and respond accordingly.

                • Reginald Selkirk

                  What if someone told your children that their father is prone to violence? Would you treat that as assault and beat them up to make their point for them?

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Evans/1017276335 John Evans

                  I’m hung up on the legal definition because the law delineates the rights of the citizenry. Going only from what SUK wrote, he does not appear to have stepped outside those bounds. I’m not disputing whether what he said to the child was conceivably rude, antisocial, inappropriate or whatever. I am only disputing whether it was assault (which has a legal definition) and/or a violation of the child’s rights (as defined by law). People do all kinds of things that get right up in my business and make me angry and frustrated, but are within the rights they have by law, so I have no legal recourse. Shorter: I’m hung up on law because you’re talking rights, which are about laws.

                • StanW

                  And in all of that, where is suk”s right to tell my child anything?

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Evans/1017276335 John Evans

                  It’s part of his right to say anything, to anyone, provided he isn’t falling afoul of defamation laws. You don’t have to like it, but the law says he can do it.

                • StanW

                  And this legalistic gyrations would be fun, if this were a case where I wanted SUK arrested for talking to my child.

                  Please re-read how I responded to SUK, and remember that I was replying to his hypothetical situation.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Evans/1017276335 John Evans

                  You used the words ‘assault’ and ‘respond accodingly’. Assault is a crime, and responding accordingly would involve having the criminal charged, would it not?

                  If I have misunderstood your intention, would it be possible for you to word it differently so that I might understand you more clearly?

                • StanW

                  I have already explained to another poster what I would do in the hypothetical scenario, John. Please do not debase yourself by incorrectly ASSUMING what I would do. Just ask!

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Evans/1017276335 John Evans

                  Hello Stan. I just re-read every comment you made in this thread, and unfortunately I was not able to find where you elaborated on what you meant by ‘respond accordingly’.

                • StanW
                • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Evans/1017276335 John Evans

                  Thank you Stan. I don’t know how I missed that, other than perhaps the sheer length this comment thread has reached. Sorry for making you go chase it down. I would certainly consider that an appropriate response, both in degree and effect. Meeting communication with communication.

                  I still disagree with your position that an individual would be outside their rights to speak their opinion to a child, though.

                • Kinky F.

                  Oooooooo Tough Guy. Would you use a gun? Fists? Try and land one good womanly slap to the “offender”?

                • Speedwell

                  There’s that “respond accordingly” again. What exactly would you threaten him with in response, telling him his parents are liars?

                • http://www.facebook.com/Scott.McElhiney Redorblack Nigelbottom

                  StanW clarified and I quote,”If SUK were to approach my child and start telling them that I am a liar and cannot be trusted, I would take that verbal assault as a threat and respond accordingly.”

                  Please explain the threat and more importantly… what “respond accordingly” consists of…

                • StanW
                • dorcheat

                  Stan, I can not speak for Celt, but according to the law, you have absolutely every right to say in public places that Celt “likes to rape kittens and tell Celt’s children that Celt kills little boys and girls that do not do as their told.”
                  Go for it. Break a leg. Legally you can say all of the above in public places!

                • StanW

                  Thank you Dor.

                • Kinky F.

                  You just catwerwauled against free speech and now invoke it? Jesus Titty Fucking Christ Riding Mohammed with his Dick Up HIs Ass you are an idiot.

                • StanW

                  Proof! Now!

                • Kinky F.

                  Proof that you are an idiot? Just scroll up and read your ramblings. There is proof enough sweet dear.

                  I hope you are not gay. Are you gay? Because if you are gay, you shame the entire gay community, a community filled with smart and good people. PLease tell me you are not gay…..Oh sweet Jesus GIving Head to Mohammed I hope you are not gay.

                • Kinky F.

                  You do not know about slander and libel do you? If he does not rape kittens and you have proof but say or write this down, causing him harm, yappers, it is illegal!

                • StanW

                  Interesting, so unless SUK has proof of what he said to the child, is that still illegal?

                • Speedwell

                  Nope, because it isn’t libel or slander. Do try to keep up, cupcake.

                • Reginald Selkirk

                  And why do you consider it YOUR business to tell someone else how to raise their children

                  Why do you continually speak of children as though they were possessions of the parents, and not people in and of themselves?

                • StanW

                  Amazing that there are people that think like you, Reggie!

                • CacophonousBlacksmith

                  Hey man what’s up, though I’m not Atheist (nor religious) I really have no reason to specify since it’s a disclaimer to just state my business, DUUUUUUUUDE, hold man, words are not the same as beating the snot out of someone, they’re just words, regardless for the second they are uttered in the grand scheme of the things in the universe they MEAN NOTHING. If they didn’t make you cry, nor ESPECIALLY cause your child to cry (this being the context of your argument) well it’s not assault, not even verbal abuse like “You’re an idiot for believing in God’ or “You’re an idiot for not believing in God” that is DISRESPECTFUL, however not VIOLENT, thus it’s a matter of opinion not a matter of abuse. Notice how my words are not hurting you in a anyway?
                  Familiar with the phrase “sticks and stones may break my bones but words may never help me?” literary proof words can be used as “razors” however you and everyone else knows those are metaphors, for obviously you know those aren’t actual PHYSICAL RAZORS, RIGHT? Nice to meet you Stan, btw.

          • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

            Hmm, then maybe mommy and daddy shouldn’t have brought their snowflake to a PP protest? I know, taking your kids to appropriare venues is just so hard!

            • StanW

              Children should be able to go out in public without having some crazy person get in their face and tell them their parents are liars.

              • Psychotic Atheist

                So, by extension, children should be allowed to visit a Planned Parenthood venue without some crazy family getting in their face and telling them that their parents are murderers…..right?

                • StanW

                  Very good, I agree with that.

              • Reginald Selkirk

                What if their parents are liars? You are now claiming that it should be forbidden to say a true thing.

                • StanW

                  Still only your opinion, Reggie!

              • Kinky F.

                Were you dropped on your head? Did you take a bullet to the melon? Have a titanium plate in your head? Because you are a fucking idiot. No joke. No tongue. You are amonst the dumbest of assholes to ever lay a comment on a website. Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, Texas is home to some of the dumbest fucks around.

              • Lagerbaer

                Nope. We don’t have to suck up to your special darling when you choose to use them as a tool in your own bigoted agenda.

              • sara

                Parents should be aware that there are going to be other people in public places. Especially at protests or rallies. You can’t just shut down the opposition by using your kids as a human shield.

                • StanW

                  Sara, please confine your remarks to what I have actually said.

                  SUK was perfectly free to get in the face of the actual person doing the argument. He did not. He attacked the CHILD.

                  THAT was my entire issue. That SUK was too much of a coward to go after the adult in the situation, he had to go directly to a child.

                • Speedwell

                  Actually, as we have been pointing out ad nauseam, nobody was attacked.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Scott.McElhiney Redorblack Nigelbottom

                  Not only was the child not attacked (a comment is not an attack unless designed to injure), but did you also get moderator status? Maybe it is in your bible that you get to order women around and they aren’t allowed to stray from what you want them to speak upon. I don’t think that flies here.

              • DavidMHart

                As a hypothetical, what if the parents are liars and the person saying so is perfectly sane? Do parents have the right to shield their children from any opinion they happen to disagree with, regardless of who is correct?

                And would your answer change if the parents were not consciously liars but honestly mistaken, and the person pointing that out was perfectly sane? Do parents have the right to demand that their children be kept ignorant of the fact that their parents might be mistaken about something?

                • StanW

                  “Do parents have the right to shield their children from any opinion they happen to disagree with, regardless of who is correct?”

                  Yes!

                • 3lemenope

                  And where do you find this right? From where is it derived?

                • DavidMHart

                  I presume you’re talking about your opinion, rather than a legal right that you could enforce in the courts. But I’m curious as to why you think this is a right worth defending. If you were mistaken about an important question, and your children grew up believing that mistaken thing, wouldn’t you want other people to be able to enlighten them? That is to say, don’t you think it would be better for your children to have as few false beliefs and as many true beliefs as possible, than to have all of the false beliefs that you do?

                • StanW

                  If I am mistaken about something I taught my children, then it is my responsibility to correct that. It is not your responsibility to force your OPINION on my children.

                • DavidMHart

                  No, but it is my right to express my opinion to someone else’s child in public (expressing your opinion to a child is not the same thing as forcing your opinion on a child – I’m not sure what you even mean there, as ‘forcing’ implies that someone would be compelling the child to agree with them, rather than simply sharing their opinion).

                  But you didn’t answer part of the question, and I’m curious to see how deep your parenting isolationism runs. So if you don’t mind continuing the discussion, do you
                  1) consider that you as a parent hold an ethical right to lie to your children, and do you

                  2) consider that you as a parent consider you have an ethical right to prevent others from sharing the truth with your children, and if so, why?, and
                  3) Do you understand that the relationship between a parent and a child is one of stewardship, not one of ownership?

                • StanW

                  1) Since you and I disagree on what constitutes a ‘lie’, there is no way to answer this question.
                  2) Same as #1, since we are not in agreement on what is the truth
                  3) Yes, I understand that. However, I am totally responsible for that child until they can be independent. That occurs at different times for each child. One of my responsibilities s to protect that child from crazy people like SUK.

                • DavidMHart

                  I hope you don’t mind me asking some follow-up questions – I’ve never before met anyone who takes such a ‘parenting isolationist’ stance, and I’m curious as to how it plays out.

                  1) and 2) A lie for these purposes is a statement that is untrue, that the person making it knows to be untrue (as opposed to a mistaken statement, which is a statement that is untrue, but that the person making it erroneously thinks is true). We may not be able to agree in any given dispute where the truth falls, but we can surely agree in principle on what a lie is. Do you assert an ethical right in general to lie to your children for this definition of lie, and defend those lies from those who would share the truth with your children? Or do you assert a more limited right to lie to your children and shield them from the truth only in a narrowly defined area?

                  3) I’m happy to agree that you have the right – indeed the duty – to shield your child from crazy people who wish to cause them harm and distress. But what if the person is not crazy; what if they are perfectly calm and rational, and happen to know that something you have told your child is either a lie, or an honest mistake (and, let’s say for the sake of this discussion that you are so invested in the lie or mistake that you cannot be persuaded out of it, but your child is sufficiently open-minded that they can)? Do you assert an ethical right to shield your child from such people trying to share the truth from them, and if so, why? Do you, in effect, assert a right to keep your child ignorant or deluded no matter how civilly others try to share the truth with them? And do you continue to assert that right even if believing the mistake will cause your child harm?

                  deluded no matter how politely others try to share the truth with them?

                • StanW

                  1&2) What I do not agree with is a person such as yourself deciding that what I have told my child is a lie, and then taking it upon yourself to confront my child over the issue. Just because you may believe that abortion is appropriate, or that religion is idiocy, you do not have the right to force your OPINION on my child against MY wishes.
                  I also assert the ethical right to decide whether I want you tell my child anything. If I voluntarily hand my child over to you in the form of a teacher, then that is a different matter.
                  3) Yes, I have the ethical right to shield my child from anything that *I* choose. Until that child is mature, autonomous, and able to make that decision for themselves, then that is MY responsibility as a parent. And as an addemdum, if this were about being polite, then corp_suk would have asked permission from the parent before addressing the child.

                  But I will say David, is that I appreciate the way you have made your point and asked me questions, rather than the vulgar insults or the mind-reading so many others here have used.

                • 3lemenope

                  What is an ethical right?

                • DavidMHart

                  Okay. I think we’ve got a bit closer to the core of your position here. But I’ve got to ask, why do you equate ‘sharing my opinion with your child’ with ‘forcing my opinion on your child’? If you think that x=y, and I tell you that actually, as far as I can tell, x=z, that wouldn’t be me forcing my opinion on you, that would just be me sharing my opinion with you? So if I tell your child that x=z, why would that be ‘forcing’? Or do you hold that it is inherently coercive for anyone to give any information to a child that is not theirs?

                  And do you assert the ethical right to shield your child from other people’s opinion even in cases where they are incontrovertibly right and you just happen, for whatever reason, to have been blinded from the truth and as a result are hostile to it (leave aside the difficulty of ascertaining the truth) – that is, do you assert a right to keep your child ignorant of any truth, no matter how beneficial it may for that child to know the truth, or how harmful it may be for your child to believe an untruth, and if so, why?

                • 3lemenope

                  When your kid makes friends, those friends are going to tell him stuff that does not accord with your views and opinions. So are those friends’ parents. And their teachers at school. And commentators arguing on the TV or radio. And the Internet! My goodness, so many opinions.

                  So, do you intend to prevent your kid from having friends, and going to school, and listening to the radio, watching TV and using a computer? Because otherwise, I’m not seeing your grand plan of being the only one to teach your kid stuff as working out the way you think it will.

                • StanW

                  I like the way you are trying to make this into some grand plan on parenting, rather that my original point of protecting my child from a crazy person like SUK.

                • 3lemenope

                  Uh, all we have to go off of is what you say. So when you use legal terms like “assault” and “right”, for example, we tend to assume legitimately that you’re talking in terms of the law. Hence the resulting confusion when that apparently isn’t what you meant at all. And when you assert that no adult but you has the right to present opinions to your children (especially opinions contrary to yours), I tend to take you seriously on that claim, hence me pointing out exactly what you’d have to do to accomplish fulfilling such a desire. When you come back with stuff like saying well really you weren’t trying to make a legal point, or you weren’t really saying that adults can’t talk to your kids, it’s awfully difficult to not read you as saying, roughly, that you generally mean nothing of what you just said, whatever that happens to be.

                • StanW

                  3, pay close attention.

                  This discussion started as a response to corps_suk in saying that he had a problem with what an adult said and responded by confronting a child. I told him (and him alone) that if he tried to do that with my child, I would respond accordingly.

                  The rest of this discussion has come from the Liberal horde on this board attacking me for lying to my child about religion and claiming that I do not want them to know “the truth”. What none of you are capable of admitting is that your supposed ‘truth’ ISN’T. Also, that it is not your job or your responsibility to confront my child with your political agenda.

                • 3lemenope

                  I paid close attention. This is what was said at the beginning

                  corps_suk: Love this technique, I do it all the time. Once at PP there was a family with a 10 year old and my sign said “F@€k this family of bigots” The dad got all hurt that I would swear in front of his kid so I told the kid there was no god just like there was no Santa…it was just mom and dad lying to control him, they promptly left. The irony of the first amendment not protecting people from offense was totally lost on them.

                  StanW: Good thing you did not try that on my children, SUK. I would consider it assault and respond accordingly. Typical of a pathetic coward like you to attack children!

                  Liz Calato: Typical of an ignorant internet tough guy like you to mistake telling the truth for an attack on a child. Or maybe you haven’t figured out the whole Santa thing yet…..

                  StanW: Not the point, it is not SUK’d job to threaten or intimidate my child with his own personal opinion!

                  ——————————————-

                  So what corps-suk did was turn to a child in a public space and say two things:

                  1. There is no God
                  2. Your parents lie to you that there is a God to control you

                  So, two rather banal statements, neither of which particularly marks corps_suk as a “crazy person”. You responded by interpreting someone making such statements to your child as an “assault” to which you would “respond accordingly”.

                  Then you were challenged by a person who did not buy your equating someone telling your child a statment with assault. In response to which you *clarified* that you believe it is not appropriate for corps_suk to share his statements aloud with your children being present, because that according to you would be a threat or an intimidation.

                  So I’m pretty clear what the conversation is about. You furiously backpedaling on your initial claims is amusing and all, but your attempt to rewrite very recent history is approaching pathetic.

                  Also, liberal horde? I guess I get to be an honorary member. Do they have pins or jackets or something? I’d hate to have been part of a horde, even a token part, and not get any swag out of it.

                • StanW

                  Those are far from ‘banal’ statements.

                  And I have not back-peddled at all. I have just continued to dismiss the idiocy of some posters that claim I am trying to keep my child from the truth.

                • 3lemenope

                  The statements are unremarkable in any way relevant to whether your reaction is appropriate to them. Hence, banal.

                  And you’ve been *all over the place* on this thread as to whether you only object to corps_suk and him alone, or whether you think that the principle you are articulating, roughly that only you ought to have the ability to confer opinions onto your children, should apply more broadly. If it’s the former, then looking at the banality of corps_suk’s actual statements makes you appear rather unhinged. If it’s the latter (and I dearly hope it is), you have done an extremely poor job of actually articulating what you mean by your objections, because it is unclear, as I pointed out, how anything short of total isolation from the world would achieve what you seem to want to achieve if corps_suk’s comments are merely an indicative example and not the limiting case.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Scott.McElhiney Redorblack Nigelbottom

                  Oh, you have backpedaled…I think everyone here knows what you actually meant by “respond accordingly”, and that your clarification was backing down from a puffed up chest on the internet. You just can’t stop insulting those whom you have shown up to ‘debate’ with terms like idiots, crazy, Liberals, hordes. Since you keep saying that everything they say is only their opinion, even though they base their opinions in facts rather than fantasies, give us some proof you are not trying to keep your child from the truth by making it your rule that no one has the right to speak to your child.

                  What you are doing here is giving yourself a big hardon thinking that you are beating the internet… prove otherwise.

                • Speedwell

                  Yup, I;m not capable of claiming the truth is a lie. Yay me.

                • Speedwell

                  So your new line, since you can’t come up with anything better, is that he’s crazy? Where did you get your psychiatric degree?

                • http://www.facebook.com/Scott.McElhiney Redorblack Nigelbottom

                  While you claim others are attacking children and assaulting them, you continue to repeatedly commit libel. See if you can figure out why? By the way, that IS a crime.

                • 3lemenope

                  [nitpick]Technically, libel is a civil tort, not a crime, at least in common law countries. (In some countries more heavily influenced by the Corpus Juris Civilis in the development of their legal systems, it is a crime.)[/nitpick]

                • http://www.facebook.com/Scott.McElhiney Redorblack Nigelbottom

                  Point taken…

                • allein

                  If you are that intent on shielding your kids from other people’s words, then don’t take them out in public.

              • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

                Then get used to people saying or doing things you don’t like. The public at large isn’t responsible for making sure your crotchfruit isn’t subjected to things that you find uncomfortable. Either limit where you take your child if you’re so easily offended or STFU and learn how to talk to your kid about the differing views they will hear. Acting like, “OMG! They said words to a child that I don’t agree with! That’s ASSAULT!” is ridiculous and you damn well know it, troll.

          • sara

            If the presence of children shut down the right to free speech, people could always just shut down anyone who disagrees with them by bringing their kids along, which the family in question was trying to do by bringing their children to a rally.

            • StanW

              Or maybe they wanted to introduce the children to the political process and make them better citizens.

              Or maybe they were just out in public and happened upon the rally.

              SUK never really says anything about the background.

        • Greg G.

          The Bible says followers of Jesus will be persecuted. Therefore laughing at them or telling them they are wrong is persecution since they’re not being fed to the lions anymore.

      • Liz Calato

        Typical of an ignorant internet tough guy like you to mistake telling the truth for an attack on a child. Or maybe you haven’t figured out the whole Santa thing yet…..

        • StanW

          Not the point, it is not SUK’d job to threaten or intimidate my child with his own personal opinion!

          • Speedwell

            Is it your job to threaten and intimidate your own children with the wrath and damnation of God?

            • http://www.facebook.com/mollyenglish Molly Effin English

              This is the best thing I’ve read all day!
              _(Ms. English)

          • Speedwell

            Great, then how would you have “responded accordingly”? With Christian goodwill, I assume?

            • StanW

              Not being there, I’m not sure. Most likely I would have stepped in between SUK and my child and TOLD him if he had something to say, he should say it to my face and leave my child alone.

              • Kinky F.

                So, if you and your Texas pals have a mandatory assembly where kids have to attend a Christian telling them to behave and get right with Jesus, I then could step in and yell (in loud, ignorant Texas fashun [sic]) to say it to MY face and leave the kids alone?

                Typical ignorant Texas christian. Always yelling the ludest when it suits them, then turning tail and trying to hide behind something they rail against in the first place.

                • StanW

                  That is not allowed in schools here, Kink.

                • Kinky F.

                  Happens down in your inbred hell ALL the time hillbilly. Don’t be a liar too, boy.

                • StanW

                  Please provide proof, Kinky. I mean, if it happens all the time, that should be easy.

                • Kinky F.

                  o your own research hillbilly; I suggest you start with these two:

                  aclu.org

                  splcenter.org

                  This of course, presumes you are literate and can read…..big stretch for Texans I know…..

                • StanW

                  Oh, so you make a claim and you are unable (or unwilling) to back it up.

                  Thank you Kink, you may go now!

                • Kinky F.

                  Hillbilly, the proof is all right there, you just need to shive your chubby-ass fingers along the keyboard to find them…Y’all know how to do that between bible sessions, gun shootin’ meetins’ and eatin’ yerself into an obese grave down yonder way?

                • StanW

                  Please provide proof, Kink. Need a reminder?

                  you and your Texas pals have a mandatory assembly where kids have to attend a Christian telling them to behave and get right with Jesus

                  k, pumpkin’?

                • allein

                  Did you miss the word “if” before that? It was a hypothetical question. (Though I assume it was based on the real event that happened recently, I believe in Mississippi, which was posted on this very blog.)

                • http://www.facebook.com/Scott.McElhiney Redorblack Nigelbottom

                  I’ll start with first hit… not Texas though, but just a few days ago. http://www.kltv.com/story/22080524/northwest-rankin-high-sued-for-religious-assembly

                • http://www.facebook.com/Scott.McElhiney Redorblack Nigelbottom

                  Who needs an assembly when you teach evangelical christianity in the classroom under the guise of a serious class. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/texas-public-schools-teac_n_2568828.html

                • http://www.facebook.com/Scott.McElhiney Redorblack Nigelbottom

                  http://www.aclutx.org/2012/09/12/schools-in-texas-routinely-violate-constitutional-protections-for-religious-freedom/

                  I know, I know… you are going to nit pick about it not being exactly a mandatory assembly as if that makes it all right. The fact that in some areas of Texas, if you aren’t the right religion, you will get discriminated against… and maybe have your house firebombed.

                • Speedwell

                  As a Texan who knows Texan kids, I beg to differ. It is allowed here, because people allow it. It isn’t SUPPOSED to be allowed here, or it is illegal here, you might have meant instead.

                • StanW

                  Then please provide some proof. Kink can’t seem to do that!

                • Speedwell

                  He did, but you’re too lazy to mouse click, or you’re hanging on tooth and nail to this conversation because it matters so much to your pinheaded ego.

                • StanW

                  So, no proof. Imagine my surprise.

                • Kinky F.

                  Let’s say you are right, but then let’s also say it does happen in hypothetical world. If it did happen, would you be alright with me standing up and taking on the Christians leading the assembly? Answer the question Tex.

                • StanW

                  Got that proof yet, Kink?

                • Kinky F.

                  Answer the question Oxygen thief. Seriously, just answer the hypothetical question.

                • Tweekus

                  Oh you poor misguided Texan. No wonder Texas wants to secede from the Union. I understand not all people in Texas are like that, but a bunch of you lot are all about “god, guns, and beer.”

                  Newsflash: Crap like that not only happens in TEXAS, but in the south in general. You’re pussyfooting around the topic and getting offended when the evidence is right in front of your eyes. So, to use your own words against you, Thank you, StanW, you may go.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Bahahahaha. No, not technically. In reality? I grew up in Texas and live there still. Christianity is everywhere. Prayer before football games. Fellowship of Christian Athletes. The Pole prayer thingy (I forget the exact name). The principal in elementary school scheduling the yearbook photos on Yom Kippur, and having reward pizza parties during Passover (both things got shut down by my parents and those of another student after the first year, but it shouldn’t have been necessary). “Nondenominational” invocations at graduation, both by a student AND a preacher. “Nondenominational” invocations before school board meetings. Proselytizing by students on a regular basis, both in handing out literature and in conversation. I can’t tell you the number of times I was in line for lunch and got into it about religion with another student who came up to me for the express purpose of “bringing me to Jesus”, and I didn’t even identify as atheist yet. I was merely Jewish.

                  Most of this is legal. Most of it should be legal. That doesn’t make it any less alienating or annoying. It also doesn’t make it ethically right to do any of it.

              • sara

                If you brought your children there to attack others, you are the one who put them in “danger” of hearing viewpoints other than your own.

                • StanW

                  Again, in SUK’s scenario, it was the adult doing the talking, while SUK ignored the adult and instead directed his response to the child.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

                  Maybe because he regarded the kid as an individual instead of his parents property – how shocking!

              • Wild Rumpus

                corps_suk did say it to the face of the Father. The child was just there.

              • Spuddie

                If you are bringing children to a protest, you should expect them to hear harsh words.

          • blasphemous_kansan

            “threats”, “intimidation”, “his personal opinion”.

            One of these things is not like the others.

          • Kinky F.

            No, it is the point. I have witnessed hundreds if not thousands of cyber-cowards like you. You yell a good game online, but in EVERY instance when those mouths are confronted in public, they shrivel like an old man’s testicles in icy water. You are no different.

            The only exception to this is when three or more coward types like yourselves are gathered together, and then the pack-effect takes hold. You get extra-bold, thinking your pack protects you, but it does not.

            You are a mouth, vacuous at best, bigoted/homophobic and deluded at worst.

            I for one, am not afraid of your threat or you as a person. Based on your prolific Internet posting profile and history, I’d wager my deed and yearly wages you are a coward outside the confines of the Interwebs.

            Little men like you are nothing to fear. In fact, little men like you inspire great men to action – these are men and women who actually do something for positive change. Meanwhile, little people like you just whine online thinking it makes them tough and smart.

            • StanW

              WOW, you have some very serious anger issues, Kink. I have not threatened you, nor have you given me a reason to even be threatened by you.

              But thank you for proving you know absolutely nothing about me.

              • Kinky F.

                I know as much as I need to know, or wish to know about you. You are just like every other mouth and HTML tough guy. You are a coward, are no patriot as you seek to destroy the laws and oppress. No, you are a nothing; a popcorn fart – slightly uncomforting, but ultimately meaningless as anything other than a hate-filled bigot who thinks the Internet is a sword.

                While you rant online, I shall go to my representatives office; I shall gather and stir people to action; I will write letters, donate time and money and ensure equality for all out there – all this while you stew in hate and anger from the hidden confines of nothing but a computer screen. Please, rant away, as it takes time away from your life, and allows us the fuel to actively work for positive change, with the intent of squelching the hate from people like you.

                • StanW

                  Again, you know nothing about me, nor about the work I do to effect change. Your inability to argue a single valid point, or comport yourself in a debate tells me that none of the things you claim to do are being done.

                • Kinky F.

                  You are the “I know you are but what am I” kid from the playground! I just figured it out! Everytime someone actually figures you out, you then give the child-equivalent of “I know you are but what am I”!!! Your above statement was nothing but an obvious paraphrased attempt at turning things on me from what I figured out about you!

                  Oh this is rich! So funny and terribly sad. It does nothing but solidify my assessment of you. You do nothing. I knew it! Your idea of activism is yer “church on Sundey [sic] and the Internet!

                  I have now renamed you “popcorn fart” for your extremely lightweight annoyance!!!

                  Adieu Mon Ami “Popcorn Fart” – Je vous espère obstruction sur votre propre vomi et obtiens la maladie de Lou Gehrigs!!!

                • StanW

                  Kink, you are the one that has lost control of yourself, as evidenced by your idiotic rant here.

                  There is more to activism than posting and boasting on a chat board. Your claims are nothing and your inability to hold a civil conversation makes me believe than none of them are true or even possible.

                  When I am serving at the homeless shelter, or counseling at the unwed mother’s shelter, I will think of you and smile.

                • Kinky F.

                  Yawn…you’re lying. DOn’t forget what your user manual – aka BIBLE – says about lying….

                  You are full of shit. “Unwed Mother’s Shelter” – nowhere beyond comic books is that a term used as such…..liar.

                • Kinky F.

                  HAhahahahah – I just remembered something, “Unwed Mother’s Shelter” is my fave Rolling Stone’s album….oh I could listen to it all day long…..hahahahHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHhahaha

                  What a tool! Liar!

                • StanW

                  Again proving you know nothing about me, Kink!

          • Brian

            I see no attack on the child. Only an attack on your ego.

        • your fuckin nightmare

          lol

      • CelticWhisper

        What makes you so sure that corps_suk would be incapable of self-defense were you to attack them?

        • StanW

          I never said he wasn’t, Celt.

      • http://www.facebook.com/usman.bello.125 Usman Bello

        So, how many martial arts do you know, Internet Tough Guy?

        • StanW

          None, you?

        • Matthew Delemos

          He’s using an anomyous identity to argue with people he already doesn’t like….so……he knows the basics of Troll-Fu I guess.

      • Wild Rumpus

        How is standing up to bigotry and telling the truth an assault on children? I would think the hatred and nonsense coming from the parents mouths was much more harmful than what corps suk said.

        Fortunately, I live in Canada so StanW can’t shoot me for delusionally considering freedom of expression to be equal to assault of a child. Christ, what an asshole.

        • StanW

          “I would think the hatred and nonsense coming from the parents mouths was much more harmful than what corps suk said.”

          And do you realize, even all the way up in Canada, that THAT IS NOT YOUR CALL!

          • Speedwell

            Do YOU realize, even here in Texasistan, that your child is neither your property nor an extension of your body?

      • liu

        They told my children there was no Santa.

        So I shot them.

        • StanW

          That is an overreaction, LIU. Why are you being so violent?

      • pete084

        Telling children they will burn in the fires of hell if they don’t believe in your god is abuse of the very worst kind, nothing less than mental torture.

        • StanW

          Thank you for your OPINION!

          • JA

            Doesn’t make it not mental torture.

      • your fuckin nightmare

        mother fucker

        • StanW

          Hi ya, SUK.

          • CacophonousBlacksmith

            Hey man what’s up, though I’m not Atheist (nor religious) I really have no reason to specify since it’s a disclaimer to just state my business, DUUUUUUUUDE, hold man, words are not the same as beating the snot out of someone, they’re just words, regardless for the second they are uttered in the grand scheme of the things in the universe they MEAN NOTHING. If they didn’t make you cry, nor ESPECIALLY cause your child to cry (this being the context of your argument) well it’s not assault, not even verbal abuse like “You’re an idiot for believing in God’ or “You’re an idiot for not believing in God” that is DISRESPECTFUL, however not VIOLENT, thus it’s a matter of opinion not a matter of physical abuse. Notice how my words are not hurting you in a anyway?
            Familiar with the phrase “sticks and stones may break my bones but words may never hurt me?” literary proof words can be used as “razors” however you and everyone else knows those are metaphors, for obviously you know those aren’t actual PHYSICAL RAZORS, RIGHT? Hence what you are suffering from is a case of “emotional abuse” being you had your “FEELINGS HURT” A.K.A. your spirit is let down in a negative way. Nice to meet you Stan, btw. Not forcing you bro, just informing. If I gave the impression otherwise, then mistake me, for I am open to apologize.

      • onamission5

        So you would commit a crime and physically assault another human being in front of your kids because that human being had an opinion that was different than yours? And you think your kids would be less traumatized by that than by knowing someone else isn’t the same religion as their parent?
        Someone’s got their parenting priorities all fucked up.

      • Bdole

        People who bring their kids to protests should expect them to hear opposing viewpoints. Oh, and…

      • JA

        Watch out, we got us a badass here!

      • Guest

        I’m sure being jailed for assault would teach you the appropiate lesson then.
        As far as your claim that he’s cowardly and pathetic, well….that’s clearly your indoctrination telling you violence is ok when your faith is threatened, but you know that’s wrong, so you’ve justified it by projecting it as “attacking” your kid.
        That’s what’s pathetic. Youve actually threatened someone because your not smart enough to debate them. I’m sorry your child has a father like that but there’s always a chance for you to change.

        • Carpinions

          Yep.

          Stan, people uttering words is not assault. Simple concept, and you’d be no better than the crazy overbearing soccer dad if you did attack someone who dared to use his/her Constitutionally protected right to utter things you don’t like in your kid’s presence. In a not-so-dissimilar way this is like that mother in Michigan who is trying to stop schools from reading the latest edition of Anne Frank’s diary in class because in part of it she describes in detail some physical self discovery. So, throw out the whole life lesson because your feeling were hurt that someone dared to think differently than you.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rodney.barnes.5688 Rodney Barnes

        And what if that guy kicked your *ss while your kid watched? How would you live that down?

      • corps_suk

        Dang kid, you’re getting your a$$ kicked over here…go back to HE were ignorance is welcomed, people here actually think.

        As for you and your kid, you would be the pathetic coward attacking women at their most vulnerable, walking into a doctors office. You want to bring your kid to a protest then he/she will her my opinion and you can’t or won’t stop me, you and your kid have no right NOT to be offended.

        But play the victim kiddo.

        • StanW

          This is not about offense, SUK, it is about you being a coward and attacking a child, rather than saying your peace to my face.

          But then again, that is all you are good for. You were not even able to defend yourself on this thread today.

          • corps_suk

            Oh i would say it your face, your wife’s face, and your kids face. You want to come to a protest you better bring your spine champ. And there is nothing short of you getting arrested you can do to stop me kiddo.

            Don’t like it, hide in private because in public speech is free…

            • StanW

              Typical of you, SUK. You claim you would get in my wife’s face and my child’s face, right after you criticize the right for ” attacking women at their most vulnerable” at an abortion clinic.

              So I guess it is only OK when you do it, right SUK.

              • corps_suk

                I GET IT!
                You can’t understand what you read…now your linty of comments makes sense.

                I said I would say it TO your face, your wifes face, and your kids face. And if you were all standing outside a PP attacking women going in you bet I would.

                No where did I say I would “get in” their face…how emotional of you to think so.

                But to your larger point, yes if people are harassing women going to the doctor then I love harassing them while they are harassing others. Don’t like, don’t bring your kids and wife to act as a shield…a true sign of cowardice. Though i would love to see one of you fundies verbally confront my wife at a PP, watching you cry would be awesome.

                • StanW

                  SUK, I already know what type of person you are. You said it yourself when you claimed you would take it upon yourself to confront and verbally attack my child.

                  I doubt you get anything, but I welcome you to make the attempt on my family. That would be a really fun afternoon, for me.

                • Ribbey

                  Hey Stan..! : )

                • StanW

                  Evening, miLady!

                • corps_suk

                  A child protesting at PP, finish the sentence kiddo.

                  I would speak to your child about myths, fairy tales, and the damage having imaginary friends as an adult causes. You could try and over talk me, thats your right. But if your kid is in public protesting at a PP he/she is fair game, just like you. If you choose to hide behind a child that is your right as a coward.

                  The one thing you are correct about is how fun it would be, I will talk to whoever when in public and you cant stop me…you will talk to whoever and I cant stop you….but the second you touch me you’re done.

                • StanW

                  Oooo, a threat, from the coward that would take it upon themselves to demand my child listen to his OPINION.

                  You are pathetic, SUK. Run away again, like you did before!

                • corps_suk

                  Oh no threat, you’d be arrested, then I would have all afternoon to talk to your kid about reality.

                  No demand, If you don’t like my free speech outside a PP, leave…isn’t freedom awesome?

                  Run away? Nah, its too fun to watch you embarass yourself yet again.

                • StanW

                  My kids have minds of their own, and do not need a crazy and vulgar person such as yourself screaming at them and calling it ‘truth’.

                  And as far as running away, you did it this morning, you’ll do it again.

                • corps_suk

                  So if they have minds of their own, why are you afraid of them hearing others opinions? So very afraid of different ideas you consider anything NOT YOUR opinion assault?

                  Its called a job kid, maybe someday when you pass 3rd grade science you will find one. I will be done with you in a minute though, the people around here with a brain have thoroughly embarrassed you and it is Hilarious you don’t see it.

                • StanW

                  hahahahaha, you are funny SUK. Useless but funny.

                  You are a vulgar and crazy individual. You are a threat to yourself and I don’t care. But when you become a threat to my children, then that is where their protection becomes my mission.

                  It would be best you keep that in mind before you decide that you need to TELL my children anything.

                • corps_suk

                  I will tell your children any opinion I want in a public place, including the one about god being a myth like santa, try to stop me. It would great if you could understand the constitution for once.

                  Like I said though, because your ignorance is so astounding, I am done. Run back to your like minded fools at Human Events.

                • StanW

                  hahahahahaha, running away is your trick, suk.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty
      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599181133 Chelsea Frost

        I’ll ask you what I ask trolls I encounter here: are you stupid or are you trolling?

    • CelticWhisper

      Someone get corps_suk a shovel and a bucket of win.

    • FBG

      Apparently no one can say anything without profanity anymore. I don’t take my kid to PP. I don’t need to go there to let him know that abortion is when a mother doesn’t want the baby in her tummy and gets an abortionist to kill him for her. I can tell him that all I want to in the comfort of my own home.

      • Speedwell

        This is a repost of something you posted over 2 hours ago. Honestly, that’s juvenile.

  • Kevin

    So, unless he’s a Westboro type, he’s just there to express his beliefs. Students mock him with obscene words on a sign. But the Christian guy is the hater. Got it. Tolerance, these days.

    • Reginald Selkirk

      Obscene words should be forbidden, but obscene thoughts are hunky dory. I do not understand your view.

    • CelticWhisper

      Words do not need to be obscene to be unethical. What the preacher is professing is deplorable and the sign-bearers are right to condemn him for it. Their use of obscene language has no negative impact on their message or the rectitude thereof.

    • Psychotic Atheist

      Hemant provided you with a name and some links. Why don’t you research the guy for yourself and see what is more hateful, his speech or their written words.

      Is it your position, in the name of tolerance, that we should tolerate for example child murderers? Or should we, you know, criticize them and deprive them of their liberty? Which is the more hateful act?

      If you don’t think we should tolerate some people, then its really a question of drawing a line. You seem to think its fair to do this to Westboro types, but have failed to see if PastorBoy is sufficiently like them to warrant respectfully standing outside of his personal space holding a sign that expresses the same free speech rights that allow him to say terrible things about homosexuals et al.

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      Yep, because words are MAGIC. Way to go criticizing style over substance.

    • Stev84

      “You have to tolerate my intolerance” is bullshit.

      • Kinky F.

        PRECISELY!!!!! Tolerance of intolerance is neither!!!!!

    • Baby_Raptor

      Oh, did you get butthurt because someone said words you don’t like?

      Put your big kid diaper on, Kevin. Words are sounds. That’s it. There’s nothing inherently bad about them. What you should be getting offended at is the message the person is trying to get across.

      I’m not even touching the rest of your post. It takes a special kind of brainwashed to claim that people saying “Fuck” is more offensive and intolerant than preaching hatred, discrimination and damnation. There’s probably no help for you there.

    • Carpinions

      You’re hiding behind what you and others perceive as “simple” disagreements, and saying those disagreements are not worth or do not rise to the level of being called bigotry.

      Problem is, they do.

      If there is no reasonable reason to deny same sex marriage rights, acceptance of same sex persons and couples, etc., then there is no good and therefore no moral reason to oppose them. It goes the same if the discussion was about racial integration. There is no good, morally defensible reason against integrating. The position you’re defending is exactly the same in principle as the one a nice white couple who just happened to disagree with the North and own slaves. It’s all apple pie until it’s not. That you don’t perceive acceptance of homosexuals as a serious moral and social issue as rising to the level of past civil rights movements is immaterial. At the end of the day the effect of not allow more liberty and freedom is the same, and obvious. And indefensible.

    • Crazy Russian

      Something’s wrong with your priorities if you think that the word “fuck” is more offensive than the suggestion that gay people deserve to be treated as second-class citizens.

  • DKeane123

    We have the view of the professor and the street preacher. When I turn on the local christian radio channel (the one that needs to survive via ratings), the views sound a lot more like the street preacher than the professor.

  • Rain

    What’s with fundies and universities? Why don’t they go hang out at a bowling alley or something.

    • baal

      They are collecting persecution points for an achievement. They then get to compare achievements later and maybe get into the demon hunting raid or use them to buy the speaking-in-tongues power up.

      Turns out Universities are also fairly safe places with a big audience. Some folks at bowling alleys might accidentally drop a ball on your foot or the owner could get tired of you annoying people and have you escorted out by the cops or off the lot if outside.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Uh-huh… “accidentally”.

        • baal

          I assure you, totally by ‘accident’.

  • http://twitter.com/the_final_pope Ben Roy

    I walked away from Christianity because of doubt, and learned to despise it because of fools like this.

  • Kirby_G

    “The preacher does nothing to win people over to his side[...]”

    The thing is, he’s not THERE to win people over to his side. He’s there to be the brave mighty God-warrior who stood among the evil heathens and stayed strong. He’s there to strengthen his own convictions because his holy book tells him that the students’ mockery means he is right.

    Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking that this type of person is there to make converts. He is there to make himself feel better and to build his high horse even higher as he separates himself further from the unwashed masses.

    • Godless Monster

      “The thing is, he’s not THERE to win people over to his side. He’s there
      to be the brave mighty God-warrior who stood among the evil heathens
      and stayed strong.”

      Agreed. I’d add that the actions of the two young men with the signs in the (above) photo demonstrate that their motivations are not all that different.

      • 3lemenope

        The itty bitty difference being it is fairly unlikely that the two young men believed they were engaged in a titanic twilight struggle with the personification of evil for the souls of all mankind when they made fun of the guy. They just made fun of him because he is very obviously an ass. Making fun of an ass doesn’t really evoke the same throes of existential melodrama as venturing onto Satan’s territory would, and I consequently doubt that they see themselves thus as chosen warriors standing strong against an evil anything. So, psychologically, actually not similar at all.

        • CacophonousBlacksmith

          I have friends who are in pretty much every kind of human being imaginable, can you please find my ABOVE comment, and see to it that Stan, tries to hear my words of potential wisdom? Thanks man, I have sympathy for him personally, can’t imagine which side of his brain is hurting more. Seriously I did know if it’s his left side (the rebellious, analytical, rational, intellectual and doubtful side) or his right (emotional, creative, personal,

  • Michael Edwards

    @StanW:disqus I have to commend you Stan for stating your position under vast opposition. You have been calm and you have used no insults; that’s different from some of the commenters..

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Evans/1017276335 John Evans

      You got the impression of calmness from stan’s posts? Did you read the same comments I did?

      • Michael Edwards

        Well i didn’t know how long he has been on this page. I see now all of the comments were to his incendiary posts.

    • baal

      But StanW did use ALL CAPS, imply that someone was too stupid to understand normal sized words and one post that sounds like a threat of physical violence. He’s also taken an absurd position on the law and has yet to point to a case or statute that backs his notion that it’s illegal to talk to a child.
      StanW is getting vast opposition. I’ll grant that claim.

      • Michael Edwards

        True

    • WatchingU

      StanW :Typical of a pathetic coward like you to attack children!

    • rhodent

      First, he has used insults. He has written phrases such as “when you are done having an argument with the voices in your head” and “I will try to use small words just for you” which counts. He may not have said “You are crazy” or “You are stupid”, but he definitely made the implications that people disagreeing with him were crazy or stupid.

      Second, he’s really just being a troll. He’s goading people into heated arguments about a tangentially-related topic and drowning out all the intelligent conversation about the post. It’s worth pointing out that as I write this there are 226 comments on this page, but if I minimize his response to Corp_Suk, there are only 22 comments left. If you do the math, that works out to 90% of the comments on this page being the result of his trolling.

      Mind you, the fact that there are over 200 posts show that he’s a very good troll, and also that there are too many people willing to take the bait.

      • 3lemenope

        I personally like trolls that randomly capitalize entire words. They add an aesthetic spice to the general mix you really can’t get any other way.

        • allein

          This thread has kept me entertained all day at work!

      • Michael Edwards

        Well I can’t argue with that. I should have looked deeper into the comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/roger.bauman Roger Bauman

    The weather’s warming up. The loony birds are migrating north again. It’s strange how none of these guys are interested in saving souls in Minnesota during February.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rodney.barnes.5688 Rodney Barnes

    Wish I would be alive for the day when they open history book’s and there’s a chapter entitled “The Decline and Fall of Christian Belief”.

  • rgcustomer

    Don’t be a gallstone; dicks are great.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      +1 because gallstones SUCK!

  • http://www.facebook.com/Scott.McElhiney Redorblack Nigelbottom

    An atheist plant would be demanding “Define Marriage as One Rapist, One Victim!” or “Marriage is One Widow, One Brother!”

  • PSABeliever

    Tony Jones is a Christian because he teaches New Testament just like I am a hamburger because I work at McDonalds.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X