In Response to Atheist Literature Distribution, One Christian Student Poured Water on Pamphlets

Last week, atheists distributed books and pamphlets at 11 high schools in Orange County, Florida in response to a similar distribution by Christian groups earlier in the year.

I’m hoping to have more information on how that went soon, but one response was worth sharing: At Boone High School in Orlando, one student named Heather told a television reporter that she poured water on the atheist literature (0:42 mark):

“I mean, I understand like it’s fair, you know — like, Christians come in here with their Bibles — but, you know… we all have our own opinions.”

For whatever reason, the reporter didn’t ask the student what she would’ve thought if atheists poured water on the Bibles back in January. Or maybe they edited that part out to prevent her from getting even more embarrassed since she thought vandalism was a legitimate response to a difference of opinion.

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.

  • ShoeUnited

    Why stop at pouring water?

    Why not burn those heathen pamphlets? Kill the atheist and end the war? But the atheist is just the tip of the social pus that produces free thinkers. Kill that one and another will come along and replace him. Shoot him too? Why not just shoot everyone and invade Poland?

  • chicago dyke

    women with freedom? oh goodness, we can’t have that.

    …that was possibly the most biased news report i’ve seen. today.

  • Grikmeer

    Pratchett has such a way with words…

  • GodVlogger (on YouTube)

    A religious hate crime? Destruction of property due to bias against the religious views of those who owned / provided the atheist literature?

  • Randomfactor

    “They will know we are Christians by our hate.”

  • Carnun Marcus-Page

    “I guess they have free choice, to some extent” – Yep, Christianity right there…

  • justmyopinion

    I love that there’s a person who’s, “not really happy” about kids being exposed to a belief that’s different from his own. I sincerely hope Muslims, Buddhists, Jewish people, Hindus, all decide to “expose” those children to their beliefs as well. Although spilling water on their literature will result in them being called bigots. Atheism is still OK to hate in the US

  • Stev84

    “They have the choice to do what we allow them to do”

  • MsC

    Heather should face punishment from her school for this act of vandalism then going on TV to brag about it. What a piece of garbage she is.

  • Kinky F.

    That is a self-confessed hate crime. Kick the kid out of the school, arrest her and prosecute. Any less is inequitable in how the law has given preference to the Christians and come down on the atheists.

    No “stern talking to”, no “slap on the wrist”. Those are not indulgences afforded to the atheist and secular students.

    Hate crim. Kicked out of school. Prosecute.

  • Kinky F.

    And it is worth noting – the idiot chick student said, “everyone is allowed their own opinion” – YES, and your god/myths/belief in bible are OPINIONS, not FACTS that they get to shove down our throats.

  • Patrick

    Can anyone else feel the cognitive dissonance in heather when she speaks? She’s afraid and confused, so scared of the ideas. The only thing she could think of in response to even considering that someone might have a different idea about reality was to lash out and destroy the idea.

    Christianity in a nutshell for the majority of it.

    Also the news story made no mention of the multiple requests that the bibles not be distributed in the schools.

  • Kinky F.

    My letter to the Vice Principal of this school, Mr. Anderson:

    Mr. Anderson;

    It has come to my attention that your High School recently had a day where atheist students were allowed equal time to place atheist literature in a prescribed zone. On the local FOX affiliate, a young woman – a student in your school – admitted to “pouring water” on the atheist literature.

    Sir, I ask you, has she been suspended yet? Is she going to be prosecuted under hate crime/religious persecution laws? If no, why not? She admitted to a crime on a newscast (Fox News – Orlando). This shall not be tolerated sir, and I would expect her to face a severe suspension, criminal charges being levied and perhaps even being dismissed form the school.

    Anything else Sir is not equal treatment. I am betting if an atheist student did the same to a Christian student when they are allowed to parade bibles and literature through the school, the punishment would be draconian.

    Do the right thing. Suspend her, arrest her and let her face the music.

    I am,


    American Citizen, Activist and Atheist

    This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. You may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.

  • baal

    I don’t understand your extremism. For a low level property damage (vandalism), the relevant punishment is detention.

  • Kinky F.

    No. It is a self-confessed hate crime.

    Suspend her, arrest her and kick her out of the school.

    There is no doubt of any of the crime, or the hate motivation. Turn the tables – what would happen to the atheist kid who poured water on a bible, then admitted it on a local TV news interview? He/she would have to go into hiding, he/she would be arrested/kicked out of the school/bullied/death threatened etc….

    No – no leniency to this daffy bitch. She committed a hate crime. She must pay the consequences, and if she has true conviction (hey, fun! A pun!) she would relish and jump at the chance to martyr herself for Christ.

  • Mike

    It wasn’t a hate crime. It was vandalism, no more, no less. It shouldn’t matter why she destroyed someone else’s property, it should simply matter that she did. She should be charged for vandalism and have to pay restitution for the price of the pamphlets she destroyed.

  • Bob Becker

    Good grief… a not very well educated juvenile did something dumb, poured some water on the lit, and was dim enough to say so on camera. Detention and an assigned essay on the first amendment would be sufficient. And appropriate. But hate crime? Criminal prosecution? I hope you were being facitious.

  • C Peterson

    No, I think GV is right on the mark- this is a hate crime. It wasn’t simple vandalism, and it does matter why she destroyed property. We recognize hate crimes because the motivation behind a crime is important and relevant; a crime committed out of hatred towards the victim is seen as more dangerous, and one often deserving of a greater punishment.

    Most people understand the difference between painting a swastika on the side of a synagogue and tagging a warehouse, and why we treat them as different sorts of crimes.

  • viaten

    Not that anyone should do such a thing, but I wonder what the reaction would have been if someone poured water on religious pamphlets.

  • Ewan

    Kinky F’s line may be a bit strong, but the point is valid; this isn’t just ‘low level property damage’, it’s low level property damage motivated by religious hatred. It’s pretty widely accepted that a crime motivated by hatred of a minority, whether that’s racial, sexual, or religious, is more serious than the same crime committed for another reason. That’s the essence of what a ‘hate crime’ is.

    You might argue that this is a pretty low level petty hate crime as they go, but it most certainly is one.

  • ShoeUnited

    It seemed appropriate to adapt for the situation. He is a hell of a thinker. Sadly, he won’t be with us much longer.

  • Vanadise

    Destruction of property /is/ a crime, even if in this case it isn’t very serious. Why is it ok for somebody to get away with a crime because they committed it in school, when doing so outside of school would get somebody a fine or jail time?

  • Kinky F.

    Absolutely not. No slap on the wrist, no detention. This is a hate
    crime, and if the tables were reversed you can damn well bet the atheist/secularist student would be burned at the stake (metaphorically speaking).

    Would you feel the same way if this had been a student pouring water on an LGBT communities literature, and then have the student during the TV interview say, “well, I guess everyone has sort of their opinion, but I mean, as a Christian to have that at school….well, I had to pour water on it”?

    Or how about if it was a Jewish led group leaving literature and the Christian kid poured water on their stuff? Or a muslim group having water poured over the Koran? Or…..well, point made.

    No, this student must suffer the consequences of the hate crime. Be honest with yourself Bob, seriously, you know this is not just a “not very well educated juvenile” – she is a microcosm of the double standard that is so prevalent when it comes to atheist directed bigotry.

    She needs to be made an example of. She committed an obvious hate crime and as such she must face the music.

  • Kinky F.

    Sure. I agree, and I am not saying the girl deserves to finish her puberty in a juvenile center, far from it. But I am saying she must face the criminal charge, defend herself in front of the magistrate/judge, take the punishment, and yes, she should be suspended at minimum three-weeks, if not outright kicked out of that school.

    Am I suggesting she be put into a gladiator academy (juvenile priosn) where her entire life if destroyed. No. But I am saying she needs to realize what she did was a crime; and having her “write a paper on the First Amendment and give her a couple days of detention” is not justice in this case.

  • Gregory Marshall

    What a crap and biased job of reporting done on the this piece. I mean by the Fox news 35, not Hemant.

  • Bob Becker

    Minor vandalism. Not suggesting she be ignored, merely that the discipline fit the behavior. Calling what she did a “hate crime”. devalues the term much as someone calling a congressional committee grilling a lynching devalues that term.

  • Kinky F.

    Hi Bob,

    I gave it some thought, and I have some point to make regarding your limp-wristed suggestion for “punishment” to the girl.

    1) Do you remember when that daffy bastard (yet another Floridian) preacher was threatening to hold his “Burn a Koran” festival? DO you remember the outcry? It was considered an action of hate, now because he was going to conduct it on private property, they could not charge it as a crime, but it was considered an action of hate directed at a specific community.

    2) Do you recall when dipshit PZ Myers hammered a nail through the body of christ (aka the “Jes-it cracker/holy communion wafer) – there was an enormous cry of “hate crime” coming from the Christian community – some even suggesting PZ should face criminal charges etc…

    3) Let us take the reverse situation and say an atheist student poured water over a bible to destroy it. Again, be honest here Bob, what do you think the outcry would be? Do you honestly believe it would be, “make the kid write a paper on the First Amendment and give him a couple days detention”? Hell no. It would be INSTANTLY labeled a hate crime, the kid would be arrested (most likely in school), he would probably get an immediate three-week suspension if not more, he would be brought up on charges, and if he did not get kicked out of that school, you can be damn sure he would become the BIG TIME target of vicious attacks, bullying threats or worse. Want an example – look to Rhode Island and the now cliched’ “evil little thing”.

    No, this girl should not get off without some serious consequences because there is precedence established for these things. Just because it was an atheist pamphlet that got caught in the rain does not diminish it; if anything, it illustrates the default bias toward the bible as being better than the atheist literature.

    No. Not this time. She should become a rallying point for our side to make an example of.

  • Bob Becker

    Minor vandalism. Well well short of anything that could or should reasonably be called, and judicially punished, as a hate crime.

    What would hapoen if it had been an atheist student who poureed water on the free bibles? The Xian right would go nuts, screaming persecution, and would demand draconian punishment for the student who did it. And we here would, *I think, mock them for their hysterical reaction. — as we so often do.

  • Mario Strada

    Is someone going to follow up on the water pouring little hater? At the very least, I’d ;like to see her being suspended and possibly being given a life altering scare of going to prison.

  • Bob Becker

    You are not suggesting, I hope, that non-believers should take as their model of how to react to such things the way the Xian right reacts? If that is what you’re suggesting — ” they do it, so we should too” —- I disagree.

  • Hat Stealer

    The problem I have with hate crimes is that they turn relativly minor offenses into serious breaches of the law, with serious consequences for the perpatrator. Take this example; would you honestly want to prosecute this student for a hate crime for the relativly minor offense of splashing some water on a few pamphlets? It was immature, bizzare, and wrong, but I wouldn’t say it made her criminal.

  • Kinky F.

    Yes, she should be prosecuted. No, she should not go to juvie, but she needs to face charges in front of a judge/magistrate, receive adequate legal punishment and be suspended from this school for at least three weeks, and since this is prom season, no prom for her.

  • Kinky F.


    With all due respect, you have your head up your ass. You are either disingenuous or are being intentionally obtuse. Either case, you have a severe case of rectal-cranial inversion.

  • Kinky F.

    Bullshit. She admits it was done out of malice and mistrust of atheists.

    You are very disingenuous Bob; dangerously so.

  • Kinky F.

    Wow, that is specious at best.

    I am suggesting that the law be applied equally. See how easy it is to see that. Nothing subversive or nefarious in my thought processes; just equity. When Christian students are allowed to get away with this shit, and atheist students get pushed aside when this shit is done to them, then you are damn right I want equality in the application of the law.

    This little dingelnutz chick does not get off with a “there there little dear, you madea a boo-boo with the mean and nasty atheist heathens. Take an afternoon or two with us in study hall and think about what you have done, oh, and you may bring your bible along to read as you mull it over”.


  • Trick Question

    I think the most appropriate punishment for this is to have her pay to reprint more out of her own pocket, as many as were damaged, and put them back onto the table herself.

  • LesterBallard

    If someone had poured water on the Bibles there would have been death and rape threats flying left and right. Fuck these people.

  • baal

    I’ll agree that it meets the definition of a hate crime but even actual crimes of juveniles done on school property are usually handled first through the school discipline process. I’m against criminalizing kids (all kids not just this white one).

  • Ewan

    Bob – just what is it that you think makes a crime a hate crime, and why doesn’t this fit?

  • Carpinions

    I wouldn’t go that far. Make her school status suffer for being an elitist prick trying to simultaneously claim she’s a martyr, have her do community service, or *gasp!* listen to 48 hours of atheist podcasts, etc. The dumb thing to do is to expel her and throw her in jail. She’ll only get dumber and more entrenched. Have her face up to what she did amongst her peers and teachers (who are there to promote the opposite of what she did). Will she get some high-5s for it? Probably, but you’ll never stop that. And when she gets to college they will hopefully know that she’s done this, and she’ll get a taste of what a real open mind is like, and how much reality there is that her religion is robbing her of

  • m6wg4bxw

    I don’t care if the act was motivated by hate. A “hate crime” is a thought crime, which I absolutely oppose. I will defend everyone’s right to hate (love, apathy, etc) regarding anyone or anything. My concern is how they act.

  • Feminerd

    The term “hate crime” is an addendum to another crime. So a racially-motivated lynching is murder. It is also a hate crime. Painting a swastika on a synagogue or pouring pig’s blood on the stoop of a mosque is vandalism. It is also a hate crime. Hate crime denotes the motivation for the crime, not the seriousness of the crime itself.

    What this girl did is petty vandalism. Because it was motivated by racial or religious hatred, it is also a hate crime. That means that, by our society’s laws, her actions should be punished more severely than for simple vandalism, but not so severely as to be disproportionate to her crime. We can argue about what is appropriate punishment forever and never come to a conclusion. We can argue about whether hate crimes should even be a legal thing, since in many ways it does mean punishing the same crime in different ways based on different motivations. What cannot be argued, though, is that she committed a hate crime and ought to be punished for that, not just for the vandalism itself, because the law calls for it.

  • Brian Fletcher

    If it had been an atheist doing the same thing these nut jobs would have screamed persecution, but then again an atheist wouldn’t do something so juvenile.

  • jdm8

    I would expect that kind of unapologetic attitude from a third grader, not a highschooler. Sounds mildly sociopathic, to be honest, missing the “how would I feel if someone did this to me” gene.

  • Canadian Atheist, eh!

    No, Bob is right. This isn’t about law, it’s about the reaction of the allies of the offended party, and Kinky is advocating emulating the (possibly frequently faux) outrage of a self-entitled majority. The fact that Christians sometimes get away with it is no excuse to try it ourselves. Get a grip, already.

  • C Peterson

    A hate crime is not a thought crime. It isn’t the hate that makes the crime, it is the crime that does that. Nobody gets prosecuted for a hate crime until they actually commit a crime. After that, hate is simply part of the motive, and our legal system has always recognized that motivation should be part of determining the punishment- in some cases mitigating, in other cases the opposite.

  • Bobby0

    kinky I think “legal punishment and be suspended from this school for at least three weeks” and “no prom” is a bit much don’t you think? She made a fool out of herself on t.v. She should have to pay for the pamphlets and maybe a few days (max of 3) in detention.

  • C Peterson

    I wouldn’t prosecute this student at all. That doesn’t mean that what she did wasn’t wrong, and wasn’t motivated by hate. She should be disciplined by the school, and the motivation behind her action should be taken into consideration in determining fair punishment.

  • LesterBallard

    People are saying this was petty vandalism and the like. But the problem is, that if it had been done to the Bibles i bet the punishment would have been swift and harsh. The fucking brat knows she won’t get in too much trouble.

  • FBG

    The urge to control in this thread is strong. Seriously, this is petty.

  • Rachel Warner

    I mean, like, you know, like…… Such an eloquent speaker…

  • Btheist

    She just wanted to turn water into whine :-)

  • Conuly

    Which is a pity, because even with the Alzheimer’s he can outthink most of the people he meets. And the knowledge base…! The man, even today, knows more than most of us will learn in our lives. Sheesh.

  • Jim Patterson

    What an immature brat.

  • m6wg4bxw

    If the penalty for a criminal act is increased because of the actor’s thoughts regarding the victim, then the actor is penalized for thought. By whom and how long it has been done is irrelevant.

  • C Peterson

    I disagree. As a society, we must consider the motivation behind a crime in determining what constitutes fair punishment. Without consideration of motive, there can be no justice.

  • JA

    Had someone done this to a stack of bibles or other Christian material during their handout day, the right wing would’ve freaked out to no end.

  • JKPS

    That’s actually pretty funny. I kind of hope she did it while looking right into the person’s eyes, really awkwardly, just pouring out a bottle of water in what she thought was some deep, dramatic gesture, while the atheist is just sitting there thinking “What the hell is wrong with this person?” It would kind of be like that “Slow Jerk” skit from the Whitest Kids U Know.

  • Kinky F.

    I think if you try hard you could probably answer your own question BoobyO….no hidden agenda. I do not think that little slap on the wrist is enough.

    So, go ahead, I encourage you to take a little time and go back and reread my post – you know, for reading comprehension’s sake….done? Good. Now then, figure that out? We good here sport?

  • m6wg4bxw

    And I disagree that hatred for many or all members of a group makes a crime against a single member of that group worthy of increased punishment.

  • Belaam

    Mine went to the Principal and Superintendent:

    Watching FOX35 this morning, I witnessed a student at Boone High School , Heather Senfire (unsure of spelling of last name) bragging about committing an act of vandalism against fellow students. Heather asserts that she did this based on her dislike of their religious views. The video may be viewed here:

    The actions of this student are clearly at odds with the mission of William R. Boone’s Mission to “promote a safe learning environment” as well as breaking district policy on bullying with “dehumanizing gestures … that create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment”. This clearly meets the definition 2a and 2f of the district Safe Schools policy, as evinced by the students own admission in the interview.

    Additionally, while I see no sign that your campus or district prohibits crimes based on when the perpetrator targets a victim due to membership in a certain social group (i.e. a hate crime), I assume that acceptance of such is not a goal for either, and can only hope that there is some sort of additional punishment for infractions based on bias-motivated crimes. If not, the school and/or district should strongly consider adding such a policy.

    I hope to see some sign that the student in question has been punished accordingly and hopefully, that any form of apology be made as public as was her interview about the initial offense.


  • C Peterson

    Well, that’s just a philosophically different view of how crimes should be punished.

    I consider a person who will commit a crime against somebody because of the victim’s membership in some group or class to be more dangerous then somebody with non-hate motivations. I can protect myself to some degree from crimes with more rational motivations (like profit); there’s not much I can do about a stranger who would go after me simply because of my beliefs.

  • m6wg4bxw

    According to that rationale, criminals who choose their victims in unpredictable ways should also suffer greater penalties for their crimes.

    It occurred to me, moments ago, why I take this position. I believe that the penalty for a crime should be established, generally, regardless of mitigating circumstances. Then, in practice, only mitigating circumstances should be considered. In other words, the penalty should be suitably set for the crime, and then only decreased according to the motivation, justification, circumstances.

    It also occurred to me that, given a system of penalty established with mitigating circumstances assumed, that penalties could only increase. This would result in what I described earlier as, essentially, thought crime.

    I have some thinking to do on this issue, though I still stand behind my initial statement. Thanks for the interaction.

  • Leiningen’s Ants

    Obvious outcome was obvious. We should have started a betting pool on means of destruction. I don’t think anyone would have taken the pot though, I don’t recall anyone predicting water. Sighs and shrugs for everybody! You get a sigh and a shrug, you get a sigh and a shrug, everyone gets a sigh and a shrug!

  • Leiningen’s Ants

    Since she’s old enough to know better, yes, but also her family, her school, and her culture are garbage. GIGO, you know.

  • Mathew Mills

    Peterson so you think if we captured Hitler we should have given him a lesser punishment for the motivation behind his cause?

  • Leiningen’s Ants

    That’s because you don’t understand the definition of criminal. Work on it.

  • Leiningen’s Ants

    Actions have consequences. Hateful actions tend to have serious consequences because we are a society which does not approve of hateful actions.

    Jumping Jesus on a pogo crucifix, It’s like explaining how law and order work to a bunch of underachieving kindergarteners here sometimes. (No offense intended towards our freethinking overachieving kindergartener contingent, you kids are doin’ fine.)

  • Leiningen’s Ants

    You are replacing the word “motive” with “thoughts” for some reason. That being the case, it is entirely relevant to what the criminal’s penalty should be. That is how our legal system works, because motive is a very important factor.

    Like kindergarteners, I tell you.

  • Leiningen’s Ants

    I mean wow. So much obliviousness to ones own unbending privilege, and so openly and proudly on display. It’s like looking at MRA poetry. Must be nice to not belong to any group that has had crimes and threats of violence against them perpetrated for no other reason than because of the nature of that group. You don’t know that kind of fear because you’ve never really experienced it, and that fills me with envy. Count your lucky stars you aren’t a woman, black, gay, atheist, jew, muslim, a fully trained gynecologist in kansas, a biologist, a judge who upholds the law… well, the list could go on.

  • Leiningen’s Ants

    Thinking is a good thing, and you have just won back a large measure of respect for that. Ruminate away, good sir.

  • Leiningen’s Ants

    One of these things is not like the other.

  • Leiningen’s Ants

    Expecting the law to treat christians and atheists as equals? Right, no excuse to try to “get away” with that.


  • Leiningen’s Ants

    You know someone actually thinks Hitler serving seven or eight million life sentences would have been justice, and hanging him would have been persecuting him for thought crime.

    George Orwell spins in his grave every time someone uses that term without having a clue what it means in its actual context.

  • Artor

    They can go fuck themselves. I don’t want any part of their bullshit.

  • m6wg4bxw

    I think because I’ve read too many ridiculous posts on the Atheism Plus forum, as well as information from similar sources, I’ve developed premature judgment and aversion to comments like yours. It’s probably unfair, but I knew I wouldn’t be taking you seriously after your use of “privilege” and “MRA.”

  • LeftyLauren

    “dismissed FORM the school” :(

  • DougI

    On the other hand, it’s a change from when Christian burned books, now they water them (probably she didn’t have matches on hand). But you know, it’s typical Christian love.

  • C Peterson

    That is a truly bizarre interpretation of my comments.

  • Pirate Froglet

    No comment on what else you said, I just wanted to say that I loved Jumping Jesus on a pogo crucifix.

  • Sids

    Maybe that exactly what she wanted to do, but once she’d poured water on them she just couldn’t get them to burn. Thats the problem with acting before thinking through the consequences.

  • Sids

    I think it would be better if next time they were handing out bibles (which you know they’ll do soon) she has to go and pour water over those too.

    Ok, so that way just causes extra unnecessary property damage which just makes things worse, but still…

  • Rev. Achron Timeless

    How did you get that completely backwards?

  • Isilzha

    The hate is also what motivates the crime.

  • Hat Stealer

    I understand the definition fine, thanks. I just don’t agree that it should be applied here. That’s a result of my opinion, not my failure to understand our legal system.

  • Hat Stealer

    This I agree with. You probably could prosecute this student for a hate crime, but that strikes me as an extreme reaction to a minor offense.

    Just out of curiosity, would you consider this: ( to be an example of a hate crime? The student in question stole the Koran from someone else, so it wasn’t his property that he was vandalizing.

  • C Peterson

    When I say she shouldn’t be prosecuted, I mean in a criminal court. I do think she should be punished by her school, and that the punishment should reflect the fact that a hate-based act is particularly serious.

    What kind of punishment? I think some community service, some loss of privileges. A sincere letter of apology, which in no way tries to justify her actions.

    And yes, from the description you linked, I think it is perfectly appropriate to consider the desecration of a Koran belonging to another person as a hate crime.

  • KaeylynHunt

    YES.It WAS a CRIMINAL ACT plain&simple,perpetrated by her outright Hatred based on RELIGIOUS Grounds.Like everyone else here has said,had someone done it to a bible,that kid would be UNDER the jail&under Protection 24/7 from death&rape Threats.This really ISN’T difficult.The Bible&The Atheist pamphlets have EQUAL status under the law,one is NOT more valuable than the other.It’s just the owners of one are MUCH more intent on shoving theocracy&autocratic rule down everyone’s throats.

  • Hat Stealer

    And I don’t think that the person who splashes water on a Bible should go to jail either. This really isn’t that difficult; I realize that she could theoretically be prosecuted as a criminal for a hate crime, I just don’t think she should be. A person can understand the legal system just fine and still disagree with it. I imagine you have laws that you dislike as well.

  • Tyro Kathar

    Me too ^_^

  • Kevlondon

    What a stupid child she is…acknowledges that everyone has their own opinion, yet she feels justified in destroying material she doesn’t agree with to stop other people being exposed to a viewpoint she doesn’t hold…seriously, religious people are like scared little children. Deep down, they must know their beliefs are illogical and that free enquiry is poison to their fairytales.

  • Belaam

    After writing the principal and superintendent, I did get a response from the principal. It’s pretty neutral to negative, commenting on “the behavior you describe” rather than “the behavior the student admitted to in the attached video link”, but does at least indicate that the school is aware of the situation. Here you have it:

    “The behavior you describe, regardless of the nature of the materials, is not consistent with behavior expected of Boone students and may potentially be in violation of the student code of conduct. Any decision to issue a public apology would be entirely up to the student as I cannot compel a student to do so. Because of federal privacy laws, I cannot disclose the nature of any punishment or discipline that may be issued to any student; therefore, I cannot comment further with regard to this particular student.

    Margaret McMillen, Ed.D.
    William R. Boone High School”

  • Kay Aitch

    Nice. And if someone had done the same to their Bibles, all hell would break loose. This behavior right here is the kind of hate that is the reason the atheist literature should be there – these kids have had their brains so destroyed by religious crap that they think this is the right way to react and the right way to treat people.

  • james

    The atheist worldview is far more magnanimous than the fundamentalist worldview; if we’re right, and the evidence overwhelmingly says that we are, then the fundamentalists are simply wrong about one particular thing. They’re still basically good people, who have basically good intentions and are obviously capable of rational thought, at least outside of the confines of their belief system. The fundamentalist worldview does not remotely offer anyone who disagrees with them the same courtesy. The irony here, is that it is not we who claim to speak on the behalf of an allegedly omnibenevolent deity.