Talk:Landover Baptist Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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

[edit] Semi-Protction

This article needs some form of protection as vandals keep placing the text of the page from Objective ministries, calling for an LBC shutdown. Jsonitsac 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Declined. Not enough recent activity to justify protection. Make sure you warn vandals to adhere to NPOV. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[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)

To be fair, the way the article is written it says (taken literally and grammatically) that the link at the bottom of each page says that it is a parody and and a satire, when it is in the TOS that it says the place is a parody and a satire. The link is to the TOS. This is probably being pedantic but the thing could be written less ambiguously. Stunz 13:13, 2 January 2007 (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)


??^^^^???^^^^????^^

Is Wikipedia biased, giving special favor to Atheists? I guess so, since any comment made about Landover Baptist Church which isn't flattering is deleted.

Communists are Atheists, they both use the same tactics. They squelch all opposing viewpoints, while simultaneously spewing lies and deceitfulness (aka Propaganda) about their political opponents. The Landover Baptist Church in conjunction with the efforts of Wikipedia is a perfect example. All reviews are positive, all disgussions are positive, and all negative feedback is deleted. If anyone attempts to enter their website and post that Landover Baptist Church exists simply to mock Christians, and is run by a lying bastard of an Atheist, then your post is immediately deleted.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. 67.85.160.186 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted multipul personal attacks from the above post. Please be civil and please sign your posts. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"Is Wikipedia biased, giving special favor to Atheists? I guess so, since any comment made about Landover Baptist Church which isn't flattering is deleted."
"Isn't flattering"? You mean "wasn't sourced and wasn't flattering". If unflattering things have been said about the site in the media (which I don't doubt), then you could add references to it, with citation. If it's just your personal opinion, then it doesn't matter if it was "unflattering" or not, it shouldn't be there. Whether I were to insert the phrase "Landover Baptist is the most brilliant parody ever of fundamentalist Christians" or the phrase "Landover Baptist is willfully bigoted and offensive to all Christians", it wouldn't matter; EITHER would be deleted as "POV", the unneccesary personal opinions of an editor in lieu of actual (supported i.e. cited to a notable, reliable source) facts.
Communists are Atheists, they both use the same tactics.
While I do believe, IIRC, that Communism usually includes atheism, at least in its governmental forms (such as in Russia or China), being an atheist doesn't make one a Communist. Atheist = doesn't believe in a higher power, which is a much different concept from that of Communism, and is easily seperable from it, unlike select other belief systems such as Shinto, which are extremely difficult to seperate from government. For example, Isaac Asimov was a secular humanist, which is basically moralistic atheism (that is, Humanists believe that mankind is responsible for its actions; secular of course means it is a non-religious branch of Humanism), and he was very much NOT in favor of Communism (seeing as his family delibrately FLED Russia in order to avoid it!), and was in fact in favor of people being individuals and striving for excellence (if you read enough of his work, you begin to get the feeling that he believed the only way Man could survive was consistent technological innovation, which is difficult to genuinely have in full without some level of personal freedom). Even in the Foundation series, where a fictional statistical science can generally predict the behavior of mass groups of humanity, there is inevitably sections of humanity that do not conform to the original "Plan", and this is not always portrayed as inherently bad (indeed, at least once, it was the sole, unaltered discretion of an utterly unmodified mind that saved the entire galaxy from living under a tyrannical rule). Not every atheist is a amoral or a jerk.
"They squelch all opposing viewpoints, while simultaneously spewing lies and deceitfulness (aka Propaganda) about their political opponents."
I can't think of a single atheist politician in the U.S. that has gotten so much as a Senate seat. I'd argue that the groups most prone to yelling down opponents and lying about them are politicians, and comparitively few politicians are atheist. Furthermore, I refer you again to Isaac Asimov, who though he was decidedly and openly non-religious, had no problems against people having religion in general, and was, quite frankly, one of kindest, most easygoing, intelligent, modest men who has ever walked this earth, who would never "squelch" the "opposition" unless it was being genuinely destructive and disruptive beyond reason. I especially refer you to the novel version of Nightfall, which he wrote with Robert Silverberg, in which (spoiler alert!) the religious fundamentalist group is the one that binds people together in the face of a terrifying crisis and, point of fact, saves the "humanity" that exists on that world ("humanity" is in quotes here because they are probably aliens as they live on a different world that has six suns and is obviously not Earth, though the origins of the species on that world are never mentioned and they're described as distinctly humanish, from appearance right down to behavior).
"The Landover Baptist Church in conjunction with the efforts of Wikipedia is a perfect example."
Wikipedia has nothing to do with Landover Baptist, so you can kill the "in conjunction with". Wikipedia merely reports on whatever is notable, and Landover Baptist Church is considered a notable parody site. Wikipedia strives to be neutral, which means only reporting on the claims and general content of the site, its history, any notable controversies relating to it, and what people say about it. Opinions have nothing to do with it (whether yours OR mine), and merely noting the site's existence and detailing its history do not lend any kind of support for the site. The fact that you apparently see no difference between reporting notable facts about the site and being "in conjunction with" it is probably rather telling.
"All reviews are positive, all disgussions are positive, and all negative feedback is deleted."
This article is NOT the place for personal "reviews" or "feedback" on the site. The intention should be, and in general on Wikipedia is, for coverage to be as neutral and informative as possible. The reason your "negative feedback" was probably deleted is because it was your own opinion, and not the stated opinion of a notable source that you were able to cite. If Pat Robertson had stated something about the site being offensive, then you could note it, provided you had a reliable source to prove he actually said as much. If it's just YOUR opinion on Landover Baptist, then it matters no more than mine. If you really think the article is unbalanced and not showing enough of any extant criticism, then find a NOTABLE SOURCE that decries the site, and include references to that, including full citation. Otherwise, your edits will likely continue to be deleted for being, essentially, pointless vandalism to the page (just as it would be if I did the same with an opposite point of view).
"If anyone attempts to enter their website and post that Landover Baptist Church exists simply to mock Christians, and is run by a lying bastard of an Atheist, then your post is immediately deleted."
Again, Wikipedia has nothing to do with Landover Baptist, and cannot control their policies in the least. Assuming though you speak of Wikipedia and not Landover, though, then the reason for the deletion is that it is inflammatory and "POV", not neutral, informative or supported by any reliable, citable sources. First, referring to the site's owner as "Atheist" would need a cite to a reliable source where he actually claimed to be atheist; calling him a "lying bastard", though, is merely an insult, not an actual proveable fact (furthermore, of course he "lies". The whole point of satire or parody is to mock the target by portraying it in exaggerated form, or in this case, pretending to be it in an exaggerated form). If he has actually been untruthful about the site or its policies in the non-satirical sense, then if you can cite it, you can include it. Otherwise, again - it would be an expression of an individual editor's opinion as opposed to verifiable, neatrally-reported fact.
In case you fail to see the logic in this, assume we're talking about Christianity itself, or the messiah, Jesus Christ. Do you like seeing people bash Jesus or Christianity on their respective pages, with no rhyme or reason behind it, spewing forth nothing but nasty, baseless claims and abrasive personal opinions? Of course not. It's not any different with any other article, either. We want EVERYTHING to be merely reporting, neutrally, on the "notable" things and people that exist, why they're notable, and what people have said and done about them. Otherwise, Wikipedia is completely useless as an informational tool for ANYTHING. 4.235.69.150 22:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] high school college users

This page is very good for teachers to use in terms of how to tell bogus and/or deceptive sites. The discussion page is especially enlightening. when editors and commenters are reduced to making up terms (eg I'm not anti-Christian, I'm anti-Christianity) the jig is up. Of course the 'see also' list on the original article should have given it away (you slipped up - you meant the Oniondome, not the Onion). congratulations guys. 140.184.192.117 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/n/Talk%7ELandover_Baptist_Church_7f8d.html"