Dawkins: Mock Them. Ridicule Them. In Public. With Contempt.

I am tempted to say that Dr Richard Dawkins is the Westboro Baptist Church of the atheists.

But I won’t.

The reason?

The only thing Dr Dawkins has in common with the much ballyhooed and massively exaggerated Westboro Baptist Church is that they both specialize in attacking the sensibilities of other people in order to gain fame for themselves. The similarities pretty much end there.

Dr Dawkins writes best-selling books that evidently convince a lot of people to pull their own pants down in public and waggle their beefy buns in other people’s faces. Dr Dawkins gives speeches that attract tens of thousands of cheering fellow haters. Some them have gone on to write books and run popular blogs, spreading this hate like a virus.

Dr Dawkins is, in a word, effective at spreading his call for verbal bashing and social discrimination.

Meanwhile the Westboro Baptist Church is a family-sized congregation of weirdos who go around the country demonstrating with homemade signs. They carefully pick the place to do their thing that will upset and offend the most people. They are universally dissed. People form human chains to defend their targets from the offense they give.

The Westboro Baptist Church, is, in a word, ineffective.

For these reasons, I cannot call Dr Dawkins the Westboro Baptist Church of atheism. In fact, I think I will avoid that kind of comparison altogether and let Dr Dawkins speak for himself in the video below. 

The interesting portion of the video comes after Dr Dawkins’ predictable call for his audience to “mock them, ridicule them, in public … with contempt,” when they talk to Christians. That’s when Dr Ravi Zacharias responds to Dr Dawkins’ little diatribe.

There are people who come on this blog all the time with the intention of following their leader’s instructions. They get deleted.

Dr Dawkins begins his comment with the phrase, “Whenever I talk to religious people …”

My question is why would a religious person talk to Dr Dawkins? Why would anyone allow themselves to be interrogated in the manner he claims he engages in?

What he describes is verbal abuse. It is hate speech. It is Christian bashing.

His call to “mock them, ridicule them, in public … with contempt” speaks far more specifically to the valueless ethos of his non-belief than it does anything else. It is also, as Ravi Zacharias points out, ridiculous.

I would suggest two things: Watch the video below to hear Ravi’s reaction. And do not allow yourself to be subjected to pointless verbal abuse by people who’ve drunk this particular form of vicious kool-aid.

Delete them. Hang up on them. Walk away. If you are in a situation where you can’t do one of these things, try coming here and asking the rest of us for ideas. We are, after all, in this together.

YouTube Preview Image

  • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

    What I hate is that not only do he and another detestable man, Philip Pullman, pollute my beloved alma mater, Oxford, but that Oxford has actually endorsed his unscientific ramp by making him Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, which is a post that should not exist – it is as good as saying that he should impose the public his understanding of science. Unfortunately Oxford has dramatically lost direction since the golden century that began with the Tractarians and ended when CS Lewis left for Cambridge after having been denied for decades the professorship that his merits demanded. It’s not that I have an issue with university professors having viewpoints that I dislike, that I even detest; it’s that people like Dawkins are unworthy of a chair in a major university, not because of what they believe, but because of their lack of achievement. His major “scientific” contribution, the “selfish gene” theory, is spoiled by essential irrationality and even a curious kind of materialist mysticism and creeping pantheism that absolutely does not suit the champion of pretended rationalism. Some people have lousy viewpoints but real achievement, some people have not. The Oxford Marxist Terry Eagleton is a flatulent clown; the Oxford Marxist Christopher Hill was a great historian. Alas, Hill is dead and Eagleton, like Dawkins and Pullman, is very much with us.

  • John Launder

    Since Professor Dawkins and those of similar mind have militantly launched atheism as a philosophy to determine all aspects of human life, it is inevitable that society will suffer the consequences, even if the consequences not intended by those same learned people.

    The atheistic materialistic philosophy (ideology) developed by Marx and Engels in the 19th century wrought untold human misery in the 20th through rise of Communism (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc). The 19th century materialistic philosophical works of Nietzsche undoubtedly influenced Hitler and the rise of Nazism, again producing untold human misery in the 20th. I am sure that those thinkers who were influenced by the social disorder and ferment of societies during their time would have not fully comprehended the dire consequences for humanity of the influence of their works, even Marx.

    The consequences of modern individualistic atheism compared to the class or race uber-menschen (or at least interpretation) based mass philosophies of the 19th century saw the atrocities of the 20th century, are more subtle.

    Basically it preaches that ‘life’ has no other meaning than what man himself makes of it himself, and that there is nothing beyond life. In which case, despite whatever humanitarian principles those altruistic atheists may propose, many of their brothers and sisters become quite totalitarian minded. Another inevitable consequence is ‘life’ will be interpreted in a very utilitarian manner. Then all acts from abortion to infanticide, euthanasia right through to genocide for the culling of excess humans in our overpopulate world, to the humane killing of those who are not or are no longer economically productive, are logically sound even though some atheists might feel squeamish about going this far

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      More than Hitler, who, according to his biographer Alan Bullock, was more influenced by Schopenhauer – and by a lot of fly-by-night tabloid “thinkers” whom nobody would remember but for him – Nietzsche influenced Mussolini, who took from him the doctrine of the Will,and the German aggressors of 1914. MInd you, that is quite bad enough.

    • Bill S

      “The atheistic materialistic philosophy (ideology) developed by Marx and Engels in the 19th century wrought untold human misery in the 20th through rise of Communism (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc).”

      A philosophy can be true yet can be harmful to society. Many see atheism as such a philosophy.

      A philosophy such as Catholicism can be false, but it can have a beneficial effect on society.

      I can only accept the one that is true.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        I submit that only a system that is true, can have a beneficial effect on anything at all. And that the lie will be shown by its negative effects.

    • Bill S

      If you knew that spreading a myth would make the world a better place to live and, conversely, spreading the truth would make the world a worse place to live, what would you do. This is the situation that now faces the world. It may be better to just care about the end result and propagate the myth. It has worked so far.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        The myth is only a teaching technique. The truth behind the myth is what counts.

        • Bill S

          There are myths that have no historical truth to them but work nonetheless because people believe them and/or learn from them.

  • Zeke

    Although I think that Dawkins’ tone is a bit too confrontational, I agree with his assertion that criticizing religious beliefs should not be off limits. This is not hate speech, it is free speech.

    • FW Ken

      Criticizing religious beliefs (preferably intelligently) is certainly not off-limits. But it’s certainly arguable that Dawkins, and the other New Atheists, do move from free speech to hate speech.

      I read recently that in the old days, atheists pursued social goals. Communism was certainly destructive, but it had a social vision and goal. The New Atheists exist only to attack and destroy. I can’t see that they have any goals, unless it’s to confiscate the children of Christians. I’m still waiting for the American Atheists or Humanists to open a charity hospital here in Fort Worth.

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      Oh yeah? Mockery, insult, the attempt to silence by making ridiculous, are free speech to you? In that case, get ready. If we ever meet, I intend to exercise some free speech in your direction, and perhaps a little free motion (of my fists) as well.

      • Zeke

        Yes of course, these are all part of free speech, although I’m not sure that threatening someone is. But glad you replied Fabio, if only to illustrate the irony of Catholics like yourself who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus yet are complete dicks.

        • hamiltonr
        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          I act as I find. You be nice to me, I be nice to you. There is a lady who posts here regularly, who disagrees with most of the rest, but does so as an adult (and a rather charming one at that). Are you reading this, Pagansister? You be nasty to me, you get to find out what it’s like to be at the receiving end. It’s called justice. As for acting like a Christian, I am always amused – if with underlay of disgust – when trolls and haters who can be trusted to go on and on about the intolerance of Christians and all the supposed nastyness of the Inquisition and the Crusades and the other bits of black legend, suddenly start demanding “Christian” behaviour from us when they find themselves at the receiving end of what they give. How about you lot act like men, and, having sought the battle, don’t whine about the wounds? As for following Christ, I am. I don’t throw the pearls of my faith before you swine, because I know that you will tread them under your trotters, and then turn and go for us. That’s a Gospel commandment,in case you didn’t know: straight out of the mouth of Our Lord. I start from the bizarre notion that a hater can be expected to hate, and act accordingly.

          Above all, however, your notion of free speech is entirely wrong. The law, any law, from common law to Roman law to Sharia to Hindu law, always excludes hatred, ridicule and contempt from the list of permitted expressions. You try and insist that someone’s mother is a whore (unless she actually is, which is rare) and you will swiftly find out that nobody accepts that as free speech. You imagine that free speech is self-indulgent speech; it is not, not any more than freedom of movement allows you, like Stevenson’s Mr.Hyde, to step all over a small girl if she is in the way of where you want to go. That is not freedom, it’s sociopathy.

          • pagansister

            This post on Dawkins is old as far as posts go and I’m sure many aren’t even clicking back to it—-as what you wrote above is now 6 day’s old. Just wanted to say, yes, I am now reading your above comment and the compliment you wrote. Thank you—I’m not sure I could be identified as “charming” :-).

      • Zeke

        How very Christian of you. And notably, Rebecca deleted my last post pointing this out.

        • FW Ken

          Zeke -
          Your original point was fair and opened a worthy topic. The boundaries of “free speech” and “hate speech” are a current issue worth discussing since that issue is going to get more intense in the next period of time.

          However, “how Christian of you” is not, as a rule, a useful comment. From your first comment, I suspect you are more intelligent than that. And (again, for fairness sake), Fabio is more intelligent than physical violence. Our Lord was willing to use force against the moneychangers in the Temple, but apparently it was directed at their tables, not their persons.

          Just my opinion.

  • Amon

    Would you mock a person would thinks a unicorn will show up for them one day if they give their heart to the unicorn?

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      Are you capable of thinking or are your mental functions reduced to the production of sterile attempts at gags?

      • Zeke

        Would you mock the belief that flying an airplane into the twin towers gets you 72 virgins in paradise?

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          As a matter of fact, I would. Part of the Christian concept of eternal life is that it is entirely inconceivable from our side of the veil, that we have no terms to properly describe it,and that it represents an infinite advance in the very being of those who achieve it. From this point of view, speaking of endless sexual enjoyment – not only for “war” deeds, but even for simply living as a good person should – is an immensely inadequate term. It is like offering a cucumber sandwich for a Nobel Prize, only a million times so.

          • Bill S

            ” Part of the Christian concept of eternal life is that it is entirely inconceivable from our side of the veil, that we have no terms to properly describe it,and that it represents an infinite advance in the very being of those who achieve it.”

            A man with your education should more clearly understand what happens when your brain stops working. Just think about it for a moment.

            • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

              That is the most stupid statement it has ever been my misfortune to receive in pretended answer to anything I ever said. It is, in a way, an event: I had to live fifty-one years, and debate and argue with thousands of people, before I came across anything both so insolent and so irrelevant, both so entirely convinced of its own excellence and so entirely beside any point that could possibly be made. You are both rude and utterly pointless. You ought to show that my brain has stopped working, where, and why, but noooooooo – you just say it has has, and expect anyone to take you seriously. I used to think you were in bad faith, because I could not see how anyone could say some of the things you said and mean them; now I just think you are beneath the level of consciousness where bad faith becomes possible.

              • Bill S

                Fabio,

                It’s all about the relationship of mind to body. Why are you upset about my opinion that, when the body (including the brain) dies, there is no more mind? You’ve got too much invested emotionally in the hope that the mind (or soul) can exist without a functioning brain. You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine. Science supports my opinion.

                • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

                  Your reaction is out of place. I was not “upset”, I was and remain ASTONISHED at the depth of your folly. Now you attempt argument – and do no better: you commit the philosophical and scientific solecism of identifying the thinking self with the brain, which science definitely does not prove, and philosophy hardly admits; and even so, it is impossible that you should have hung around Catholics for any time and not heard – unless you lined your ears with double-strength soundproofing – that we believe in the resurrection of the body. Geddit? The body. Including the brain. Only the resurrected body is glorified – made perfect.

                  • Bill S

                    “you commit the philosophical and scientific solecism of identifying the thinking self with the brain”

                    How can any educated person believe that there can be a thinking self without the brain? Look at what happens to the thinking self when the brain is damaged or affected by drugs or disease. What do you think happens to it when the brain stops working altogether? I’m not so sure that science hasn’t proven that yet. I’m pretty sure it has.

                  • Bill S

                    “you commit the philosophical and scientific solecism of identifying the thinking self with the brain”

                    I responded to this but I think it was deleted. If so, all I think I can say is yes, I do identify the thinking self with the brain. Doesn’t everyone?

                    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

                      I see. So your other name is “everyone”. Otherwise not even you could possibly imagine that 1,000,000,000 Hindus and 2,000,000,000 Buddhists think that the BRAIN, rather than the SELF, is reincarnated after each death. You will notice that this is not a Christian belief at all, and indeed neither the Buddhist nor the Hindu idea of the Self (with a few exceptions) has much to do with the Christian idea of the Soul. The point I am making is that, even among your many reckless and ignorant statements, this one takes the cake. Aren’t you even aware that such places as China and India exist?

                    • Bill S

                      I’ve tried twice to answer you but there must be something in those answers that causes them to be deleted. To me, consciousness depends on a functioning brain which I do not believe ever functions again after death. It doesn’t matter if the entire populations of China and India believe otherwise, to me, it is a scientific fact.

        • James

          Actually th

  • peggy-o

    Always appreciate Ravi–great gift, great mind!
    I remember meeting the Westboro folks before they made national news. Our gov had died in a plane crash…was running against John Ashcroft for US Sen. The funeral was huge in the capitol–surreal almost. Clinton, Gore, Ted Kennedy, several governors all there in one small square.

    When I saw the hateful homemade signs my reaction was immediate and visceral.
    I got into it with them for their disrespect and before too long I realized, you can’t argue with crazy and moved on.

    Crazy was also coming fast and furious in my mail too…irrational, fear inspiring, mulit page diatribes from Ashcroft demanding money. Our gov wasn’t prolife and neither was I then but it wasn’t about that–it was very mocking and bereft of facts or solutions. I didn’t think he understood Christianity. Many lifelong republicans here were voting democrat for the first time ever, because they knew him and experienced him as governor and found him uncivil. Our deceased governor actually won that election. Then W. made him Attorney General.

    Lessons learned for me is that the institutionalized hatred and mocking can spread and accomplish more, but it’s still as empty and soul crushing as the crazy on the street. We should not legitimize it or fear standing up and PRAY, PRAY MORE!

  • RelapsedCatholic

    I really loved most of Mr. Ravi’s response to Mr. Dawkins, however I think it has a narrow historical view in one sense. He quipped about Mr. Dawkins mocking religious people in Iran, and while his point was well taken he then generalized that not all religions are created equal. The repression we see in Iran certainly has a religious dimension it has just as much to do with the political systems in those countries. One need only look back a few hundred years to when Muslim civilization was having its golden age to see Europeans more than willing to burn each other at the stake because of heresy.

    Other than that the video was inspirational and informative.

    • Michele Mullins

      I think you need to check your History. The golden age was not so golden and burning at the stake was not as common as people might hope and when it did happen it was done by the secular authorities to keep the status quo.

  • Alvaro Fidel Martinez

    Thanks for posting this article!

    I’m a Christan (and ex-atheist), and I agree that Richard Dawkins is very intolerant. He reminds me a great deal of many fellow Christians, who are also full of hatred and like to their spew their vitriol.

    It’s sad that there are both theists and non-theists who have to act in such a childish manner.

    As a Christian, I don’t agree with atheism, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “stupid” or “delusional.” There’s nothing wrong with having debates, where one tries to defend their position, but resorting to these tactics — where one insults someone else’s beliefs — says more about the person resorting to insults than the person whom they are insulting or ridiculing.

  • Dale

    If anyone is interested, the transcript of Dawkins’ full speech can be found at this link:
    http://www.humanistresources.org/blog/transcript-richard-dawkins-speech-reason-rally-2012

    He was speaking in Washington DC at the Reason Rally held in March 2012. A video of his full speech is also available at the link.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      That’s the ironic thing to me. To call what the New Atheists do, reason, is to make a mockery of the language itself.

  • Dale

    Although I can understand Dawkins’ atheist beliefs, what I don’t understand is his his eagerness to engage in confrontational apologetics.

    When Christians do such things, they are regarded as annoying and rude, and reasonably so. Surely he knows that he comes off in the same way. So what drives him? Christians who try to browbeat others seem to consider it their duty to God. But what about Dawkins or the other evangelical Atheists? It isn’t as if Reason commanded him to spread the word at the risk of his soul.

    • Chrisitna

      Very good point! I never thought about it that way.

    • Bill S

      “Christians who try to browbeat others seem to consider it their duty to God. But what about Dawkins or the other evangelical Atheists? It isn’t as if Reason commanded him to spread the word at the risk of his soul.”

      Those three sentences tell it all about Christian thought. Read them often and maybe you will begin to understand why people get annoyed.

      • Dale

        Bill, I apologize that I was not more clear. I was not talking about all atheists, or even most atheists. I was referring to people who carry out Dawkins’ plan of mocking and ridiculing others. There are Christians who are just as heavy-handed in their evangelizing or their apologetics. But they are just as wrong.

        • Bill S

          I think that those who have the truth on their side are more justified in using mocking and ridicule. They are not both equally wrong. One is a little wrong for dissing the other. But the other is even more wrong. As to which is which is a matter of opinion.

          • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

            So all you have to do is convince yourself that you have the truth on your side, and you can behave like a lout. And complain when opponents behave exactly as you do. Congratulations: the end of civilization is in sight.

            • Bill S

              I am confident enough that there is no supernatural anything to accept it as the truth and consider anyone who disagrees to be lying, misinformed, delusional, or all of the above.

  • Guest

    Up until now, I didn’t really have much of an opinion of Dawkins either way. But, increasingly, I have found him to be rude and intolerant. It seems that even some of his fellow atheists are distancing themselves him BECAUSE he’s so rude and intolerant.

    An embarrassing fundamentalist — Peter Higg’s scathing verdict on Richard Dawkins
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/an-embarrassing-fundamentalist-peter-higgs-scathing-verdict-on-richard-dawkins-1-2709488

    People are well within their rights to criticize and question religion. In fact, many religious people themselves question their own religious beliefs, but Richard Dawkins behavior, quite simply, borders on abuse.
    However, even though some atheists have been honest enough to see Richard Dawkins for what he is — an intolerant atheist fundamentalist — most will continue to defend this man and give legitimacy to his appalling behavior. I mean, I’ve been on so many internet forums, and it’s truly shocking how many atheists will defend his outrageous antics.
    If any Christian acted similiary, atheists would (quite rightly) find it to be annoying, oppressive, and even abusive. In some ways, I really can’t tell the the difference between Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell (minus the gay bashing, of course).

  • Alvaro Fidel Martinez

    Up until now, I never had much of an opinion on Dawkins either way. But, increasingly, I have found him to be rude, intolerant, and borderline abusive. Even some of his fellow atheists are beginning to distance themselves from him, BECAUSE he’s an intolerant atheist fundamentalist.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/an-embarrassing-fundamentalist-peter-higgs-scathing-verdict-on-richard-dawkins-1-2709488

    To be honest though, I don’t feel angry or upset at Dawkins — if anything, I feel sorry for him.

    • Tynkyr_belle

      And we feel sorry that you’re a deluded Christian hypocrite.

      • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

        You see, you are a case study. You do not appear capable of arguing; your statement comes from a depth of dogmatic ignorance that cannot even know that argument is more effective than insult. You don’t sound as though you would be capable of holding your ground against an intelligent opponent (of ANY stripe) for five minutes, and it is not too difficult to suggest that to you atheism is a refuge against the need to think for yourself.

      • Alvaro Fidel Martinez

        Sigh…

        This is EXACTLY the kind of abusive behavior that I was talking about. I’m not angry at you, because it’s actually quite pitiful.

        As a pro-life Mennonite — and ex-athiest — I can attest to the abusive behavior of many (not all) atheists. When I was sixteen, I used to behave abominably towards people of faith.

        The worst part is that many militant atheists don’t even realize just how bad they look. You might think yourself to be a deeply rational and enlightened person, but your abuse shows quite the opposite.

        Mind you, I don’t like this kind of behavior on the part of either atheists or theists. It makes me very upset when Christians demonize non-believers, by claiming that non-believers are destined for an eternity in hell.

        How does this hatred solve any of our problems?

        “We must discover the power of love, the power, the redemptive power of love. And when we discover that we will be able to make of this old world a new world. We will be able to make men better. Love is the only way.”
        –Martin Luther King Jr.

      • Alvaro Fidel Martinez

        I should also note that this aggressive lashing out is not a sign of strength — only weak people act in such a manner. It shows a complete lack of self-control.

        As a Mennonite — who is obligated to treat all people with kindness (even my enemies) — I’m always amazed at how many people think wearing your heart on your sleeve, in such an extremely aggressive manner, is somehow the hallmark of a person with self-restraint and emotional maturity.

        I don’t want to sound condescending, since I’m obliged to treat my enemies with kindness and courtesy, but you (and other atheists) need to learn to master yourselves. This is how I behaved when I was an adolescent.

        This isn’t acceptable behavior for an adult, and it’s saddening to see that many atheists and Christians alike are willing to lower the level of discourse, by yelling and stamping their feet like a six-year old does in a sandbox.

  • Guest

    So if someone comes up to you and says 2+2=5, you’re going to say nothing?

    How about if they insisted on teaching your children that? Would you STILL say nothing?

    How about if they try and pass laws that would take away our Constitutional Rights if you didn’t also publicly proclaim that 2+2=5? Would you STILL stay silent?

    If so – you’re just as ignorant as the people who believe that 2+2=5 or Christianity. They are deluded, and so are you.

    Here’s another one: would you allow a neurosurgeon to operate on YOUR brain (or how about your daughter’s?) if they professed a certain belief that aliens talked to them and gave them guidance? So why would you allow one that’s a Christian, who talks with spooks and ghosts, and bases their beliefs on a book of fables and fairy tales?

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      Pathetic.

  • Guest

    So if someone comes up to you and says 2+2=5, you’re going to say nothing?

    How about if they insisted on teaching your children that? Would you STILL say nothing?

    How about if they try and pass laws that would take away our
    Constitutional Rights if you didn’t also publicly proclaim that 2+2=5?
    Would you STILL stay silent?

    If so – you’re just as ignorant as the people who believe that 2+2=5 or Christianity. They are deluded, and so are you.

    Here’s another one: would you allow a neurosurgeon to operate on
    YOUR brain (or how about your daughter’s?) if they professed a certain
    belief that aliens talked to them and gave them guidance? So why would
    you allow one that’s a Christian, who talks with spooks and ghosts, and
    bases their beliefs on a book of fables and fairy tales?

  • Tynkyr_belle

    So if someone comes up to you and says 2+2=5, you’re going to say nothing?

    How about if they insisted on teaching your children that? Would you STILL say nothing?

    How about if they try and pass laws that would take away your Constitutional Rights if you didn’t also publicly proclaim that 2+2=5?

    Would you STILL stay silent?

    If so – you’re just as simpleminded as the people who believe that 2+2=5 or Christianity. They are deluded, and so are you.

    Here’s another one: would you allow a neurosurgeon to operate on
    YOUR brain (or how about your daughter’s?) if they professed a certain
    belief that aliens talked to them and gave them guidance? So why would
    you allow one that’s a Christian, who talks with spooks and ghosts, and
    bases their beliefs on a book of fables and fairy tales?

  • Alvaro Fidel Martinez

    Anyhow, I’ll just pray that Richard Dawkins will realize how profoundly immature his behavior really is. This is actually embarrassing.

    My only advice to Christians is to NOT fight fire with fire. No matter how badly non-theists treat us, we must never lower ourselves to their level. Ever.

    Martin Luther King said the same thing when white racists bombed his house.

    “If you have weapons, take them home; if you do not have them, please
    do not seek to get them. We cannot solve this problem through
    retaliatory violence. We must meet violence with nonviolence. Remember the words of Jesus: “He who lives by the sword
    will perish by the sword.” We must love our white brothers, no matter
    what they do to us. We must make them know that we love them. Jesus
    still cries out in words that echo across the centuries: “Love your
    enemies; bless them that curse you; pray for them that despitefully use
    you.” This is what we must live by. We must meet hate with love. Remember, if I am stopped, this movement will not stop, because God is with the movement. Go home with this glowing faith and this radiant assurance.”
    –Martin Luther King Jr.

  • derrick derouen

    hanging up or walking away s just an excuse to lev e these people in satans grasp why would we do that as christians we need to stand up and show them what we truly have faith in they can ridicule us but we have god and through him we are strong so let them ridicule us but we need to fogiven them and try to help them come to god


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X