When it Comes to Hateful Internet Speech, Christians Are the Worst

Thanks to horrible Christian comments online, I realized there’s a big difference between being Christian and following Jesus.

The New York Times published a piece last week called “The Data of Hate.” Much of the data came from Stormfront.org, which Times contributor Seth Stephens-Davidowitz called “America’s most popular online hate site.” It was founded in 1995 by former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black.

The frightening thing is that 76 percent of Americans on the site are under 30. According to the Times story, Stormfront’s targets break down like this: 39 percent Jews, 33 percent blacks, 13 percent Hispanics, 11 percent Muslims and 3 percent other.

This led me to surmise that many of the haters are white Christians.

I founded OnFaith eight years ago this summer. I was new to the religion world when I started and had no idea what to expect. The fact is that I was too green to anticipate the potential complications that might arise from a pluralistic religion site. I had long heard the old adage that one never discussed religion or politics at dinner, but I was not intimidated. One of my friends asked me if I was afraid of running a religion website because it might be too controversial. I replied that I had covered Washington social life for many years, and nothing was more dangerous than that.

But I hadn’t counted on one thing: the Christians. Yes, the Christians.

Anyone in the public eye — whether writing for newspapers, being in politics, or on television — gets hate mail. There are a lot of kooks out there. Back when people wrote letters, you could spot a kook from the handwriting: thin pen, slanted, and squiggly. On the outside of the envelope were often little notes like “I have electrodes in my teeth.” Inside, everything was underlined in red with lots of exclamation points. I used to wonder if there was a special school for crazy people to learn how to write these letters.

When I started OnFaith, the mail became comments on the Internet — and they were worse than the letters.

I can’t tell you how many people wrote in to say that I was a whore and a slut and so much worse that I can’t even write it here. And these all came from Christians.

The first hate emails I received were horrible. They did not just attack what I wrote — which was usually about spirituality more than religion — but were also vicious ad hominem attacks. I can’t tell you how many people wrote in to say that I was a whore and a slut and so much worse that I can’t even write it here. And these all came from Christians. I was going to hell. I had made a pact with the devil. Jesus and God hated me. One man wrote that he hoped I would get in a car accident, that the gas tank would explode and I would be burned alive. He was a God-fearing Christian, and he ascertained that I obviously was not one.

I got a lot of hate mail from the Rapture crowd. When the Rapture came, all of those who had accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior were going to be taken up to heaven and I would be left behind in a sea of blood.

I decided the only way to escape this vitriol was not to read the comments, and I don’t anymore. But many in the distinguished panel of authors, theologians, religion scholars, and thinkers who were writing for the site couldn’t stay away from the comments. They would spend days obsessing over them. One friend, a well-known Catholic, wrote a lovely spiritual piece about his faith, and he was excoriated for it. (Some Protestant Christians don’t cotton to Catholics, either.) Another guy wrote to a colleague that he hoped she would be raped by a donkey with AIDS. I thought that was pretty original.

I talked to Christian theologians, pastors, and scholars because I truly didn’t understand where all this Christian hatred was coming from. Nobody had a good answer. The Internet is clearly a place for a lot of hateful people, including hateful Christians, to sound off. If they are anonymous, they can be the worst versions of themselves. Perhaps they have bought into the popular notion that Christians are the new religious victims in this country. Maybe they feel guilty about their own sins. Maybe they are afraid of going to hell. Maybe they are frustrated because they have to actually act like Christians in real life and need a place to unleash their dark sides. Who knows?

 I began to see that there is a big difference between being Christian and following the teachings of Jesus.

In the face of these Christian commenters, I didn’t know what “Christian” meant any more. I began to see that there is a big difference between being Christian and following the teachings of Jesus. In fact, sometimes those two things can be polar opposites. Our Christian haters clearly paid little attention to Jesus.

Interestingly, the only other people I have gotten hate mail from are atheists. Atheist hate mail is usually of a more intellectual persuasion, and they have never been violent, but they are extremely contemptuous, insulting, and condescending.

I once wrote about a barrage of hate mail I got from atheists and received dozens of apologies from other atheists. I have never gotten any personal hate mail from a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a pagan, an agnostic, or a humanist.

Seth Stevens-Davidowitz concludes “The Data of Hate” by saying, “Why do some people feel this way? And what is to be done about it? I have poured over data of an unprecedented breadth and depth, thanks to our new digital era. And I can honestly offer the following answer. I have no idea.”

Neither have I.

Image via Shutterstock.

Sally Quinn
Written by
  • tanyam

    I have no need to defend the Christians, but its difficult to know what you’re reading in online comments. I once got a drunken call from a bunch of frat boys — threatening to rape me, torch me, etc. That they tagged on “and did I know what jesus said about people like me?” didn’t make me think they must be seminarians. They just knew a little lingo and thought it gave them some sort of cover or legitimacy. Plenty of people are culturally religious — you know, just enough to cover their bigotry.

    • RoboJane

      Isn’t that the exact point of this article, though? There’s a difference between ‘being Christian’ and following Jesus. The culturally religious and your frat boys fall into the first category.

      • Aquaria

        You seriously think that there’s a difference between being christer and following your deity?

        Your deity advocated for the most evil and sadistic idea ever conjured: the eternal torture of anyone who disagreed with him. Essentially, permanent, unrelenting torture for thought crimes. Do you truly understand how much hate and depravity it takes to arrange for, advocate for, encourage, carry out and watch torture taking place–as your deity explicitly does, and, worse, to do it forever?

        You might as well worship Ted Bundy for helping people on suicide prevention hotlines (really) while ignoring the torture and murder he was also committing. Like Bundy, any good things your deity might have said or done (and they’re precious few) are
        utterly negated by the hideous depravity of inflicting torture on those who disagree with him. Or supposedly inflicting it, in the case of your deity’s claims.

        I’d call anyone who would arrange for, advocate for, encourage, carry out and watch torture taking place–as your deity explicitly does–a sadistic bully. Furthermore, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the followers of that sadistic bully were themselves sadistic bullies, or became sadistic bullies under the sadistic deity’s influence.

        Which means there is no difference between “being christer” and “following the sadist deity”. They’re one and the same.

  • nwcolorist

    Ms. Quinn, thank you for taking on a very high voltage subject. I’m a conservative Christian, and have enjoyed reading the articles for several months now.

    I’d like to make a few comments. After a few months of reading On Faith I noticed what seemed to be a significant number of articles on atheism. One writer has had dozens of articles printed. Maybe I’ve missed them, but although there have been several pieces discussing mainstream and evangelical Christianity, I’ve yet to see a serious discussion of the fundamentalist sector, you know, one without blanket judgments and the typical name calling that so often accompanies the subject.

    If On Faith is going to discuss atheism, which comprises 3% of the population, it would be more than fair to discuss fundamentalism, which includes anywhere from 25-50% of Protestants. Although we are constantly being demonized by the media, I think you’ll find that excluding the fringe elements, we are the people down the street and at you work.

    Concerning the article and the nasty letters you’ve received, please remember that Christianity covers a huge segment of the population. If only 3% of Christians are abusive that would be at least 3-4 million. So a comparatively large amount of this type is not unusual. I’m not defending the content of these letters, but please remember that Jesus didn’t come to cure the healthy, but to help the sick. He’s in the business of changing people’s from the inside out. It’s too bad the media doesn’t focus on the many cases of broken lives changed for the positive.

    BTW, I comment frequently as a conservative Christian and can’t count the number of hateful comments and names directed my way by secularists. I have learned to ignore them.

    Again, thanks for this website.

    • Sam

      I agree that the media is often all about the sensational. No one reads articles about the long lasting peace or the joy of loving relationships, so in order to sell ad space they follow the conflict. The media portrayal of muslims is one of horror because it sells.

      Regarding the lack of articles on fundamentalist Christianity, perhaps you should submit one. :)

      • nwcolorist

        Thanks for the suggestion.

  • EM_Gumby

    Worse than atheists???!

    Clearly, we need to try harder. ;-P

  • Dog Almighty

    “I have never gotten any personal hate mail from a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a pagan, an agnostic, or a humanist.”

    You are factually incorrect on this one. Most atheists are also agnostics and humanists. Ergo: if you feel you have gotten hate mail from atheists, then you have also gotten it from agnostics and humanists.

    I also suspect, even though I have not read this hate mail, that you describe them as “extremely contemptuous, insulting, and condescending” just because atheists have the tendency to be very straight-forward about their views. That’s because they passionately care about the truth of things, and as a result they are eager to debate, discuss and point out logical mistakes in other people’s reasoning. This way of speaking is of course common in scientific discourse, but many people are simply not used to it. When they are told that their views are wrong, they take it personally and feel that it is a “contemptuous, insulting, and condescending” attack on them as people. As a result of this straight talk that atheists prefer to engage in is, that they usually have very little patience to deal with arguments that are completely void of any intellectual merit. Because of this they like to add humour and sarcasm to their remarks when picking apart these arguments. This again can feel uncomfortable for a person; not only is an atheist showing why the person is wrong, but also doing it with enough ease to have fun with it. That might make the person feel that the atheist’s remarks are insulting, even though they are not.

    However, on to the real issue: The (seemingly never-ending) problem that we have here now is the definition of Christianity. That is what Christians need to solve. They cannot continue endlessly referring to the Bible on this and that, and what they think is “true Christianity”, because everyone has a different opinion on that. They only way to move forward is to finally come to a conclusion on that question. Quinn says: ” I began to see that there is a big difference between being Christian and following the teachings of Jesus. In fact, sometimes those two things can be polar opposites. Our Christian haters clearly paid little attention to Jesus.” Yeah, based on your personal interpretation of Christianity. Those Christians that send hate-filled mail to you believe very strongly that they follow Jesus. It’s not like they think in their minds that “oh, I’m a real Christian, but I don’t care about that Christ guy.”

    So what needs to be done is to show that certain Christians have the correct interpretation of Christianity, Jesus’ teachings or what have you, and other don’t. That, of course, will never happen. Why? Because everyone are using faith as a method of reaching conclusions about the world. And faith is not a reliable way of making discoveries. Faith is the very reason why we have literally hundreds of different Christian denominations that disagree with each other.

  • Martin Hughes

    I somewhat share Dog’s surprise over the seemingly sharp distinction between atheists and humanists, though I suppose that those who self-identify as ‘humanists’ may be atheists who wish to be humane, so don’t resort to insults. I wonder if you have been working in the area where Christians and atheists have the greatest sensitivities, so are most inclined to lash out. The others might do some lashing out if the discussion moves on to areas where their sensitivities most lie, such as the politics of the areas where their religions are dominant or embattled.

  • http://almostreadytogoamish.blogspot.com/ Johnny

    Have you ever spent much time at the CNN blogs, namely the religion ones? The secularists have a holiday with the snide mockery, condescention and insults there, to the point I don’t even bother going anymore, as it’s such a cesspool of acidic hatred. Most of the blogs I frequent the Christians are fairly civil in their discourse, so not sure what to think of your comments and if you might be overgeneralizing.

    • DrewTwoFish

      My experience has been that the more conservative the site (e.g. Charisma, ChristianPost) the uglier the comments get. I’m regularly gob smacked by what I read from “Christians.” Or I was…starting to expect it now. Seriously.

    • Aquaria

      You’re so accustomed to the hatreds of christianity that you don’t consider what they say insulting.

      Try not being one, and you’ll realize how hateful and violent they are. After all, by belionging to that cult, they’re advocating for eternal torture for thought crimes. Oh, they try to hide it, and cover it up, but, when you pin them down, they’re all okay with eternal torture, or they wouldn’t worship what they do.

      You don’t get anymore hateful or violent than wishing eternal torture on anyone.

      Period.

  • Bruce Armstrong

    First, it is rather ironic to read your complaint about ad hominem attacks from “Christians,” when, frankly, your entire column comes across as just the sort of ad hominem attack you (quite rightly) criticize.

    Second, the reason that there is a “popular notion” that Christians are the “new religious victims in this country” is because, in point of fact, they are. Look at the vile and hateful comments directed at Christians in wake of the Hobby Lobby and Mass. buffer zone decisions. Look at the evangelical Christian groups being forced off college campuses across the country because they want an evangelical Christian group to be led by, well, evangelical Christians. Take the wrong” position (as determined by society) on gay marriage and lose your job. Pro-life / anti-abortion protesters are routinely vilified and harassed by the legal system as well as the media.

    Third, I think you touched on the heart of the matter when you made brief reference to anonymous commenters being “the worst versions of themselves.” Most people, regardless of their religious identification (or lack thereof), seem to throw their discretion, decency, and good judgment on the dustheap of the Internet when their identity is obscured by a funny avatar, a made-up “handle” or the “guest” label.

    Finally (yes, I know, about time!) – how do we get rid of the hate, or at least reduce its visibility? (1) Eliminate all anonymous commenting. (2) Webmasters and moderators should be ready and willing to delete posts and ban commenters – permanently, if necessary. (3) If necessary, eliminate all comments – temporarily or, as a last measure, permanently. (4) Think about what we’re posting – as a columnist, blogger, Twitterer, or commenter.

    • nwcolorist

      Bruce, good points. Regarding your fourth point, there are a number of columnists out there, who I would call professional trolls, The Guardian has at least two, who thrive on stepping on toes and poking certain groups in the eye. There’s plenty of rude, indecent, and mean spirited commenting out there on both sides.

    • Dog Almighty

      That second point about Christians being religious victims is a new, popular myth which is part of Christians’ persecution complex. The reality is that they are not victims. It would be strange if they were, since 75% of the United States identify as Christian (Pew Research Forum’s Religious Landscape Survey). The idea of the large majority being persecuted by some cunning minority is laughable.

      Christians have always been favoured over other groups, and they still are, so they have gotten used to being privileged. Christian institutions are also tax exempt in many regards and making millions because of it. They are free to spread their message and market their churches, Christianity – and only Christianity – is still frequently intertwined with government functions such as opening prayers before local council meetings. Christianity is still heavily allowed to impact government policy, e.g. in questions about reproductive rights. The president even attended a National Prayer Breakfast during which he said how important the life of Jesus was. These are just a few of the many, many cases in which Christians are favoured over others.

      But now that society is finally waking up to this privilege and saying something about it, Christians are immediately up in arms about it. They are simply not used to facing push back so when they do, they think it is persecution, even though it’s not. It’s just regular criticism of ideas that results from dealing with all kinds of topics. Why should religious ideas be exempt from this criticism? They shouldn’t. Christians feeling like “religious victims” is just them not being used to criticism and that other groups demand to have the same rights as Christians have.

      And even if one can find a few examples where Christians have been treated unfairly, does not mean there is a large scale attack on “Christian values”. No one is coming to Christians’ doors and banning them from speaking up. No one is beheading Christians like they do in many other countries. There is no one demanding that Christians are put in prison for their views. All the criticism of their ideas happen after they have spoken up, just as is should when people have freedom of speech. Facing sharp criticism is just a part of life, it is not a sign of persecution. Here are a few examples of that distinction:

      If two people in love are forbidden from marrying each other, then those people’s rights are being violated. But if these people are allowed to get married despite that your religion is against it, then your rights are not being violated. If you are being forced to use birth control even though it’s against your religion, then that is a violation of your human rights. (But it doesn’t happen in the US, does it?) But if you are unable to stop others from using birth control, then that is not a violation of your human rights.

      • urkmonster

        Thank you! That was a very polite explanation of the rage I feel when Christians confuse practicing their religion with forcing their religion’s practices on others.

      • ally

        Flamboyant and rhetoric if I say so myself .

        When israel in the biblical times followed the bible and punished and abstained the wrong doers I believe we should likewise follow this example with America and and chrisitan majority nation and abide by the principles our forefathers raised us to be .

        • Sam

          The forefathers weren’t Christian….

          • DrSamHerman

            Really? What were they? Most available historians would disagree with that asinine assumption very quickly.

          • Sam

            Asinine?

            Please provide the actual source material for this extraordinary claim.

            Nearly all the Founding Fathers were deist. The United States is a direct result of the Enlightenment Principles that were in direct contradiction to the Church, all of them. And as to whether or not America was a Christian nation this is clarified in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.

          • DrSamHerman

            Which church? Are you referring to Catholicism, the Anglican community, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Pietism, Anabaptsts? You are using a monolithic designation that does not apply. That is asinine. That’s like saying Americans are all one race.

            Ben Franklin was known to attend several churches, John Adams was a practicing Christian as documented by his letters to his wife, yet he rejected organized Christianity on his belief that no intermediary was necessary. All of the other founding fathers, including Jefferson, openly supported their churches or their faiths.

            And by enlightenment principles, do you mean the French, British, Russian or Swedish?

            The more you generalize, the less you seem sane.

          • Sam

            Okay. I understand. By willfully sullying the waters you attempt to avoid the point and deny the facts. I understand.

            We both are quite clear on what I meant by Church just as we are about the lack of America being a Christian nation. And we are both quite clear on what Enlightenment is under discussion.

            Your desire to avoid the point is what is taking place now. You speak of my sanity when you are using every tool that you can to be dishonest and manipulate the situation.

            And we both now about Jefferson’s Bible. If you don’t please feel free to look it up. I think the more honest inquiry you make the more you shall see the propaganda that tries to distort this nation. Just as you are attempting to distort this conversation.

            So perhaps instead of distortion and manipulation how about facts? How about some honesty? It is sorely lacking in discussions but I believe in you. I believe in us. I know we can have an honest discussion. So how about it. No manipulation of the facts, no name calling. Just honesty. That would start by you owning up to the fact that you know the Church I am talking about and the Enlightenment I am talking about and avoiding conflating like you attempted to with the American race comment.

            Thank you and I look forward to hearing your honest reply.

      • DrSamHerman

        Yes, it is the Christians who burnt down the mosques in Egypt. Oh, wait a minute….it was vice-versa!

        And somehow I doubt Christians would exactly be welcomed to distribute bibles during a Wiccan festival or Muslims would be open-minded during the Hajj.

        And if you are not fro the US, butt out.

        • Sam

          I apologize for the delay. I didn’t see the response.

          So once again you chose not to respond to the whole but to once again side step.

          Very well, you cite a hate crime committed by a group of Muslims against a group of Christians. What of the hate crimes committed by Christians, whether are committed against Muslims or Jews or Pagans. Why cherry pick? This is the continuation of your intellectual dishonesty.

          And are you saying that you welcome Muslims distributing Quran’s out side of churches on Easter and Christmas? Or Wiccans teaching the idea of the Goddess outside of churches? What are you attempting to say?

          I also don’t understand how you conflate anything I have said with being anti-American. Do you believe that God loves America most?

          How long and how deeply will you avoid your self? How long will you allow this cognitive dissonance to take place? How long will you allow, endorse, and reinforce your non-factual based perspective? Your self-profile says you are trained in psychology. I would hope one trained in critical analysis of perspective would apply such tools on themselves.

          • DrSamHerman

            I am trained in psychiatry, Sam, and you don’t know what the hell cognitive dissonance is. First you thought I called you perfect, then you concluded that historically segmented religion was monolithic and then you start hurling around psychobabble and nonsense that is well beyond your intellectual capacity to comprehend, let alone debate.

            Spare us the diatribe. Between your neurotic need for someone to agree with your false beliefs and your poor attempts at intellectual conversation, there isn’t much to work with. Your questions are formed out of a desire to continue a conversation you are not equipped to handle. Get over it.

          • Sam

            It is interesting that you claim to be trained in Psychiatry. I would think someone who is would refrain from personal attacks and name calling. Perhaps the school you went to taught the value of such personal attacks? Or is it a remnant of some prior abuse? Perhaps you can speak to an actual psychiatrist who can help you struggle through that.

            You state that I seek reinforcement for my beliefs while you parade your “Doctorate.” Which of us seems to be seeking the approval of others? Or perhaps my replies are what lead you to think I seek agreement with my “false beliefs”? If that is so, what is your excuse? Do you suffer the same way I do or are you somehow above such things? This ability to create variant representations of each of us for the same actions is the root of your problem. You need to stop projecting (“poor attempts at intellectual conversation”, “a conversation you are not equipped to handle”, “psychobabble and nonsense that is well beyond your intellectual capacity to comprehend, let alone debate”) and own up to your own failings and shortcomings.

            I have clearly responded to every comment and point you have made. I even have attempted to discuss things from the shared vantage of humans fluent in English with a shared cultural context of contemporary America, but you even refuse that by pretending to not know what is being spoken of. How this actually helps you understand the world of be honest with even yourself alludes me.

            Dehumanizing me, belittling me, and being dismissive will not get me or anyone else to approve or reinforce your position. I understand that you seem to have a deep emotional investment in your position, as untenable as it is, that cannot allow you to back down. You feel the need to force others to see that you are right and to reinforce your own narrative, which appears to me as inconsistent.

            You leave me with a troubling choice:
            1) do I let this go in the hopes of causing you no further harm, or
            2) do I continue to stand against your irrationality in the hopes you see what is really going on?

            Which would do less harm and help you the most?

          • DrSamHerman

            Do not try to practice, Sam. It is an insult to my profession and just makes you look like a bigger fool.

            If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic by now.

          • Sam

            And once again you resort to name calling.
            Is this how you practice? If so it is an insult to your “profession”. You are distort at will, attempt to be manipulative, and down right abusive. If you really are a psychiatrist you should have your license revoked. No one deserves such treatment. Even you.

            Do you want to talk about why you decide to hurl attacks and insults rather than actually discuss substantive issues? It’s okay. I want you to know you are loved regardless of your behavior. You can get better and you can let go of this hatred that festers within. I feel bad for you. You seem so lost and hurt that all you have left is to lash out. I believe in your ability to heal, your ability to once again start helping people rather than abusing them. And I know that if you can start to let go of this need to hurt others and yourself you can begin to repair your fractured personal relationships. We have all hurt and been hurt by those closest to us, but I want to assure you that they still love you and you still love them. It’s not to late. You can start today. You can reach out and begin the healing process. It won’t happen overnight but you can do this.

          • DrSamHerman

            We’re not in a clinical situation, Sam, and physicians are allowed to have opinions and express them, contrary to dolts like you who blab about expectations which have no real basis.

            Go take your Abilify and perhaps your own psychiatrist will let you use the computer in the patient lounge again.

            I notice your reception from other posters has been less than polite. Gee, think there’s a reason for that?

          • Sam

            There is a difference between opinions and verbal assault. I endorse opinions they give us strength. Real strength. Just like relationships do. Attacking and belittling people doesn’t strengthen anyone. And they are a poor substitute for actual opinions. And you are correct that there is a difference between this and a clinical situation but if you are so full of venom how could you possibly separate the two? If you have been trained in the science that you claim you would understand that every part of us effects every part of us. The poison bleeds from one part of your life to another. So how do you justify personal attacks? Do they make anything better? Or is that not what you want? Do you just want more hate, anger, and mutual destruction?

            (And do I live in my mother’s basement or an in patient facility? I get confused on what your chosen narrative is.)

            I do think there is a reason that “other posters has been less than polite”. The topic drew out a lot of hateful people who made a lot of horrible statements. I decided to interject myself into the maw. When you deal with people who’s first response is to rely on logical fallacies it makes sense that they would continue to behave in such abusive manner especially when you continue to point out their inaccuracies. But as I said I believe in you, just as I believe in them. If I didn’t care I wouldn’t be here.

            I forgive you. Can you forgive yourself?

          • DrSamHerman

            You dragged lefist, crackpot meme into your useless little mental masturbatory exercise, including Wikipedia (the “Global Tattler” of references) and the idiocy of your therapist’s monologue to you, and you expect any credibility whatsoever Sam-o? The problem is you go on and on like the Energizer Bunny of Stupid, not stopping to answer anybody’s questions while you insist they answer your Zen-mixed-with-PCP questions. Nobody takes you seriously because you are the quintessential parroting leftist with no clue other than what somebody else tells you to say. No originality, no intelligent discourse and no amount of credibility are the three reasons people look at you and dismiss you for the muttering schizophrenic on the sidewalk begging for change. Live with the fact that you are nothing worth engaging, not to mention nothing period.

    • Sam

      I find, particularly, your second point to be interesting. Would you be so kind as to elaborate?

    • James

      –”Second, the reason that there is a “popular notion” that Christians are the “new religious victims in this country” is because, in point of fact, they are.”–

      No. They aren’t. Exactly how many members of Congress *don’t* publicly profess some form of Christianity? If Christians were truly being persecuted, none of them would claim they were Christian.

      Just look at the Hobby Lobby decision—not the response, but the actual decision itself. Five Supreme Court Justices—all of whom are professing Christians—decided that the Christian beliefs of the owners of a national corporate chain trumped existing law, such that they are being allowed to impose their beliefs on their employees by forbidding their employees from using certain forms of their wages to buy birth control.

      It takes an enormous amount of chutzpah (if not intellectual dishonesty) to claim that a ruling that significantly expanded the range in which Christian business owners can “express” their religion, is a sign that Christians are some kind of persecuted class.

  • Villefort

    You should be sent hate mail for writing this inane article. Also, you don’t know what ad hominem means. I hope that was contemptuous enough. Signed, a humanist agnostic.

  • This Side of Hell

    Stormfront? lol The militant left’s go to site for all things White Devil and EVIL. “many of the haters are white Christians” Sure if you are a militant Atheist / gay / faux victims minorities agitating to feed a narrative then you will search out your favorite STRAWMEN to punt. Can’t get more fixated and hyperventilated than that.

    • Sam

      Did you read the article or just skip to making comments?

      • This Side of Hell

        Is this rhetorical or just a brain fart Gracie?

        • Sam

          It was a legitimate question. Are you going to answer or just deflect?

          • This Side of Hell

            You deem it legit. Deflect? More like prudent and staying with my original thought. What is there to deflect?

          • Sam

            Prudent? Interesting.

            I am often amazed at the seeming flexibility that reality is approached with on the internet. I would think it would be clear what was being deflected as well as the legitimacy of my original question. Perhaps our species should begin a dialogue about the basics of dialogue. A discussion focused on understanding a framework of communication that allows all parties to be able to come to the conversation from a point of mutual understanding in at least how and what is being said. I think it would behoove us all.

            So let’s take your original point:

            Stormfront? lol The militant left’s go to site for all things White Devil and EVIL. “many of the haters are white Christians” Sure if you are a militant Atheist / gay / faux victims minorities agitating to feed a narrative then you will search out your favorite STRAWMEN to punt. Can’t get more fixated and hyperventilated than that.

            As you can see above you begin by bringing up your disagreement with the use of an example of a Christian hate group to illustrate the point, but I suppose you could say they are not a legitimate but then you would be deeming things legit that may not be considered legit by others, which you have already shown that you are willing to dismiss.

            You go on to accuse a militant left of having this as a go to resource for all things “White Devil and EVIL.” This statement begins by creating a straw man, the “militant left.” You then use this straw man of misusing Stormfront in some fashion. Perhaps you don’t think they are “EVIL.” Perhaps you feel they are a honest, upstanding Christian individuals who are bad mouthed. Perhaps their form of white supremacy for Jesus is what you think is actual Christianity. Maybe you think other groups are better suited to the role you imposed on them, this ideal of “White Devil” and “EVIL.” What group suits that role better for you? But that is really begging the question though, correct?

            You then go on to say:

            “many of the haters are white Christians” Sure if you are a militant Atheist / gay / faux victims minorities agitating to feed a narrative then you will search out your favorite STRAWMEN to punt.

            Thus seeming to agree with the aforementioned hatred, but disagreeing with who would experience it as hate. Perhaps if one Christian said to another that they “hoped she would be raped by a donkey with AIDS” or “hoped I would get in a car accident, that the gas tank would explode and I would be burned alive” it would not be considered hateful and thus statements of “haters.” Your statement seems to imply that you feel that these statements are only hateful if turned on “militant Atheist / gay / faux victims minorities.”

            That portion of what you said alone, “faux victims minorities,” seems to imply that there is no victimization of minorities or at least not real minorities. So which minorities would be real minorities? Stormfront, I hope, would be a minority so perhaps they are the real minority you speak of? Or perhaps some willful manipulation of stats will be used to show how Christians are somehow a minority or like another thread here you can speak of the genocide against the Whites in order to “shore up” your statements. It is well documented by people across the spectrum what minorities are though and how they are victimized. Being intellectually dishonest in order to attempt to justify your position doesn’t actually legitimize it, it only further creates a false sense of victimhood on your part.

            Which plays well into the rest of your statement:

            agitating to feed a narrative then you will search out your favorite STRAWMEN to punt. Can’t get more fixated and hyperventilated than that.

            As shown above “search(ing) out your favorite STRAWMEN to punt” is exactly what you were doing. From the “faux minorities” to the “militant left” you have repeatedly “agitat(ed) to feed a narrative” that feeds your victimhood. Rather than taking personal responsibility for being a participant in the world that exists you have sought out a narrative that explains a world that is changing around you. We all do this but how far afield it is from what is going on varies greatly. But your original post shows how you are “fixated and hyperventilat(ing).” Can one get more “more fixated and hyperventilated”? I thinks so. Just look to the individual once more who is claiming a genocide against whites is taking place. They are certainly more fixated and hyperventilating then you but you both seem to have decided to bear the same cross. That of “faux victims.”

            Now my original question was:

            Did you read the article or just skip to making comments?

            I think I have clarified what I was saying above but please allow me to quote for you:

            Perhaps if one Christian said to another that they “hoped she would be raped by a donkey with AIDS” or “hoped I would get in a car accident, that the gas tank would explode and I would be burned alive” it would not be considered hateful and thus statements of “haters.”

            This is the idea behind my inquiry. Did you read that before you responded or did you decide to not read the article so you could play the victim? And that is why it was a legitimate question. Do you legitimately feel that that is not hateful? Or only when applied to your strawman is it hateful? If someone said that to you would it be non-hateful? Do you think that such a statement is not hateful?

            But I do have to relent that you are correct in that it is “prudent and staying with my original thought” to avoid answering my question. If you actually answered my question you would have to own up to your own fallacies and your consistent use of a strawman. You would also have to own up to your own internalized victimhood. So it is prudent of you to avoid answering the question. All of my questions actually. And that, my friend, is why you would deflect?

            Is there further clarification I can provide? Or do you have a actual rebuttal? Or will you rely of strawmen, ad hominem, and further distortions of reality to justify your position? Or will you just walk away?

          • This Side of Hell

            You’re rambling.

          • Sam

            You asked for clarification and I provided it.

          • This Side of Hell

            I asked for nothing but you felt the need to interject. There is a difference.

          • Sam

            Now you bemoan my interjection of an unsolicited comment on your interjection of an unsolicited comment? Does the humor of that elude you?

            As to your statement “I asked for nothing”, you stated “What is there to deflect?” 18 hours ago. I would go into further clarification as to the process that lead us here but you would deflect once again and call it rambling?

            What is next? How do you plan to avoid any actual self-responsibility this time?

  • immykal

    I suggest you draw a cartoon of Mohammed if you truly think Christians are the most “hateful” .. moron.

    • dogged

      God can surely forgive & protect the infidel from his (or her) sins of unbelief. But does God protect the “Useful Idiot” from the malevolence of depraved human beings? Would Ms. Quinn share an equal fate if stranded on an island of evangelical Christians vs. an island full of Islamic jihadists?

      • Sam

        You are saying that Islamic jihadist and evangelical Christians are the same?

    • Sam

      Name calling? Does that change your mind? Let’s see.

      You are wrong, idiot.

      Are you convinced now that you are wrong?

  • Robbins Mitchell

    I should feel insulted considering that this comes from someone who began her career as Ben Bradley’s whore….but if you consider the source,it’s just more meaningless beltway donkey$h!t

    • Sam

      Do you know the definition of irony?

  • David Mills

    Hahaha! Sally you’re so funny! Just go to a super-feminist blog and mention that you think it’s wrong to kill unborn babies. Then feel the love.

    • Sam

      What is an unborn baby?

      • David Mills

        Good question

        • Sam

          Looks like a fetus….
          It doesn’t look like a fetus to you?

  • BarryBarry

    When it come to ignorance and arrogance, journalists are King. I can say that because I read this crappy screed on this crappy site, so it applies to all journalists.

    • Sam

      If you were to receive the feed back of “crappy” would you be enriched by it? If not, why would you expect some else to be?

      Or is it just about making an arrogant and ignorant comment? Perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate your position.

      • BarryBarry

        I love ESL responses.

        Dingbat Quinn condemns all Christians because of the comments she reads here. I condemn all journalists because of the articles I read here.

        Are we clear or do you need a bilingual instructor to translate for you?

        • Sam

          So personal attacks are the only response you are capable of? And name calling?

          Thank you for clarifying your position.
          I wish you the best.

  • DrSamHerman

    Disgusting pile of anti-Christian propaganda, Ms. Quinn. It’s apparent that you know nothing of what Christ taught. He taught us to love the sinner, but hate the sin. He taught us to show kindness to our enemy, for they act out of ignorance. He taught us to turn the other cheek and to eschew hatred, violence and oppression. But isn’t that exactly what you counted on? You have the bully pulpit of your column, buoyed and coddled by the editorial staff, and from that vantage point it is so easy to attack Christians because you know they will not fight back.

    Do I doubt you have received hate mail from Muslims? Yes. Frankly, you are wealthy and in a position to have a staff that simply could eliminate all of that unpleasantness before it reaches your antique desk. Where you to ever libel Islam with the same bile and with the same vile lies, you know they would be NOWHERE near as tolerant as Christians have been with your constant lies and attacks. I don’t even think you know any Christians, and you might meet some to talk openly about their beliefs instead of castigating them, oh Pauline Kael of Christianity.

    • Sam

      Would Jesus approve of your post?

      • DrSamHerman

        Why don’t you ask him?

        • Sam

          I’m not the one stating “you know nothing of what Christ taught”. I was hoping you could clarify how what Jesus taught aligns with what you said. Would you be so kind as to clarify?

          • DrSamHerman

            Well Sam, it’s not like it has been written down for over 2,000 years in something called the New Testament, or debated by Christians openly during that same time period now, is it?

            Nor is it like Ms. Quinn has been a less than sterling example of Christianity herself. I am far from perfect, but the same realization has yet to hit Ms. Quinn. Or you.

          • Sam

            You read in to my questions that I think I am perfect? Interesting.

            So what you are saying is that it is so obvious what the Bible says that you don’t need to justify your beliefs as billions of Christians have before you? So if they are so obvious how do billions of contemporary Christians (literally) disagree with your understanding?

            But if for the less than last 2000 years there has been, more or less, open debate about the nature of all things Christian why would you chose to abstain now? Why avoid my question?

            Now we can continue down this road of avoiding the original question or you could answer it:

            Would Jesus approve of your post?

          • DrSamHerman

            Where did I say that you were perfect? Please point out the specific passage, Sam. Conflating an issue is a debate tactic of the intellectually bankrupt, and you just used it.

            Did I not say that we debate it? Did I not say that?

            How can I answer the question about what a dead man might think? One might ask the same question about why you feel the need to make such asinine extrapolations, but I see from your other posts that it is all you can do.

            What does your mother say about you living in her basement rent-free?

          • Sam

            “I am far from perfect, but the same realization has yet to hit Ms. Quinn. Or you.” The clear implications of that statement is implying that I believe I am perfect. Perhaps we speak different English.

            Now you are conflating. You see that correct?

            You have been doing everything you can to avoid the question that you brought forth. You have now decided to say that you can’t know “what a dead man might think” but your original post stated ” It’s apparent that you know nothing of what Christ taught. He taught
            us to love the sinner, but hate the sin. He taught us to show kindness
            to our enemy, for they act out of ignorance. He taught us to turn the
            other cheek and to eschew hatred, violence and oppression.” So if you can’t know what “what a dead man might think” how can you make such audacious claims in the first place. Are you know saying that your original statement was wrong?

            And then you return to name calling and accusations. Why?

          • DrSamHerman

            Sam, do you seem to think that you are worth debating? For one thing, you labeled Christianity as a monolithic religion with one core belief system. The history of the schisms between major Christian sects over various facets of the faith from the nature of the trinity to the divinity of Christ to what specific parables means have caused wars between the nations where these differences had substantial meaning to the followers.

            You ignore the number one idea of debate, namely not labeling anything that is related to a human belief in a monolithic fashion. You also use the half-baked term “we both know”, a passive-aggressive debating tactic which is glaringly obvious and doesn’t work.

            So tell me again, when did I point out that YOU were perfect (you moved that goal post, Sam). Sally Quinn used an obviously malignant interpretation of Christianity which all major sects would reject (racists) at Stormfront, a well-known Neonazi and White Supremacist website to characterize all Christians. Mind telling us all on this site how she made such a stupid assumption when Christ was very clear in his message about love the sinner but hate the sin? Or what don’t you understand about her use of extremism to paint an entire religion as racist?

          • Sam

            I find your response to be the continuation of your intellectual dishonesty. If you would like I will be more than happy to help provide a lesson of history since that is what you seem to desire. But I stand by my statement that we both now what both the Enlightenment and Christianity mean in the popular lexicon, especially in the context that is under discussion.

            The Enlightenment (as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of History):

            The Enlightenment is the period in the history of western thought and culture, stretching roughly from the mid-decades of the seventeenth century through the eighteenth century, characterized by dramatic revolutions in science, philosophy, society and politics; these revolutions swept away the medieval world-view and ushered in our modern western world. Enlightenment thoughtculminates historically in the political upheaval of the French Revolution, in which the traditional hierarchical political and social orders (the French monarchy, the privileges of the French nobility, the political power and authority of the Catholic Church) were violently destroyed and replaced by a political and social order informed by the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality for all, founded, ostensibly, upon principles of human reason. The Enlightenment beginswith the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The rise of the new science progressively undermines not only the ancient geocentric conception of the cosmos, but, with it, the entire set of presuppositions that had served to constrain and guide philosophical inquiry. The dramatic success of the new science in explaining the natural world, in accounting for a wide variety of phenomena by appeal to a relatively small number of elegant mathematical formulae, promotes philosophy (in the broad sense of the time, which includes natural science) from a handmaiden of theology, constrained by its purposes and methods, to an independent force with the power and authority to challenge the old and construct the new, in the realms both of theory and practice, on the basis of its own principles. D’Alembert, a leading figure of the French Enlightenment, characterizes his eighteenth century, in the midst of it, as “the century of philosophy par excellence”, because of the tremendous intellectual progress of the age, the advance of the sciences, and the enthusiasm for that progress, but also because of the characteristic expectation of the age that philosophy (in this broad sense) would dramatically improve human life.

            The task of characterizing philosophy in (or of) the Enlightenment confronts the obstacle of the wide diversity of Enlightenment thought. The Enlightenment is associated with the French thinkers of the mid-decades of the eighteenth century, the so-called “philosophes”, (Voltaire, Diderot, D’Alembert, Montesquieu, et cetera). The philosophes constitute an informal society of men of letters who collaborate on a loosely defined project of Enlightenment centered around the project of the Encyclopedia. But the Enlightenment has broader boundaries, both geographical and temporal, than this suggests. In addition to the French, there was a very significant Scottish Enlightenment (key figures were Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Thomas Reid) and a very significant German Enlightenment (die Aufklärung, key figures of which include Christian Wolff, Moses Mendelssohn, G.E. Lessing and Immanuel Kant). But all these Enlightenments were but particular nodes or centers in a far-flung and varied intellectual development. Given the variety, Enlightenment philosophy is characterized here in terms of general tendencies of thought, not in terms of specific doctrines or theories.

            Only late in the development of the German Enlightenment, when the Enlightenment was near its end, does the movement become self-reflective; the question of “What is Enlightenment?” is debated in pamphlets and journals. In his famous definition of “enlightenment” in his essay “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” (1784), which is his contribution to this debate, Immanuel Kant expresses many of the tendencies shared among Enlightenment philosophies of divergent doctrines. Kant defines “enlightenment” as humankind’s release from its self-incurred immaturity; “immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another.” Enlightenment is the process of undertaking to think for oneself, to employ and rely on one’s own intellectual capacities in determining what to believe and how to act. Enlightenment philosophers from across the geographical and temporal spectrum tend to have a great deal of confidence in humanity’s intellectual powers, both to achieve systematic knowledge of nature and to serve as an authoritative guide in practical life. This confidence is generally paired with suspicion or hostility toward other forms or carriers of authority (such as tradition, superstition, prejudice, myth and miracles), insofar as these are seen to compete with the authority of reason. Enlightenment philosophy tends to stand in tension with established religion, insofar as the release from self-incurred immaturity in this age, daring to think for oneself, awakening one’s intellectual powers, generally requires opposing the role of established religion in directing thought and action. The faith of the Enlightenment – if one may call it that – is that the process of enlightenment, of becoming progressively self-directed in thought and action through the awakening of one’s intellectual powers, leads ultimately to a better, more fulfilled human existence.

            This entry describes the main tendencies of Enlightenment thought in the following main sections: (1) The True: Science, Epistemology, and Metaphysics in the Enlightenment; (2) The Good: Political Theory, Ethical Theory and Religion in the Enlightenment; (3) The Beautiful: Aesthetics in the Enlightenment.

            Now Christianity from the highly cited Wikipedia page:

            Christianity (from the Ancient Greek word Χριστός, Christos, a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, Māšîăḥ, meaning “the anointed one”,[1] together with the Latin suffixes -ian and -itas) is a monotheistic[2] religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament. Christianity is the world’s largest religion,[3][4] with approximately 2.2 billion adherents, known as Christians.[5][6][7][8] Most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human, and the saviour of humanity whose coming was prophesied in the Old Testament. Consequently, Christians refer to Jesus as Christ or the Messiah.

            The foundations of Christian theology are expressed in ecumenical creeds. These professions of faith state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, and was resurrected from the dead in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust in him for the remission of their sins. The creeds further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven, where he reigns with God the Father. Most Christian denominations teach that Jesus will return to judge everybody, living and dead, and to grant eternal life to his followers. He is considered themodel of a virtuous life. His ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection are often referred to as “the gospel”, meaning “good news” (a loan translation of the Greek: εὐαγγέλιον euangélion). The term gospel also refers to written accounts of Jesus’s life and teaching, four of which – the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – are considered canonical and included inChristian Bibles.

            Christianity is an Abrahamic religion that began as a Jewish sect in the mid-1st century.[9][10] Originating in the Levant region of the Middle East, it quickly spread to Syria,Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and Egypt. It grew in size and influence over a few centuries, and by the end of the 4th century had become the official state church of the Roman Empire, replacing other forms of religion practiced under Roman rule.[11] During the Middle Ages, most of the remainder of Europe was Christianized, and adherents were gained in the Middle East, North Africa, Ethiopia, and parts of India.[12][13] Following the Age of Discovery, Christianity spread to the Americas, Australasia, sub-Saharan Africa, and the rest of the world through missionary work and colonization.[14][15][16] Christianity has played a prominent role in the shaping of Western civilization.[17][18][19][20][21]

            Worldwide, the three largest groups of Christianity are the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the various denominations of Protestantism. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox patriarchates split from one another in the schism of the 11th century, and Protestantism came into existence during the Reformation of the 16th century, splitting from the Roman Catholic Church.[22]

            So know “we both know” in a much less “half-baked” way how these terms are defined. Not that you needed them. You are being obstinate.

            Now to label any group as monolithic in uniformity is inaccurate, but to think that terms aren’t used both in- and out-group individuals would be ridiculous. So Christianity refers to a specific set of beliefs, just as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism, for example, do. The same can be applied to terms like “The West” or “Third World.” Now you can return to attempting to conflate these term to suit your willful misrepresentation of reality or you can accept the point made that I have no doubt that you have had to confront and reconcile previously for yourself.

            “So tell me again, when did I point out that YOU were perfect (you moved that goal post, Sam).”

            Allow me to quote (again):

            “I am far from perfect, but the same realization has yet to hit Ms. Quinn. Or you.” The clear implications of that statement is implying that I believe I am perfect. Perhaps we speak different English.

            If you notice no goal post was moved. Perhaps you would like to elaborate what you originally meant if you disagree with my understanding of your use of the English language. Please, I look forward to it. Unfortunately for you I understand it the way that you meant it so you are left once again needing to find a way to deflect and avoid. This is one of those opportunities for personal responsibility and the opportunity for growth that it presents.

            “(S)tupid assumption” is an interesting selection here. Not just for the naming calling such a statement is indicative of but also because you choose to say that “Christ was very clear” right after stating “(t)he history of the schisms between major Christian sects over … what specific parables means”. So how can you both decide to be monolithic in that “Christ was very clear” but in the same argument state that obviously he wasn’t clear. How do you reconcile this? Or is this another case of cognitive dissonance?

            And if you feel that it is so necessary to not monolithicize a religion why would you get so perturbed by what some says about “Christianity”. As you have stated there is no one “Christianity” to be discussed so why come to the defense of this made up term. Unless, of course, we all know what it means. :)

            So the question isn’t, it appears, what do I not understand but rather what do you not understand. Your willful distortion of the original post, and my statements in response to yours, seems to be what is misunderstood.

            “Sam, do you seem to think that you are worth debating?”

            I like this statement. I find it fascinating. You seem to be asking if I think that I feel as though my points are worthwhile to which I think my level of response is a clear indication that I do. But that isn’t really what you were attempting to do. Instead you were using passive aggressive techniques to express your disdain for my perspective while being dismissive of me. This approach would work far better if you followed it with silence but instead you decided to continue the conversation which leads me to understand that you as well think that I am worth debating. If not, why are you bothering? Perhaps it is only your level of emotional commitment that spurs you on and in fact has nothing to do with accuracy or honesty.

          • DrSamHerman

            No, WE don’t know anything in common. Your presumptions are not fact. Wherever you were educated, the outcome in your case was not only poor, but tragic.

          • Sam

            English? Do you know it?

            And once again the deflection and belittling.

          • DrSamHerman

            Hit the Wikipedia again, Sammy?

            Thus far you have dragged everything into your posts but the kitchen sink, and so far the only thing sticking is your profound lack of knowledge on virtually everything.

            The only deflection present is YOUR pathetic attempt to drag out your posts to get more attention, but of course you would not know how that worked in a diagnostic sense.

            And the Psych 101 bull? You are embarrassing yourself.

          • Sam

            Again with the personal attacks. It’s okay. You don’t have to be afraid. We can talk substance instead of abuse. You can talk about substance instead of abuse. I know you can do it. Just take some deep breathes and let the pain go.

            Now regarding Wikipedia, if you notice the three paragraphs provided have 22 citations. 22. That is more than any three paragraphs in your alleged doctoral thesis. That means the three paragraphs provided contain more research than more than a third of the citations you used. I understand though. You have a vested interest in the monopolization of institutions on knowledge. You need people to be less than you and less than the institutions you are a product of because otherwise you are afraid it will devalue you and your work. The democratization of knowledge that is taking place right now is terrifying for those who are of the old authoritarian system and those who derive personal value from the continuation of such systems of dominance.

            In the time that we have spent together we have covered a broad swath of topics but they have all been perpetuated by you. You have lead us on this path and I have done my best to respond honestly and openly to you at each point. I have not allowed you to drag me down into the name calling and personal attacks that have characterized your every response. Your desire to sling mud rather than actually have a dialogue is indicative of ignorance and the inability to own up to that ignorance. I know that I don’t know more than I know and I embrace that. It would be arrogance to do otherwise. I just hope that you can do the same.

            As far as my “pathetic” attempt to drag this out is concerned, if you believe that is true why do you continue to participate? Why don’t you quit? If you know you are supposedly right and that I am any manner of things that you have called me over the past couple of days why do you persist. I persist because I believe in you. I know you can overcome this. You can be free of this pain and desire to lash out. I know you can remember love, peace, joy, and honesty. Let go of your pain. Let go of the dishonesty that reinforces it. Let go of the desire to hurt others. If you are the psychiatrist that you claim to be you must be aware of techniques to do this. You of all people should not be afraid to talk to someone about these issues.

            Go talk to someone. Find a safe place and learn not to lash out at others or yourself. You can be better.

          • DrSamHerman

            This is getting funny. Is that what your therapist told you?

          • Sam

            No. It’s what I am telling you.

            You can be free.

          • DrSamHerman

            So now you think you’re Lincoln?

  • James Wordsmith

    Anecdotal observations on anonymous e-mail and anonymous messageboard comments are hardly worth reading and certainly a dubious basis to make a ridiculous and insidious attack on Christians, but apparently it’s good enough for publishing on “onfaith”

    • Sam

      How is it anecdotal if it is based on the full collection of data. The article was discussing the responses received. If all responses, the entire population, compose the sample then wouldn’t the article be the exact opposite of anecdotal.

      Now if the author said “…and thus this is how all Christians are…” that would be anecdotal. It appears in fact you are the one attempting to make the article anecdotal.

  • Liberalsareblind1

    A white supremacist site is now representative of all Christians in America? That’s absurd! That’s like saying that Louis Farrakhan represents all African-Americans in this country!

    • Sam

      I agree with your point, but your name clearly shows an unwillingness to see from other perspectives. It is a badge of honor to embrace such blindness.

      If you are liberal and the name means that liberals are blind to race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual preference, then my critique of the name and agreement with your point still stand.

  • http://twitter.com/Chris_1791 Chris

    On twitter by far the liberals are the hate mongers. The atheist, NOH8, gaystapo and pro baby murders do nothing but spew hate at everyone but they people who agree with them.

    • Pollos Hermanos

      How big is that cross you put yourself up on?

    • Sam

      Are they? How do you qualify hate mongering? What statistics do you have to support your experience? How do you determine hate speech?

      And I don’t think I have ever heard of anyone who is actually “pro baby murder.” But I suppose that is the point. They don’t exist and instead it is a bogey-straw man perpetuated by a culture of fear and intolerance in order to dehumanize the opposition. Do you think it actually helps anything? Does it convince people who disagree with you or just fires up those who do?

      The term “gaystapo” (imaginative) is more of this dehumanize. What is even more ironic is the Gestapo, as a branch of the ideologically right wing Nazi’s, persecuted gays. Maybe you feel that gays persecute you. Maybe everyday you wake up afraid that today is the day the gaystapo come to arrest you and put you in a concentration camp. Perhaps you are terrified everyday of being persecuted for who you are. Maybe that is why you are doing this?

      It’s okay. I want you, no, I need you to know you are loved. It’s okay.

  • holdenf

    Seeing that Muslims are exempted from Obamacare and that Christians are being forced to go against their religious consciences in the same, as with Hobby Lobby SCOTUS-reactionary threats, to include hateful shots from the Massachusetts senate and like bodies, should show the uneven animus shown against Christians by people such as the Muslim in Chief, and redounding throughout government quarters. There has been an unrelentingly huge number of purges and massacres of Christians throughout the Middle East in the last few years. Even London and Dearborn are forcefully animated by the same hatreds. Claims of Christian hatred are unsubstantiated and trivial by any reasonable comparison.

    • Sam

      Where in the ACA are Muslims exempt?

      The Supreme Court just ruled that Christians can impose their beliefs on others (while investing in firms that make money off birth control), so I am afraid I don’t know what you are going on about there…

      Christians just secured their right to ignore the respect for their fellow humans all the way to the door, so once again I am afraid I don’t understand what you are saying.

      Who is the Muslim in Chief? Oh, is this more of the “Obama is a Muslim” thing?

      Can you provide the data for the “unrelentingly huge number of purges and massacres of Christians throughout the Middle East in the last few years”?

      “…unsubstantiated and trivial by any reasonable comparison.” So you are saying they exist? That Christian hate is real?

      I don’t know, maybe you think Jesus would want insurance companies that can deny coverage at will, or want employers to make health care decisions for their employees, or harass people as they going to abortion clinics, or believe lies about peoples religion, or inflate death tolls. Maybe that is what you think Jesus would do.

      What do you think Jesus would say to you? “Carry on my soldier” or “Love thy enemy as thy self”? Would he say “berate and attack those who do not do as you” or would he say “he who is without sin should cast the first stone”? Would he say “let them suffer and die from illness” or would he say “heal the sick”?

      What would Jesus say? What would Jesus do?

  • Inajeep

    Another liberal who hates Christians….yawn…..

    • Sam

      Is that what was said? I must have missed it. Would you be so kind as to clarify where the hate was?

  • Dave R

    Its easy and cost-free to pick on Christians, that is why morally flaccid people do it.

    • Dennis Kelley

      maybe, just for a second, consider her point: it is “easy” and “cost-free” to make these kinds of observations because many Christians who comment on posts they disapprove of do so with such fury and anger that it is remarkable. ask yourself why that might be. can’t there be a thoughtful discussion about it? it is something others have noted, Quinn isn’t the first. it could be an interesting discussion…

    • dogged

      Ms. Quinn is building up lots of bad karma.

      • Sam

        I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

    • Brian Engleman

      It is equally easy and cheap to leave vitriolic comments without substance. Which is why hypocritical people do it.

  • IA_Adam

    Absolutely no evidence that any of this is true. Anybody can write online anonymously, claiming to be anything. I wouldn’t put it past the author to simply post nasty comments to herself claiming to be from some “Christian” in order to justify writing this stupid smear job of an article. Why don’t you try replacing “Christian” with “Jew”, “Muslim” or “Black” and see just how vile and bigoted your words really are Quinn, you libeling P O S.

    • Brian Engleman

      As a matter of fact, your comment, and many others here, provide plenty of evidence that the article is true.

      • IA_Adam

        I’m not a Christian you presumptuous, smug jerk off, just someone tired of you reactionary, libeling progtards and your non-stop lies. Do you friggin’ morons even have the slightest idea what you’re trying to accomplish anymore by running down Christians & Jews while simultaneously promoting the most warlike religion on the planet (at the moment) as the “religion of peace”? You’re idiots, plain and simple… as well as obvious cowards, which, ironically, is your best attribute.

        • ally

          Understatement , a belief of god and a born Again chrisitan are 2 different things, please when you try to insult god or people who follow him compare everything with the bible.

          Prophets, men of god, true people followed god with their hearts, written testimonial examples in the bible are . Esther, king David, albel, John the Baptist, all but one of the apostles, Jonathan, Samuel the prophet, Joshua, Moses .

          There will always be Pharisees and Sadducees who claim they follow god and his teachings , but they don’t .

          E.g popes, priests, churches etc

          Everyone will be judged for the good and evil , but I for one want to be in the grace of god and forgiven and abiding in Jesus when I am judged by god because only then will I be pardoned from hell and sin

    • Sam

      Why the name calling?

      And if you wish people to take responsibility for the things they say online by not being anonymous perhaps you would like to lead by example and begin to post your legal name and address with each comment. :)

      Also, I think that you miss the entire point of the article. It was based on personal experience. Should personal experience be ignored with the concern of hurting people’s feelings? If so, why are you not once again leading by example?

      • IA_Adam

        Why don’t you? Don’t give my name and address to psychopaths like you. You progs are so GD lawless that you think the laws are just more weapons to use against those you don’t like and to be excused for those you do like.

        • Sam

          You were just promoting giving out names and addresses rather than being anonymous, so why would I be the one to do so. You advocate it, wouldn’t it make sense that you live up to that standard yourself?

          And why do you think I am a psychopath or a “prog”?

          How do you know that progressives are God damned?

          And can you provide support for the idea of progressives being lawless? And I am afraid I also don’t understand the leap from being lawless to using the law for persecution. Would you be so kind as to elaborate?

          And, to go full circle, isn’t it interesting that you ended with talking about having rules being abused because certain groups won’t follow them while at the beginning advocating for a rule you don’t want to follow?

          • IA_Adam

            I’m sure you think you’re extraordinarily clever. Most malignant narcissists do. But you’re just a run of the mill a-hole. Sorry to break it to you.

          • Sam

            I don’t think I am clever, but if you would like to clarify why you think I am a narcissist or “run of the mill a-hole” it would be appreciated.

            But I don’t think you can, because you have nothing to stand on. I was accurate.

    • bambam1948

      I would suggest that you go into the archives of the Bangor (Maine) Daily News to see just what the good Christian Folk had to say about Same Gender Marriage from 20090 to 2012. Names and Towns are required to post an opinion and the News calls to verify identity.

      • IA_Adam

        Not all Christians do that. They’re hardly monolithic. And I think anyone who hassles someone in their own home, including these anti-gay marriage fanatics should be shot the second they step over the threshold of someones abode in a threatening manner. I totally support gay marriage myself, because the only arguments against are religious and the marriage contract has nothing to do with religion under the law; so gays should have every right to marry.

  • Will

    More Leftist Lies on Racism that they create.

    Perfect Example. Americans are MAD about ILLEGAL and CRIMINAL Foreign Nationals INVADING this Country and Democrats allowing it. Yet the Liberals LIE and CREATE RACISM by saying White Americans HATE Brown Migrant Workers….

    It is 100% a Lie. It is why they IGNORE and HIDE All Black and Brown Americans that think the same way.

  • Will

    Woman like this need to go to a Muslim country and Talk their BS. But they are Cowards.

    • Sam

      Do you see the irony of what you posted? :)

  • CCBanks

    So you go to a WHITE SUPREMACIST SITE, gather the poison there and then suggest that this is All About Christians. Sally Quinn is a fake Christian who is on the religion blogs specifically for the PURPOSE of OVER THROWING THE FAITH OF SOME, she is doing the will of HER FATHER the DEVIL. She is no more Christian than SATAN.

    • Dennis Kelley

      wow. i think what she did was take a guess from the NY Times piece that the vitriol and ugliness were coming from Christians (the target audience for the site) and share that her own site, from the perspective of a moderate Christian, also had over-the-top hateful comments. you have contributed to her anecdotal evidence. so the question could come to you, as a Christian commenting on one of her posts with obvious, all-cap using, name-calling anger: why are you so full of hate?

    • RoboJane

      Well, SOMEONE sure knows how to prove a point.

    • Sam

      Are you associated with StormFront? If not, what is your excuse?

  • Jon Carry

    Poor Sally. So pitiful. I would feel sorry for her, but I can’t. She is the embodiment of Liberal hate, hysteria and hormonal rage.

    • Sam

      Can you provide more information on this “Liberal hate, hysteria and hormonal rage”?

  • walter63A

    Sally, I posted the following in a thread
    about a father who beat a homosexual into unconsciousness for sexually molesting
    his son, because it is the word of God, part of Jesus Christ’s teaching. If you
    disagree with it, then you can’t possibly be a Christian who is following Jesus
    Christ.

    “If a man lies with a male as with
    a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to
    death; their blood is upon them.”-Leviticus 20:13, Holy Bible,
    KJV

    This is even
    beyond simple vile homosexual acts! This is
    depraved homosexual child sexual abuse!!!

    “We should
    not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did–and in one day twenty-three
    thousand of them died.” –1 Corinthians 10:8

    “Do you not know that the
    wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the
    sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor
    homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor
    swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” –1st Corinthians
    6:9-10

  • walter63A

    Sally, I’m sure you know why you got the responses you did, perhaps for trying to justify abortion, homosexuality, etc., not that I
    would have responded that way. However, I suspect you think you can pick and
    choose which verses in the Holy Bible you need to follow, not recognizing that,
    “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
    for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
    righteousness:

    That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished
    unto all good works.”-2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV), Holy
    Bible

    The following was spoken by Jesus Christ, while on earth in
    physical form, just in case you object.

    “For verily I
    say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
    pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”-Matthew 5:18, KJV, Holy
    Bible

  • AugustineThomas

    I’m absolutely shocked that an immoral leftist hates Christians!

  • WhiteRabbit

    Nobody is saying Asians will be a minority in Asia
    Nobody is saying Africans will be a minority in Africa
    They are only saying Whites will be minorities in EVERY White country by 2040.
    That’s because “anti-racists” only enforce “Diversity” in White countries
    “Anti-racists” want a world without White people
    “Diversity” means chasing down the last white people.

    It’s genocide
    Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White

    • MandoZink

      You left out the third line above which logically would be:
      – “And Nobody is saying Americans will be a minority in America.”

      After that you solidly confuse nationality, race and skin color.

    • Sam

      genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation

      With the definition of genocide in mind, what are you saying?

      • WhiteRabbit

        Maybe you should look up international law. Genocide does not have to be violent or involve killing people. It simply has to involve conditions imposed that result in a group of people dieing out. Anti-whites are forcing ALL and ONLY white countries to bring in million of non-whites, forcing ALL and ONLY white people to “integrate” or be “nazishowantokill6millionjews,” and forcing ALL and ONLY white children to become minorities and eventually EXTINCT. That is genocide. “Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white.

        • Sam

          See below:

          The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

          Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

          1) the mental element, meaning the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”, and

          2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called “genocide.”

          ——————————————————-

          So, with that out of the way:

          So what actions are being imposed that force the destruction of white people?
          What are anti-whites? And how are they forcing ALL and ONLY “white countries to bring in millions of non-whites”? And where do you get this “forcing ALL and ONLY white people to “integrate””? And how are these anti-white powers “forcing ALL and ONLY white children to become minorities and eventually EXTINCT”?

          So are you okay with being racist?

          • WhiteRabbit

            Explain how this;

            In the 60′s, anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white countries to bring in millions of non-whites. Then anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white people to “integrate” or face penalties for being “naziswhowantokill6millionjews.” Now anti-whites are praising and counting down the days till ALL and ONLY white children are minorities and extinct EVERYWHERE.

            Is not an example of this;

            (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

            “Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white

          • Sam

            First: I get that you are racist, which you feel is a code word for white.

            Okay, and once again: who are these anti-white forces you speak of? Whites who ran “white countries” in the 60′s? And who are these “anti-whites” who “are praising and counting down the days”?

            Such a vast conspiracy that would potentially qualify as an act of genocide as stated above, but the other part of this is evidence. That’s how these things work. So where is it?

          • WhiteRabbit

            You’re kidding right?

            You want me to point out the people calling for more diversity?
            You want me to point out the people calling for more immigration?
            You want me to point out the people calling for more assimilation?
            You want me to point out the people calling anyone who objects a “nazwhowantstokill6millionjews?”
            If it’s a conspiracy, it’s the worst run conspiracy EVER.
            All the people doing these things, including you, are out in the open.
            It’s genocide.
            “Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white

          • Sam

            I see.

            Thank you for sharing.

  • Merari

    Well, the comment section proves your point. I know you don’t read comments, but on behalf of humanity, I apologize.

  • Aktap

    All Believers are a fearful lot, that being said. Most people find new ideas a little scary, that’s just part of being human, God-nut or not. But should it be any surprise to anyone that the “Super Religious” always have been, and always well be! The ones among us most likely to have held back science and any new forms of higher learning? It’s been that way for the entirety of human history! It doesn’t matter what brand of invisible sky buddy you have. The faithful have been, and always will be the most fearful and backward of our kind. Where ever they are, just as they fear their Gods They fear powerful people because they think they were placed by a God over them. And not that its just simply the dumb luck of who’s crotch they happen to be yanked out of. God-nuts never stand up for any human right if it doesn’t suite their holy books or by chance is dictated by their local witch doctor’s mood. Just think of the ten’s of thousands of young southern men who died to defend slavery, all because slavery was Gods law in their Bible. Sadly, Now a hundred years latter we condemn them all as evil men. Even when We all know in their hearts they died fight for what they thought was “Gods” well, just as ISIS believes it’s doing to this very day. It’s time we all gave up our invisible friends in the sky. Any voices your hearing in your head means you need to see a doctor, not buy another Gun!!!

    • Jack R.

      Aktap, saying all religions are basically the same is like saying all forms of governments are the same or animal life. All animals use oxygen but there is a hell of a difference between oysters and elephants. Can you see there is a huge difference between the Aztec’s cutting out human hearts and Christians?. Christianity is founded on ideas of equality (all, no matter what their sex, intelligence, appearance, or accomplishments will be judged equally by God), individual liberty (life is a test of our free will, which requires individual freedom in order for it to be a true test), a belief in innate human selfishness especially in regards to power, (we are all born into sin), the sanctity of human life (since we are made in God’s image, meaning unlike animals we know right from wrong), and following the “Golden Rule” (Jesus said all the Commandments rest on this). In fact, this democratic capitalist nation, which allows you to live fairly easily, compared to those in centuries past, and even to express your opinions openly was founded on these Christian principles. Concerning other forms of government, the atheistic, totalitarian dictatorships, of the last century, created hells on Earth and murdered collectively over 100 million of their own. They believed human nature was basically good and that creating the right environment, by teaching collective, “scientific socialism” could bring that natural goodness out and that intelligent, educated people could be trusted to have the people’s best interests at heart. However, they forgot Lord Acton’s warning, “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” hence we got Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler, and the Korean KIms. Incidentally, it was the efforts of “real” Christians like Wilberforce and Garrison that championed the abolition movement. Just because antebellum Southerners claimed they were Christian, it does not mean they were. Ask yourself, how could a man claim he follows Jesus’ 11th Commandment, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and own slaves?

      • Aktap

        Please reread your bible. Your skipping the parts that you don’t want to deal with. Here let me help you, because I don’t know your sect enjoy!

        New International Version
        Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

        New Living Translation
        Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord.

        English Standard Version
        Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

        New American Standard Bible
        Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

        King James Bible
        Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

        Holman Christian Standard Bible
        Slaves, obey your human masters in everything. Don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.

        International Standard Version
        Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched in order to please them, but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord.

        NET Bible
        Slaves, obey your earthly masters in every respect, not only when they are watching–like those who are strictly people-pleasers–but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord.

        Aramaic Bible in Plain English
        Servants, obey your Masters of the body in all things, not outwardly as those who please men, but with a pure heart and in the awe of THE LORD JEHOVAH.

        GOD’S WORD® Translation
        Slaves, always obey your earthly masters. Don’t obey them only while you’re being watched, as if you merely wanted to please people. Be sincere in your motives out of respect for your real master.

        Jubilee Bible 2000
        Slaves, in all things hearken unto your masters according to the flesh, not serving to be seen as those who only please men, but in simplicity of heart, fearing God;

        King James 2000 Bible
        Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

        American King James Version
        Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;

        American Standard Version
        Servants, obey in all things them that are your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord:

        Douay-Rheims Bible
        Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not serving to the eye, as pleasing men, but in simplicity of heart, fearing God.

        Darby Bible Translation
        Bondmen, obey in all things your masters according to flesh; not with eye-services, as men-pleasers, but in simplicity of heart, fearing the Lord.

        English Revised Version
        Servants, obey in all things them that are your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord:

        Webster’s Bible Translation
        Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

        Weymouth New Testament
        Slaves, be obedient in everything to your earthly masters; not in acts of eye service, as aiming only to please men, but with simplicity of purpose, because you fear the Lord.

        World English Bible
        Servants, obey in all things those who are your masters according to the flesh, not just when they are looking, as men pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

        Young’s Literal Translation
        The servants! obey in all things those who are masters according to the flesh, not in eye-service as men-pleasers, but in simplicity of heart, fearing God;

        Hope this helps you deal with the slave part anyway. Read your bible again please, “all of it” not just the feel good parts and We’ll try this again! O And please as true believer, don’t stone any body to death until you think it over first k!

        Scientific facts are not socialism, it’s what’s left over once all your faith in an imagery sugar daddy in the sky is gone. It’s called reality, you should try it sometime!

        • Jack R.

          Dear Aktap, it’s essential in reading the Bible to put things in historical context. Christianity was spread throughout the Roman Empire primarily through people on the bottom. In fact, if it were not for the existence of this brutal, pagan empire, based on conquest, pillage and slaves, in keeping with the ideas behind its founding, (Romulus was supposed to be the son of the war god Mars) Christianity could not have spread. The Roman lifestyle illustrated the idea that human nature if left unchecked could be so corrupt that even the most advanced civilization on Earth could enjoy the public spectacle of murder as entertainment. It was not possible for Christians at that time to openly confront and win. In that world, if Christians were told to rebel, they would have been wiped out and Christianity eliminated in much the same way the Jews were by the Romans in 70 AD. Remember many Jews were calling for Jesus to be the Messiah and lead them in rebellion. Slavery would be eliminated when enough people were convinced of its evil by Christians and then had the means to defeat it. And this is what Christianity was and is, God showing us the truth about ourselves and giving us through His grace the opportunity to use our free will to change. To do this He came down and became one of us, to try to convince us using analogies and parables to appeal to our reason to show us the truth that our nature is inherently selfish, that we are a slave to our desires and appetites, which leads inevitably to our destruction. But that this is not God’s purpose for us. We were not created to be just another animal. That His purpose is that life be a test of our free will to see if we will accept laws, which go against our selfish nature in order to save us from ourselves and reward us eternally by defeating death. And to show us the truth of what He said, He suffered death as we do, but not just any death but a horrible public death so that no one could not say He was indeed dead, (Hence, the necessity of the spear in the side to show the fluid in the lungs pouring out as what happens when breathing stops). He had to go through with this show His resurrection was real.
          So God has used evil and has used violence when necessary. Jesus had Peter go buy a sword before the night in the garden in Gethsemane, because he knew the Pharisees were going to try to eliminate the whole Christian movement in one fell swoop in the middle of the night with no witnesses. Peter then used the sword to cut off a soldiers ear but then Jesus stopped him from a bloodlust, (He that liveth by the sword, dythe by it.) After Jesus instantly healed the ear, their assault stopped once the soldiers saw what they were dealing with. So life is a test but in order for it to be a true test it cannot be too easy, hence we are tempted and suffer. Going back to what Paul said to the slaves, he was telling them not only to not rebel but to set an example of Christ’s message by their behavior. Their masters would see the difference between Christian and non- Christians slaves. If you read his letter to Philemon, you see were he is hinting, trying to persuade his friend to do the right thing by freeing his slave, but that had to be his decision.

          • Aktap

            Christ was a true rebel and founded the first western social movement that focused on the poor and lower class’s in the bronze age. How ever after his death, his remaining followers were not only with out their leader but their only real source of income. At a loss as to earning a living at anything other then being preachers themselves, that is unless they wanted to go back to being poor fishermen and such. Much like our modern TV holy men, they started embellishing the story. Every new batch doing a great deal of rewriting of Christ teachings over the next 200 years, each new generation of disciples adding their “God” inspired two cents to the Sunday morning Mix. Once the new faith had attracted a large enough following, the Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine seized the new religion as a tool of the state. Constantine was also The first Roman emperor to have “claimed” conversion to Christianity Even though he did not take communion until on his death bed “that is at lest what we’ve been told”. Constantine “the pagan” played a hugely influential role in the proclamation of the Edict of Milan which did decreed the first real tolerance for Christianity. He also called the First Council of Nicaea in 325, at which the Nicene Creed was approved for all Christians. Any deviation from the set rules of faith imposed by the roman state lead to insane numbers of deaths as heretics were purged by the sword over hundreds’ of years. and these deaths may have been the main reason for the Muslin conquest of Constantinople in the 13 hundreds. weather we talk about Constantine or Henry the 8th’s King James bible? the ruling class’s have done with the holy book what ever suited them, when even and how ever they wanted. I’m old enough to remember being taught that we should love and care for the poor and needy, that it was easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Now we’re told how the poor are lazy, evil and self indulgent sinners and the wealthy are the blessed loved ones of God. Modern religion’s are nothing more then tools of state control just as they always has been, and always will be.

          • Jack R.

            Dear Aktap, There are some errors in what you said, that I hope you don’t mind elaborating on. First of all, after seeing what just happened to their leader, the Christ’s disciples were deafly afraid. All but one hid during the Crucifixion, and Peter, who became one of the most essential figures in continuing the church, denied Him three times. I think you’d have to agree, the last thing they wanted to do was continue to defy the Pharisees, by calling Christ the Son of God, and get themselves crucified. However, something startling happened that radically transformed them from cowards to evangelizers. I don’t know about you but if I saw my dead father walk into the room, my eyes would be as big as saucers. Thomas doubted, however, I suspect it maybe had more to do with poor eyesight and the lack of corrective lenses than doubt. Anyway, all went out evangelize, except John to follow His last commandment that they go forth to all nations. And consequently all died rather horrible deaths except John. The bottom line is something electrified them and caused them to not fear death. Concerning Constantine, you are right, he legalized Christianity for the first time, (Partially through the influence of his Christian mother,) and did agree to convene the Council of Nicene. Christ warned there would be many false prophets and indeed there were not unlike some of the phony “pastors” today. The participants of this and later meetings sorted though many false ideas that did not confirm to the true message. We Christians believe the Holy Spirit helped them with this process. However, to your point, when Constantine brought Christianity out the underground church and into former pagan temples as the official state religion, it corrupted church leaders to a degree. It was easy, since the state funded your churches and collected your tithes, to bless a ruler’s war and call for his support in the pulpits was a temptation many church leaders could not resist. The doctrine of the “Divine Right of Kings, was invented to keep churchgoers in line. But there were still enough good priests to keep the true faith alive. Yes, atrocities were done in the name of Christianity, but was it Christianity? Where in the Gospels does it say burn someone at the stake? Moreover, leaders have been using religion for their own ends since the beginning of civilization. Hitler put “God is with us,” on the belt buckles of his soldiers along with a swastika, but does anyone think he secretly worshiped a religion founded by a Jew? I saw an old newsreel of the atheist Stalin next to a Greek Orthodox priest blessing the Red Army as it marched out to face the German Army nearing Moscow. Martin Luther did many church reforms but it still ended up melded to the state. This alliance continued until the American Revolution. The “New Light” preachers of the First Great Awakening began telling parishioners some twenty years before the revolution that any king who defies God’s laws is owed no loyalty. In fact, the British attempt in 1783 to impose an Anglican bishop on all of the colonies no matter what their denomination produced a response that John Adams wrote about. “Fear of the Church of England contributed as much as any other cause to arrest the attention [of the people] not only of the inquiring mind, but of the common people and urged them to think carefully on the Constitutional authority of [the English] Parliament over the colonies,…” Our revolution brought about a divorce of church and state, not because the people wanted to leave religion, but to practice their denomination and not be forced into a state church. But despite the corruption by some priests by state power throughout European history, Christianity nevertheless, brought about profound positive changes. It’s insistence on monogamy had the effect of empowering women. It’s Golden Rule gradually ended slavery in Europe and later worldwide. It’s ideas of life, liberty, equality, and a distrust of human nature formed the foundation for democratic capitalism which has done more to lift mankind out of grinding poverty than any collectivist/socialist/Communist social engineering effort. Concerning the rapid Muslim expansion, I believe it was spread by the sword in much the same we are seeing in Iraq today, but also, I suspect, since Islam seems to be based on the empowerment of strong males, (Mohammed had 15 wives including a 6 year old), many elite men in these Christians societies wanted to have younger women, as wealthy men tend to do, (“It’s harder for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, etc.), so they might have seen converting to Islam, as a chance to commit adultery and still be holy. Lastly, concerning, Christians commanded to help, and it shows. Christian giving to charity has always greatly exceeded secular giving. Concerning Christians calling ALL the poor lazy, evil, self indulgent sinners, while the wealthy are blessed, I’ve never in my 64 years really heard true Christians say that. Mostly I’ve heard them say what Paul did, “All fall short, all!” In fact, our service always begins with, 1 John 8-10, “If we claim we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth in not in us.” Jesus did say the poor will always be with us, but considering our different talents, levels of motivation and circumstances of birth, are you that surprised? We could try to create a classless society like the Red Chinese did, with everyone wearing the same Mao suit, but considering that atheist Mao murdered over 70 million of his own people to make and keep everything equal, I do not think this is such a good idea.

  • vanishplusxzone

    LOL @ all the butthurt Christians saying “that’s not true and you can’t prove it!” while proceeding to insult her more. Priceless, too priceless.

    • Sly Cotto

      Isn’t it!
      Freaking wackos!

  • josh wilson

    She should have a look at the love that I have received over the years from people on the internet at the mere mention that I’m a Christian.

    • Dennis Kelley

      but Josh, this is her point, you are in the club so you don’t get the treatment. try this: take on a different user name, go to those same sites and post as an atheist, nothing insulting or nasty, just an opinion prefaced with “i’m an atheist…” and see what happens…then compare the negative comments you received from atheists when posting as a Christian to the ones from Christians after posting as an atheist. what the author is suggesting is that the comments from Christians to your “atheist persona” will be angrier and more about personal attack. i have no idea if this is how it will play out, just saying that is what Quinn is suggesting…

  • Sly Cotto

    I can honestly say that, as an atheist in a religious society, I feel like the only sober person in a car full of drunks, careening towards a cliff, and no one will let me take the wheel.
    It’s maddening when people give “magic” credence, and think I’m stupid, or evil, for believing in a purely natural world.

    For what it’s worth,… this is my experience.

    • Sly Cotto

      And now I made the mistake of reading comments here…

      Holy shit, you people suck!!

      Launch your vitriol.
      Not like I haven’t seen it before.

    • Dennis Kelley

      i really like that metaphor. can i use it? i’ll cite you :-)

  • Dennis Kelley

    i’m of the mind that, like you state, the anonymity of comments sections bring out the worst kind of people regardless of their own religious ideology (or lack of). the central issue is the seeming uptick in expressions of the Christian persecution complex. the fact that the small number of vocal zealots who have enjoyed their ability to dictate to the rest of us are losing that hegemony scares the crap out of them. some take to the internet and spew vile and hateful comments as a signal of their fear. there are people in parts of the world (including Christians) that are ACTUALLY persecuted, but American and British fundamentalists claim that their ability to dictate the behavior of others is somehow sacrosanct and that questioning their superiority is persecution. but surveys show that they are in the minority, most theists in democracies understand the need for keeping religion out of government. they know that in our infancy as a nation, Christians came to America to escape religious persecution…by OTHER CHRISTIANS. recent Pew data shows that sentiment is still just below the surface: fundamentalist Protestants don’t think Roman Catholics are true Christians, Sunni Muslims think Shiites are wrong, Catholics are unsure if you can even really call Mormons “Christians” at all, and NOBODY likes Scientologists. if one of these groups gets to control the State apparatus, there goes democracy. Fundamentalist Christians are seeing the last gasp of their power (even moderate Christians decry the Hobby Lobby case in surveys), and the comments section is where they go to wail the swan song.

  • Jon Henri Matteau

    Well, well, the vitriol and bile being spewed in this comment thread goes to prove her point. Unless you are purposely trolling, you people re severely hypocritical. Do not read the parables and tales in the bibles you so profess to follow? Did you not get that she admitted that she was a Christian. This thread only reinforces my point that religion is nothing but a political tool to control the masses to a specific mind set. Actually you people don’t even understand your own dogma, much less the history or the origins of it. Trough your comments I can see that the soul does not indeed exist, at least not yours. If you haven’t noticed by my language, I am not handicapped by any religions, so I approached this article with an open mind, and surprisingly enough, not really, I agree with Sally….”Lest he who is without sin cast the first stone”. I look forward to see what you “biblical scholars” will come up with in response….sanctimonious, self-righteous, asshole is already taken.

  • Jack R.

    So because the neo-Nazi “Stormfront” hates minorities, Ms. Quinn assumes they’re Christian? What a leap! As a commentator, with a national platform, I would hope she would have at least a passing knowledge of who the Nazi’s really were. They were socialists, National Socialists, who like the secular progressives today worshiped science, only the “science” they embraced was that of Darwinian eugenics, which was, incidentally, very popular among the Progressives back then like Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger. It asserted since man is just another animal like dogs, there are certain “breeds” that are superior to others, and reason dictates that it is logical to kill off the inferior ones, which they designated to be Jews, among others. And concerning “Stormfront” and Christianity, since 39% of its targets are Jews, does she really believe they would embrace a Jew named Jesus? I think Ms. Quinn’s targeting of Christians is more than a bit irrational, and may reveal an underlying issue she may have with them. I understand, she has a penchant for commenting on stories concerning adultery. In considering her own history of husband stealing to further her career and Christianity’s strictures against this, perhaps we see the source of her rage.

  • JohnandFrederick Forgas-Feeley

    American Christians were mobilized against the evils of communism. Since then, we’ve had this misfortune of ‘The Moral Majority’ whose sole goal was to keep the divisions between them and everyone else very clearly put. Think of the title, moral majority indicates that anyone out of lock step with exactly their belief system is immoral. I grew up a fundi baptist, I learned more hate and disrespect for even other faiths in Christendom. Catholics were the great whore, Pentecostals were just crazy, Methodists, Lutherans etc…Jesus wasn’t real there. They never preached about love, compassion, all it was was ‘sinners in the hands of an angry God’ forbade even interracial marriage.
    Being a Christian simply means being ‘Christ-like’. It doesn’t mean being like Moses, or Abraham, or Paul, or Job. It means to mirror Christ. His compassion, his faith, his charity, his love for everyone. But we don’t like that, even though its through compassion that lead Christ to the cross. To a lot of Christians compassion, love, charity, are feminine qualities, lesser, even though that is the only thing that saved our souls from hell. Instead, we get legalism, judgement, anger, a God that is a schizophrenic, brutish, and quite frankly acts more like the devil than the devil does. Thats a manly God. A God who goes in and wups some ass. Then, they’ll grab a hymnal and sing their hearts about the Wondrous love of God. I laugh at the irony of racists singing Amazing Grace with them never knowing that entire song is rooted in slavery.
    That is what has lead to the moral bankruptcy of the churches. Words that mean nothing when the actions make them liars and hypocrites. Gorgeous Cathedrals and mega churches with the homeless sleeping on the church steps. Preachers wives all blinged out and Preachers that look more like rock stars proselytizing about Capitalist Jesus, the one who removed How Great thou art for ‘Oh Lord, wont you buy me a mercedes benz.’
    Actions always speak louder than words, and your point is well taken and proven with the comments below and through the past forty or fifty years of Christendom here in the U.S. Why do you think Atheism is growing by leaps and bounds? Man, why would people subject themselves to that type of hysterical judgement. Why go to church on a sunday morning and worship a God that hates them? “Well, they just want to walk around in their sin etc. etc.”, we’ve all heard this. No, life itself is so hard and so brutish, and so filled with grief, they don’t need some asshat castigating them from behind a pulpit. Using the Bible as a weapon. Whose whored the church out for money, fame, and power. Christ got mad one real good time, and where was that? In the temple.
    So be careful ‘Christians’, you think the world is going to be judged and you’re right, it sure is coming, but don’t look so smug. While the world will be judged on their deeds and conscience, you’ll be judged based on what you’ve known to be true and have summarily rejected, that being, “For God SO LOVED THE WORLD that he gave his only BEGOTTEN SON that WHOSOEVER believes in HIM, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” And so, yes, I have stopped being a Christian and have, instead, decided to follow Jesus.

  • Jon Weiss

    I am a Christian, and I am a Conservative, and I hereby challenge anyone to review anything I have posted anywhere and try to cite the hate speech. But I suspect that those who like to attack Christians, may engage in the “moving target” standard which would eventually get around to classifying “Good Morning” as offensive. Citing of “White Supremacist” sites as an example of Christian hate speech simply gives clear indication of a narrow view and lack of research. Perhaps they should review the Bible (the actual source for Christian teaching) where it states in John 13:35: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” a Passage which clearly indicates that a true Christian can be observed by their actions not the mere claim that they are “Christians”. I find that many people I encounter day to day who dismiss, dislike or absolutely refuse to associate with Christians, often know noting about our religion, and this in turn reveals that ignorance is a dangerous commodity. for more dangerous than Christianity.

  • William Russell

    Funny this author forget to mention the even in Argentina 5 months ago with feminist/secularist (they wanted to shut the church down) groping, spitting on, spray painting, and in otherwise trying to shut down a church. Show me ONE event where christians use this level of hate and violence, and you might have a leg to stand on. Let’s be charitable. For those willing to google and watch the video – you might want to take your heart medicine first it’s pretty heinous.

  • William Russell

    Since my other comments are blocked – google argentina feminist shut down church – and feel the love. Or be reviled from the extreme violence.

    • Pluto Animus

      Atheists killing and burning people?

      Don’t you mean Roman Catholics like Adolph Hilter?

      • William Russell

        Adolph Hitler – A Christian, more specifically a catholic…. Umm has anyone explained to you if someone calls them self a saint and they are a serial murderer the first statement is obviously wrong? Charley Mansion claimed he was murdering people to start a war to save the earth – do you believe that too? The event in Argentina is recent as well. Where as you need almost 7 decades for one misnomer. Brilliant. How many more of you guys have “examples”? You should define people by their character not their empty words. I know that might be tough since it’s easier to sling mud in the face of facts. Was it the christian in hitler that wanted to kill jews? If he “believe in jesus” he would of known it was going to come with a “price”.

        But he didn’t, and it was well known by the time they were burning down churchs, and synagogues. People tend to forget that.

        Goebbels, (Minister of propaganda) “The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race… Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed.”

        • Jack R.

          Hitler a Christian? So he secretly worshiped a Jew named Jesus?

  • William Russell

    Good luck getting a post here – they are being blocked Oogle A r g e n t i n a femenist s h u t down church.

  • Larry28

    As a Christian, I want to apologize for the truly un-Christlike comments the author has received. There is no reason anyone who names Jesus Christ as Lord should wish an act of violence upon somebody else.

    • William Russell

      Why apologize for something that you have been given no proof has taken place. That is what is logically called a strawman, and when printed called a red herring.

      • RoboJane

        No proof? Scroll up… scroll down… Seems just about everyone calling her wrong was willing to jump in and prove her right.

        • William Russell

          Apparently your oversensitivity has rendered your ability to be subjective null, and is causing you to confuse criticism with hate. I’m not entirely surprised, after-all that is the point of calling it hate to distract from the reality.(IE red herring) Rather than what it really is. You sound like the people calling the tea-party racist for criticizing Obama, or the people that criticize war as anti-american. Can you please qoute for me which post or at least point me towards it? Do you realize what you’re insisting is going to shut down dialogue ? Do you also realize the childish element of – “I’m taking the ball home! You guys are MEAN!”.

          verb
          verb: hate; 3rd person present: hates; past tense: hated; past participle: hated; gerund or present participle: hating 1.
          feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).

          Like posting a fallacious article feigning journalism with hearsay. It’s the typical – oh there is a 100 examples – but I cannot even show you one.

          Reminds me of the mormon guy and the gold tablets.

          • Dylan

            You are being extremely narrow-minded. The hate is out there. It is everywhere. You don’t have to look very far to find it.

          • William Russell

            Then let’s see it copy and paste it. Calling me narrow-minded doesn’t make it so, nor is it an observation dealing with the matter at hand. Let’s suppose I am narrow-minded, point my narrow-mind towards the hate. I posted a link to secularists/atheist (their title- not mine) doing something incredibly heinous, and it was fairly recent. The argentina church affair with feminist. Anyone can google and see what they did. The media was pretty hush about it. Not one christian even faught back as they were being spray painted, spit-on, and hit. All I’m asking for you is to find me a single “hateful” comment. Not really even setting the bar high.

          • Dog Almighty

            You are doing justice to the name Russell. If Bertrand was alive, he would be proud of you.

          • Sam

            It’s the racist pictures at Tea Party rallies that have them branded as racists, not disagreeing with the President.

  • WhiteRabbit

    “Anti-Racists” say whites must accept “Diversity” of immigration.
    “Anti-Racists” say whites must accept “Diversity” into white communities.
    “Anti-Racists” say there is still the problem of white flight.
    “Anti-Racists” say “Diversity” means chasing down white people.
    “Anti-Racists” are ready to demand a “Fugitive Whites Act”

    “Diversity” is a codeword for White Genocide.
    “Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white

    • Pluto Animus

      Only a Christian would post such an idiotic, intolerant message.

    • Sam

      I find it amusing that you posted this twice. I suppose I keep feeding the trolls though…

  • Cris Bessette

    hateful internet speech is used by both “sides”.

    In my OPINION, these jerky atheists/Christians are a TINY PERCENTAGE of
    the whole of each “side”, they just show up in droves in internet
    comment areas because of the ANONYMITY. Being able to comment anonymously brings out the worst in people.

    To me, the hate and judgement is symptomatic of deeper emotional issues.

    If one can’t discuss an issue without Ad Hominems, anger and finger pointing, then it can be assumed that their belief is more emotional than an actual reasoned out position.

    I’ve seen an equal number of condescending assholian atheists and Christians on the internet, and rarely do they represent the beliefs or nature of people I know in real life.

  • KALI

    I agree with you Sally. I see these people are twisting your words. I can feel the hate of several things in some of their words. They have to bring up “killing unborn babies; Feminists; Islamic jihadists; Muslims” The hate pours from their words. Being a Lesbian I get allot of flack from Christians and my family who claim to be Christians won’t even talk to me. Why are they so critical of this article? Because it hits too close to home i’d imagine.

  • Pluto Animus

    Atheists send hate mail because the internet has presented us with our first opportunity in history to express our contempt for religious view freely without having our houses burned down. And yet the atheist hate mail has ‘never been violent’.

    Christians send hate mail because their religion teaches them to hate. Thus, Christian hate mail is frequently violent.

    • Sam

      I don’t think “first opportunity in history” is accurate.

  • http://www.quidblog.com/ PeterP

    There are 200 million Christians, just 6 milion Jews and only 3 mil Muslims in the US. There is more of everything from Christians. What matters is the percentages, but that would require conducting an actual study. Who has time for that?

  • Froi Vincenton

    Creatures like this brain-damaged liberal blogger share the stupid psychology and mentality of brain-dead liberal and pro-Palestinian useful idiot Vittorio Arrigoni. They’re rooting for Christians to get pissed off, turn violent and even KILL them, instead brain-dead useful idiot liberals like Vittorio Arrigoni were killed by the very people they defended and loved: the Muslim Jihadists.

    Oh by the way, I am not white; I’m an Asian, you WHITE TRASH MORON and RACIST Sally Quinn.

    • Sam

      Does name calling help?

      • Froi Vincenton

        Oh you must be that brain-damaged lib blogger herself. You’re the only one defending her.

        P.S. I am an atheist.

        • Sam

          Again with the name calling. So does it help?

          P.S. I don’t care if you are an atheist. It has no bearing on my question or point.

  • Count_Yob

    Isn’t “hater” just another over-generalizing epithet thrown at anyone or anything they wish to demean by the liberal PC victim-status crowd?

    • dubium

      Hatred (or hate) is a deep and emotional extreme dislike.

      Most importantly it is irrelevant. It does not matter if someone “dislikes something deeply and emotionally” as long as the person dislikes it for good reason and can present facts and arguments for his standpoint. How somebody feels about stuff is irrelevant. Anything anybody feels strongly about can be labeled as hate. does this mean we should not discuss these things? Many people probably can be said to hate cancer, and war, and animal cruelty, and pedophiles and so on. Does that mean we should dismiss their opinion on these topics? They probably have good reason for their feelings.

      Strong feelings is a good motivator. IF someone ever gets their judgment or reasoning “clouded by hate” we will notice this and correct them when they are wrong, IF they are wrong. Hate is nothing to fear in itself, it is also completely irrelevant for any discussion, how people feel about the topic they are discussing. The only thing that matters is correct facts.

      I hated math when i was younger, but i could still handle it correctly and factually. As long as i find that 1+1=2 it really does not matter if i hate math or not, right? It does not matter how i feel about it.

      • Lando

        Of course it matters how you express yourself. It’s one thing to disagree with someone strongly and passionately, it’s another to tell them you wish they die horribly. The former might get your point across, but the latter never will, it will just make you look like a disrespectful kook who can’t express themself liked an adult .

        • dubium

          Sure, but this debate about “hate” is not about how you express yourself. It is about WHAT you say. Hate is a feeling not a specific way of expressing yourself. Some opinions and facts are automatically labeled “hate” today no matter how you express them or what your actual feelings are about it. Atleast in Europe it is like that now, in America maybe you are not all the way there yet but you are getting there. Anybody questioning immigration for example is automatically a “hater” no matter how he expresses that opinion, and anybody on the other side of the political spectrum can basically express themself however they want because they are still “good.” I could post some links with examples but usually when i post links on disqus the post never gets published so i will not do that.

          • Lando

            Thanks for your reply. I would still argue that how you express yourself is incredibly important. I don’t find someone saying they don’t support gay marriage hateful, but if, like in the article, someone says they hope someone gets raped by a donkey with AIDS, it becomes hateful and not useful.

  • Count_Yob

    When people speak truth to power it is liable to be deemed “hateful” speech. Thankfully, Americans still have the first amendment right to freedom of speech.

    • Sam

      For example speaking the truth of hate mail received to the power of a large audience who disagrees?

  • Aquaria

    1) I highly doubt that the atheist mail you received was hateful or violent. From your own description, they talked to you in a way that was “of a more intellectual persuasion, and they have never been violent, but
    they are extremely contemptuous, insulting, and condescending.”

    That’s not hate mail. Only an immature sniveler who can’t stand having her ideas challenged–and has one huge honking agenda against atheism–can could that as hate mail. Oh–and just because some atheists agree that it’s hate mail doesn’t mean that it is. It only means that atheists can be just as much of hypersensitive ninnies as some religious people are.

    2) It doesn’t surprise me at all that you’re appallingly ignorant about what atheists, agnostics and humanists are. It seems to be de rigeur for “spiritual” people to know next to nothing of such essential concepts to understanding the range of religious positions on issues.

    Since you need proper education in these matters, it falls yet again on an atheist to provide it for you:

    a) Humanists are people who value the needs, actions and behavior of humans, and don’t look to the divine or supernatural for answers or inspiration. This is pretty much the atheist position.

    b) You apparently subscribe to the ignorant misconception that agnosticism is some hippy dippy middle ground between theism and atheism.

    It is not.

    A/gnosticism is a KNOWLEDGE position. You know that deities exist (gnosticism) or you lack that knowledge (agnosticism).

    A/theism is a BELIEF position. You believe that deities exist (theism), or you lack that believe (atheism).

    So there are gnostic theists (most religious people), gnostic atheists (the atheists who swear to know that there isn’t a deity), agnostic theists (some Buddhists, Unitarians and most modern liberal Protestants like Episcopalians), and agnostic atheists (the vast majority of atheists–including Richard Dawkins).

    Given your history and your pathological hatred of atheists, I have no doubt that you’ll call this hateful, too.

  • Loving Life

    I first want to thank Ms. Sally Quinn for her article, and her insight. In today’s technology, and specifically in comment sections, people obviously say things on a medium they probably wouldn’t say in a personal conversation with each other. The barrier of comfort on the Internet reveals that people are very divided in just about all areas of discussion, not just about religions. There really is no showering of affection, no real support for one another on a basic level because we don’t actually know each other. So because of the mere volume of comments, it makes me wonder about our underlying reasons for “blasting each other”. I’ve been in a study that looks at context more than content, called Contextual Analysis. It reveals some strange findings. Many comments or positions within an article, are not about the article at all. When there is a selection of people with similar worldviews the study finds keywords that are repeated by each individual within a group that has some consistency with each other. Anyway, it seems that everyone would like a moment of fame (that seems to be the reason for the likes and unlike buttons we see on comments). Everyone has a perspective, a belief in something, a way of living, and that can be recognized, however many younger teens will post things just for the fun of it. Usually to elicit a response which they can mock someone. Those comments skew the comments of those with sincerity toward a position, and effect the conversation itself. I call them bully’s of the Internet. They have no desire to respond responsibly and that becomes a problem since there is no real mediation that goes on, or a control system for debate. That results in a free for all of comments. That is why nobody can take comments too seriously. If we do at this point, we are subjecting ourselves to the very thing Ms. Quinn talked about. Being hurt by words because of each of our perceptions of life. When I see logical people making logical comments within the framework of being kind, and civil, then I take into consideration the view of someone. If not, it’s going to be mere entertainment for some, and hurt by others. Thank you for reading my opinion.

  • HankChinaski

    Nowadays, speak the truth and it’s gonna be “hate speech”.

  • Hope Ferguson

    Sally, I appreciate your piece, but don’t know why you have come to the conclusion that “haters” on Stormfront are Christians. There is persuasive data that may white supremicists belong to their own religions, like “Christian Identity” that have nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. Most hate Jewish people, so have no use for a Jewish savior anyway. But your other points are well taken, but I believe that just b/c one calls himself or herself a Christian, doesn’t make it so. As Jesus (Yeshua) has said, You know them by their fruits.

  • fotojer .

    Ms. Quinn, I apologize for any hateful attacks given you by my Christian brothers and sisters. I do not know you or your work save this article and have no idea why any irrelevant charges have been laid against you in these commentaries. Please understand, though not excusable, that we as a body have been fighting over the purity of the Church’s teachings and personalities for generations as well as being attacked by those outside the faith. With these in mind please understand that we are so busy fighting that we tend to forget that we are charged by our Lord to love our neighbor, to love our enemies, and to love each other as well as focus on sharing the Gospel with all nations and tongues. May God have mercy on us all!