Mom gets death threats for complaining about Bible Man in schools

[Underseer]

More fatwahs from conservative Christians. Jihad! Jihad for Jesus!

 

[fast]

Should we encourage her to continue complaining?

 

[bilby]

Should we encourage her to continue complaining?

Only if you think that either religious freedom or the US Constitution are worthwhile things to defend. If you don't give a rats about either, then no.

 

[ronburgundy]

"We just can't get over how much hate there is in their loving, Christian hearts", said the mother.

Testify, my sister.

 

[ronburgundy]

Should we encourage her to continue complaining?

Sounds like her case is pretty much over, so no reason for her to continue. But we definitely should very vocally applaud and support her, and demand that prosecutors go after all those who threatened her and put them in prison for as long as the law allows.

 

[fast]

Should we encourage her to continue complaining?

Sounds like her case is pretty much over, so no reason for her to continue. But we definitely should very vocally applaud and support her, and demand that prosecutors go after all those who threatened her and put them in prison for as long as the law allows.

She stood up for what she believes in, and there is some good in what she believes, and for that, yes (yes indeed), applaud and support, and most assuredly, without doubt or question, legally punish those that brought threats in response to her complaining.

Bilby spoke of the constitution, and that, I am in agreement, is something worthy of standing up for.

If called upon in time of war to defend the things worthy of defending, many (perhaps most) would gladly rise to the occasion, and we carry within us the drive and spirit to fight even if we weren't fully fit to do so, and that's a testament to our capacity as human beings to tackle certain wrongs of the world, even if it meant our life.

If the threats were not mere threats but threats that carried grave concern, as opposed to threats that although serious didn't give rise to the notion of imminent danger, I would not think of her as a coward should she have decided to refrain from further needed complaining. Yes, people are willing to die for what they believe in, but it's not wartime, and she has a child, and if there is good reason (very good reason) to think she could become a martyr, it would not be her place but rather our place to make a stand and utilize the laws of our land to support her.

Whether I would encourage continued (presumably needed) complaining would hinge on the threat level. We may choose to do as we will, but it would be wrong to expect unwarranted bravery. She was brave as it were, and if the serious threats were typical run of the mill death threats with a 95% chance of being scare tactics, then sure, we might consider encouraging some added bravery and supporting her continued complaining, but if the serious threats were deemed to be of a threat level such that she may leave her child in this world without a mother, then I think we should not imbue our own willingness to die for what we believe in onto others.

So, in my mind, again, the presence of our encouragement for her to continue complaining, in light of serious death threats, should be a function of the degree to which we think such threats may materialize. Chances are, the threats were merely serious, but if they are so serious such that you believe her kid would lose her mother, then no, don't encourage martyism.

As far as putting the people in prison for making threats, I'll say again, absolutely, but the non extremists among us generally tend to save maximum sentencing for the most egregious.

 

[fast]

Should we encourage her to continue complaining?

I probably should have asked how serious were the death threats, but "very serious" as a response wouldn't have have answered what I did ask.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I guess what angry folks have to ask themselves is "What would Bible Man do in this situation?" Unfortunately, Bible Man looks armed and aggressive, so the answer may be that he'd fuck shit up.

 

[Underseer]

Sounds like her case is pretty much over, so no reason for her to continue. But we definitely should very vocally applaud and support her, and demand that prosecutors go after all those who threatened her and put them in prison for as long as the law allows.

She stood up for what she believes in, and there is some good in what she believes, and for that, yes (yes indeed), applaud and support, and most assuredly, without doubt or question, legally punish those that brought threats in response to her complaining.

Bilby spoke of the constitution, and that, I am in agreement, is something worthy of standing up for.

If called upon in time of war to defend the things worthy of defending, many (perhaps most) would gladly rise to the occasion, and we carry within us the drive and spirit to fight even if we weren't fully fit to do so, and that's a testament to our capacity as human beings to tackle certain wrongs of the world, even if it meant our life.

If the threats were not mere threats but threats that carried grave concern, as opposed to threats that although serious didn't give rise to the notion of imminent danger, I would not think of her as a coward should she have decided to refrain from further needed complaining. Yes, people are willing to die for what they believe in, but it's not wartime, and she has a child, and if there is good reason (very good reason) to think she could become a martyr, it would not be her place but rather our place to make a stand and utilize the laws of our land to support her.

Whether I would encourage continued (presumably needed) complaining would hinge on the threat level. We may choose to do as we will, but it would be wrong to expect unwarranted bravery. She was brave as it were, and if the serious threats were typical run of the mill death threats with a 95% chance of being scare tactics, then sure, we might consider encouraging some added bravery and supporting her continued complaining, but if the serious threats were deemed to be of a threat level such that she may leave her child in this world without a mother, then I think we should not imbue our own willingness to die for what we believe in onto others.

So, in my mind, again, the presence of our encouragement for her to continue complaining, in light of serious death threats, should be a function of the degree to which we think such threats may materialize. Chances are, the threats were merely serious, but if they are so serious such that you believe her kid would lose her mother, then no, don't encourage martyism.

As far as putting the people in prison for making threats, I'll say again, absolutely, but the non extremists among us generally tend to save maximum sentencing for the most egregious.

So whenever religions use violence and the threat of violence to get their way, we should bow down?

Isn't that how the world got in this current mess in the first place?

 

[fast]

So whenever religions use violence and the threat of violence to get their way, we should bow down?

Not in every instance. It can be taken on a case by case basis. Speaking generally (aka generally speaking) we should not bow down to such violence, but to say it's appropriate to encourage behavior where it's reasonable to expect retaliation, protecting life trumps emotionally driven ideology (in the short term). I'm not saying to go through life bowing down to every instance of forceful resistance, but there are smarter ways to combat individual threats.

You are broadening the scope of the discussion when you speak of religions using violence. I'm talking about a person giving a bit more concern about the people in their lives, and I'm talking about a person who has made grave life ending threats. It may be brave yet nevertheless stupid to stand up and walk in the path of moving bullets. But like I said, if the serious threat is merely a serious threat, then sure, complain at your leisure, but if it's not merely a serious threat but in fact a serious threat than can reasonably be counted on as being carried out, then for the sake of their soon to be family's loss, it may be a bit wiser to refrain from actions that will clearly get you killed. In light of that, it's a bit morally questionable to encourage people to dive head first into peril. I'm not saying we shouldn't stand up for what we believe in, not even when the stakes are high, but when the stakes are high, more concern should be given to HOW we choose to stand, not whether we choose to stand. If you encourage someone to do something knowing they are being put in harms way, then shame shame.

 

[thebeave]

Willie Aames is the one and only True BibleMan!! This Horace Turner chap is a fraud.

 

[Keith&Co.]

to encourage behavior where it's reasonable to expect retaliation,

Asking people to obey the law made by the founders, who they consistently claim were on their side, it's reasonable to expect retaliation?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

I guess what angry folks have to ask themselves is "What would Bible Man do in this situation?" Unfortunately, Bible Man looks armed and aggressive, so the answer may be that he'd fuck shit up.

Does his giant dildo have a name, like Excalibur, or maybe Beaver Cleaver?

 

[fast]

to encourage behavior where it's reasonable to expect retaliation,

Asking people to obey the law made by the founders, who they consistently claim were on their side, it's reasonable to expect retaliation?

Are you flipping this around and suggesting that the person who made the threat should expect violent life threatening retaliation from the lady who was threatened? You can disagree with what I've politely been trying to say, but at least be fair when interpreting what I'm trying to say. It's hard to make heads or tails of what point you're trying to impress upon me, as your response seems so distant from what I've been saying.

Maybe your fevered defense is a product of the discussions' religious component. Let me give an illustration that might better drive home my point. Let's say your daughter is proud of a particular college and decides to fly its flag on the same pole your American flag is on. Your deranged neighbor doesn't like it. In fact, he hates it so much that he not only trespassed and took it down, but he went to a gun store and bought extra bullets and sent the receipt to the police with a note of precisely what he was going to do if she flew it again. In your absence, your friends tell your daughter to stand up and fly the flag as she wishes despite the dire threat against her. What I'm telling you is that no matter how much it may be within her right to fly her flag, it's wrong to pump her up about how brave she would be to walk to her flag pole with the intention of expressing her school pride. That doesn't mean she should bow down and never fly the flag, but wouldn't it be reasonable to remove the danger first?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Asking people to obey the law made by the founders, who they consistently claim were on their side, it's reasonable to expect retaliation?

Are you flipping this around and suggesting that the person who made the threat should expect violent life threatening retaliation from the lady who was threatened?

No.
I'm saying it's not reasonable to expect violent retribution if you're on the side of the law, asking people to obey the law.
It's not like she was asking them to give up their god entirely, or to shoot Bibleman, or burn Bibles because they offend her. Just obey the law. That shouldn't garner death threats. Not reasonably....

Maybe your fevered defense is a product of the discussions' religious component.

Or maybe it's something you're projecting into my post from inside your own head.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I'm saying it's not reasonable to expect violent retribution if you're on the side of the law, asking people to obey the law.

The context is that the threats have already been made -- an unreasonable act. The focus of fast's comments, as I read them, was how a person deals with that unreasonable situation. In that situation, some threats are like to be hollow emotional statements for which there is little reason to believe the speaker will follow through. Other threats may be literally threatening or planning something harmful with the intention of following through. There is also a lot of muddled grey area in between.

What fast seemed to be talking about is what a person does when a reasonable assessment of a threat puts it in that second category where the speaker seems to actually intend follow through. This in no way means that the threat itself is reasonable.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The Christers praise themselves for creating a Beloved Community. They are 'made anew' in the spirit, new wine in the wineskin, changed hearts, etc., etc., etc. Try to get them to conform to the Constitutional design of faith in tax-supported venues and they go ballistic -- spouting the most obscenity-laced, vitriolic hatred imaginable. It's a nice insight into what the insularity of orthodoxy really breeds. Ahem.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What fast seemed to be talking about is what a person does when a reasonable assessment of a threat puts it in that second category where the speaker seems to actually intend follow through. This in no way means that the threat itself is reasonable.

Oh, I got that.
I'm just hoping for guidance on how to make this an assessment standard.

I mean, if I just say, out of the blue, that I expect a certain group of Christains to act like bullies and hate-filled children of privilege, spewing hate and displaying varying degrees of violence when they feel that they either lose or have to share the spotlight, or are no longer allowed to break the law, then i'm a hateful anti-theist who's letting my antireligious prejudices color my views.

But after the Christains have their wrists slapped for acting like they're special snowflakes, and they turn into hate filled bullies, displaying rage and threats of violence, it seems that it should have been 'reasonable' to expect that response.

How many times does my 'prejudice' have to bear out, acted out on national TV, before I can start calling it reasonable expectations?

 

[Kharakov]

I mean, if I just say, out of the blue, that I expect a certain group of Christains to act like bullies and hate-filled children of privilege, spewing hate and displaying varying degrees of violence when they feel that they either lose or have to share the spotlight, or are no longer allowed to break the law, then i'm a hateful anti-theist who's letting my antireligious prejudices color my views.

But after the Christains have their wrists slapped for acting like they're special snowflakes, and they turn into hate filled bullies, displaying rage and threats of violence, it seems that it should have been 'reasonable' to expect that response.

How many times does my 'prejudice' have to bear out, acted out on national TV, before I can start calling it reasonable expectations?

Replace Christians with any "racial" group, and "anti-theist" with racist and "antireligious" with antiwhatever.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

But after the Christains have their wrists slapped for acting like they're special snowflakes, and they turn into hate filled bullies, displaying rage and threats of violence, it seems that it should have been 'reasonable' to expect that response.

You say you get it, but that's not the same thing. You're talking about something different. There's nothing wrong with what you are talking about, but it is different.