Christian site to close parody site?

[I, Brian]

Our Purpose:
The Internet was created by the United States of America - a Christian nation [ref. 1, 2, 3] - and should not be used to spread anti-Christian, secular, or non-Christian propaganda and hatespeech. This is our Internet, and we should exercise our position as its owners and as the guardians of civilization to stop its misuse.


“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
- Patrick Henry, American Patriot“Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord [i.e. Jesus Christ] one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names...”
- Article VII, US Constitution


For this reason, this website was created to try and stop one of the more vile and dangerous misuses of the Internet: using it to mock Our Lord Jesus Christ, His teachings, and His followers. And one site in particular stands out in need of stoppage: Landover Baptist.

http://objective.jesussave.us/shutdown.html

The site they want to shut down, http://www.animaldefense.org/landover.html

Question is: are they over-reacting?

[I, Brian]

Landover Baptist claims to be a church. Moreover, they claim to be the only church in America that understands the Bible! In fact, neither is true. Landover Baptist is a fraud. A joke. Their true purpose is not to spread the Gospel of our Lord, but to trick people - especially those who have not received the Word and Salvation or have been programmed by secular culture to distrust Christianity - into believing that Christianity is evil and rejecting it.
For this blasphemous atrocity, the Landover Baptist website must be removed from our Internet.

I've actually visited the Landover page before and read through some - I personally found it a great parody of hardcore Christian Fundamentalism. But what do others here think?

[brucegdc]

It's one of my favorite sites on the net. They do a wonderful job of parody - although they really should put a few more disclaimers up - I see messages about once or twice a month from folks who've just hit it and don't recognize it's a parody and go ballistic.

[Ferre]

I guess, even when they add a big red text "PARODY" on the site, there still will be people who get 'ballistic'. Some folks just miss the sense of humor, or the brains to understand what other's do at first glimp.

I do think it's pretty scary those extremists at that website have a children's part with the same intolerance as a message towards our kids.

[Vajradhara]

DARPA created the Internet along with a team of European researchers! who are these jokers kidding? what... they think that Al Gore, no disrespect intended, was serious when he claimed that he created it?

nothing like using disinformation to make one's point... i'm sure they could take lessons from Gobbels

[dasant]

A Christian nation. That’s such a lie. First of all we left Britain to escape the Church of England. That way we could live a free life, free of religious pressure. America was founded on the right of freedom of religion, and that's all I have to say about this bs.

[Johanna]

That site is also a parody though. If you check out some of the mirror sites they lead to completely different things - plus, it's all so typical-fundie-cliché.

[Susma Rio Sep]

The posts in this thread should bring up the question whether people can abuse a religion observed by others nonchalantly.

1. Abuse in the sense of making fun of its irrational or obscurantist or funny beliefs and observances, the most offense here is one against charity, i.e., towards the benighted who on good faith maintain their benightment.

2. Abuse in the sense of pointing out in a critical manner its errors and its physical and emotioanl harms to its own adherents and to the community, that is a duty of any enlightened thinker.

3. Abuse in the sense of discriminating against them even on matters where they are not adversely affected by their particular beliefs and observances, and these do no inconvenience to say the least to the community, that is certainly against religious liberty.

Now, the prohibition against scarves used by Muslim women, I believe that is against religious liberty.

But a religion, for example, Islam, should not go around issuing death sentences to people like Salman Rushdie; because the man is within his right and duty as an enlightened member of the human race to point out the errors of Islam, on grounds of Nos. 1 and 2.

How should religionists feel about people like Salman Rushdie? It is the price and merit they have to pay and reap for being true to their religion. If they can't take it, then they should go live among themselves away from the rest of mankind. Then they will be doing themselves a great favor and also the rest of mankind.


Susma Rio Sep