Talk:Landover Baptist Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I removed the following request, made by an anonymous user, from the main article:

Please do not revert this page (at request of owners). There have been numerous death threats against the creator of the web-site and he and all involved wish to remain as anonomous as possible.

This accompanies an on-going low-frequency revert-war, regarding the identity of the people behind this site.

I believe we should not honor this request. First, it is not clear that it really comes from the owners (though it doesn't seem unlikely). Second, the owners have put out a press release about their web site, mentioning their names, so they have no expectation of privacy whatsoever. Furthermore, the identity of the owners is already widely available on the web. Death threats are felonies and should be dealt with by the authorities. Our job is to provide information. AxelBoldt 18:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chris Harper often gives public speeches, such as at the American Atheists, Houston Atheist Society or the Godless Americans. He does not look at all concerned about hiding his identity. Bogdan | Talk 23:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with AxelBoldt in every way. Censorship is dangerous business, and since anyone could simply find the information about the site from speeches the owner has given, as Bogdan said, there is little reason not to include his name. --ShaunMacPherson 10:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Since Chris Harper has just published JesusLand under his own name, I can't seriously see how it can be argued that he is attempting to hide his identity. Stunz2

Just for confirmation: "The Landover Baptist Church is a web site which serves as the home of a church of the same name. Landover Baptist is a shining example of fundamentalist Christianity and the religious right in the United States of America."

Is this true? I know a lot of people who have said they are too weird, but a friend in Iowa said there is a gated complex in a forested region of Iowa that the residents there call Freehold. (Myself included, though I have become a bit believing recently.) Sonic Mew 20:24, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 VfD debate 2 Upholding/Holding 3 Neutrality 4 Let their site prove reality. 5 Parody on the parody 6 Length of time? 7 Page on Chris Harper?? 8 About Landover Church (you disgust me)

[edit] VfD debate

Article has been kept following this VfD debate. Sjakkalle 08:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Upholding/Holding

From the article:

The site also upholds very racist views. It believes that Native Americans were the first terrorists in American history, and that African Americans should still be slaves and be segregated from whites. It also holds a strong anti-Muslim belief.

I'm not sure about the wording here. Can a parody site be said to "hold" or "uphold" views if those views are merely part of the parody? To me, "hold" or "uphold" would imply that they are serious about it - maybe it should say "purports to hold/uphold"? -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just 'claims to hold'? Stunz2

The wording is not good in my opinion. It's not the site that holds or claims views it's the church -- Landover Baptist Church -- that is claimed to hold various views. This may seem pedantic, but the "site" and those behind it don't hold the same views as the fictional church that they have invented. Stunz 10:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article feels a bit biased, particularly in the first paragraph's end. Also, having a casual question in the middle of a point isn't a good idea for an encyclopedia. 05:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite the opposite. The article was vandalized when you read it. Now, it should be better. Rshu 18:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let their site prove reality.

Reality is that Satan influences Atheism because they use deceitful tactics. This strengthens my beliefs.

First of all, you have no proof of anything you say about your own beliefs. I'm an agnostic(though you just want to lump all non-theists into athiests), and to say that I have no choice of my beliefs is both idiotic and unprovable. Get some proof to back up your bogus claims, and next time, and if you actually get some "proof", don't post it here, since arguing religious beliefs anywhere on Wikipedia is irrelevant. The site is a parody of the religious right, and you are an example of the people they make fun of. Second of all, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia or this article, so either be constructive or just don't say anything at all. Third of all, sign your posts by putting four tildes in a row at the end of your message. --Rshu 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

He won't listen.He just spat his stupis message and gone.--88.247.96.210 12:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parody on the parody

There are even parody Christian sites opting for the immidiate shutdown of the Landover parody.. Had me fooled for a second too.. Where does the parody end? :P

In any case, Those who whine over Landover and such sites should look to their own backyards: Usually its the same kind of persons that believes "sinners" will suffer eternally, that it's ok to physically hurt homosexuals, that it's ok to beat women & children, and so on..

If you have such offensive opinons then you better tolerate that someone will make offensive satire out of you.

Nice anti-Christian bigotry there. A link to the subject of Anti-Christian Prejudice seems appropriate here. I've no problem with Landover/Whitehouse and even find their sites entertaining at times (depending on the particular author). Unfortunately, just as racist types have been attracted to religeous groups because of misconceived notions of common interest, similarly hateful types are drawn to these satirists' sites

The fact that you "forgot" to sign your name speaks volumes. Shadowlink1014 04:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)~

Anti-Christian bigotry? Ha, this site is a parody of the religious right, which is the most bigotrous of any organization with some power(of course, when I said some power, that excluded the KKK and neo-Nazi groups). I mean, when you have a book such as the Bible, which has many bigotrous verses, to expect it not to be parodied is insane. I have seen many Christians bad-mouth atheists, agnostics, and etc., but I have never heard them accused of Anti-Atheist, or Anti-Agnostic bigotry. Rshu 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You only illustrate the point that satire of the Landover/Whitehouse variety attracts bigots. Your argument is no diferent than that of white racists trying to downplay their own hateful slander by complaining about reverse racism. Again, a link to the wikipedia Christophobia page is suggested, if not a subsection on the subject here.

Oh, please, take your religious right stuff to a religious right encyclopedia, not to this encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral. The site is not Anti-Christian, but Anti-Christianity, which is a complete difference. I am Anti-Christianity, but I am in no way Anti-Christians. To make such a claim is ridiculous. If anybody is prejudiced, it is the tons of ministers that do not even recognize atheism and agnosticism as ideas. To say that we should put a link to "Anti-Christian Prejudice" is absurd. I am so sick of you and the religious right calling any opponents of theirs "Anti-Christian Bigots". The site is, I repeat, NOT bigotrous. It is a parody of the religious right which is exactly bigotrous. How can you compare making fun of bigots to people downplaying racism? Rshu 23:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Both of you, please remember to be civil and avoid personal attacks. That said, I don't see a strong reason to link to Anti-Christian Prejudice. The site isn't even a general parody of Christianity but of certain more extremist forms of Protestantism. JoshuaZ 23:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to note that neither of us were attacking each other personally or uncivil(though I admit, that the argument may have been turning in an uncivil argument). Rshu 00:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for considering the suggestion, JoshuaZ. Your point about the American Protestant focus is true, and I defer to the judgement of an experienced Wikian. Rshu, I apologize that my choice of inflammatory language amounted to something of a personal attack. I don't intend to be a Christian Crusader or an Agnostic basher. Probably I should have mentioned that it was the open contributions then viewable (since purged) on the landoverbaptist.net forum that lead me to the suggestion that the site attracted a more extreme sort of people.

Pack onto the topic (ahem!), I decided to edit the last paragraph of the "Controversy" section, where someone added "No, It dosen't!" with and emoticon. I deleted the phrase, and added a link to the "Terms of Service" section the article refers to. The claim to it being a parody are indeed there, and are easily located via using a "find word(s)" tool from most any web browser. Logan 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length of time?

Could some information could be provided as to how long this parody site has been in existence? I want to verify that to see if it has been around as long as JC has been calling Coast to Coast...as a way to count/discount the possibility that JC is also Pastor Deacon Fred. --Dr. Floyd 15:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The oldest record of it on archive.org shows it first being indexed on November 28th, 1999, but their mail page lists as far back as 1998, and their Copyright goes back to just 2000. So it's some time around then. --Paul Barkley 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page on Chris Harper??

I know the inclusion of Chris Harper's name on this article is contentious right now, but didn't there used to be a page about him? I'm asking because I can't find anything in the deletion logs... Shadowlink1014 04:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Landover Church (you disgust me)

You should be ashamed of what you have printed!! What kind of messege are you sending our children????????? Don't we have enough problems without some kook like you spreading crap like this to our children?????????