Seems that the friendly folks at Objectionable-- sorry, Objective Ministries are trying to shut down the website of the Landover Baptist Ministry.
I thought the appropriate response to this sort of thing is to turn the other cheek. Now, where have I heard that before...?
Posted by Glenn Hauman at January 4, 2004 09:54 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingConsidering they have absolutely no legal grounds, this should provide some entertainment. You'd think by now that the right wing in this country would realize that this sort of thing usually backfires on them. "Wholly without merit," anyone?
I'm of mixed minds on this.
On the one hand, I find the folks at Objective Ministries to be anything but objective. I am a Christian but I couldn't get through much of their garbage without cringing. I rate them somewhere below Jack Chick's old handouts.
It should be a simple fact that you don't win people over to your way of thinking by lashing out and insulting anyone who thinks differently than you do. The people of Objective speak of the hate crimes committed by Landover. I feel that Objective is just as guilty of hate; quite different from what Christ taught.
On the other hand...
I would be strongly shocked to find that LandoverBaptist.org is in any way associated with the Baptist Church. Were I a Baptist, I'd quite likely be upset with them for claiming such association.
I wonder how the gay readers of this site would feel about a website designed to make all gays seem to be conform to the narrow-minded stereotypical way some people like to portray them.
Or how the Jewish readers would enjoy one that shows them to be money-grabbing hypochondriacs
Or Irish as penny-pinching drunks...
etc.
Well, seeing their views of the the internet as:
The Internet was created by the United States of America - a Christian nation - and should not be used to spread anti-Christian, secular, or non-Christian propaganda and hatespeech.
Uhm, the internet may have originalted in this country, but it's very much a global community that keep it running. Also, since the country was founded on freedom of religion, I doubt our founding fathers regarded this as a "Christian" nation.
They are like several churches I've seen here locally in the past. They don't want to recognize anyone else religion other than their own, can't take a joke, and seem to think that no one else has a right to speak their minds if it doesn't suit their views.
I'd like to see them try to shut them down, though. And I'd love to see when they give up because it's not going to happen.
I'm impressed -- the Objective Ministries managed to turn me off with their first sentence: "The Internet was created by the United States of America - a Christian nation - and should not be used to spread anti-Christian, secular, or non-Christian propaganda and hatespeech."
First, the United States doesn't create anything; its citizens do. Second, the USA has a separation of church and state; it's not a Christian nation per se, nor a theocracy. Third, the Internet can be used for anything, and I'd say its main usage -- porn -- isn't quite what the Objective Ministeries have in mind either. (I wonder if they protest their sites.) Fourth, the Landover Baptist Ministry is very clearly a parody; you might as well have [insert just about any group here] trying to shut down The Onion when they make fun of, well, everyone.
I don't want to start another round of religious bashing, but it's amazing how quickly *some* religious folks forget the first amendment (you know, freedom of speech) as soon as it's something they don't like. (Then again, this is true of just about every group.)
But if it wasn't for this post, I wouldn't have seen how hysterical the Landover Baptist Ministry site is. Thanks, Objective Ministries!
Bwahaha! The Landover site is hilarious. I especially like the "Skate as Jesus" upload for 'Tony Hawk's Underground' HahHa!
Anyone that wants to shut that site down has absolutely no sense of humor. I see a lot of MAD magazine style satire, but I don't see any material that would construed as being a "Hate Crime".
Y'know, i'm a Protestant in Mississippi, arguably one of the most religous states in the union - and even without looking at the credits page on landover, which I did a long time ago, it was easy for me to tell the first time I looked at it, that it was a complete parody. Only an idiot with no sense of humor takes that site seriously - it's harmless.
I recall when Landover could be taken as subtle parody of any number of the web's more objectionable pro-censorship Christian sites, and could easily be mistaken for the real thing. These days it's sufficiently over the top that even a cursory glance at it shows that it's rather blunt satire.
Objective reminds me of Landover in the old days. Take a look at their "4 Kids" section. Then take a look at some of the items in their cafepress shop: http://www.cafeshops.com/objectivemin.3749749. I'm pretty certain that Objective is tongue in cheek, albeit in an understated kind of way.
The fact that "Objective Ministries" could be fooled by this for even a moment (or think that anyone else would) says an awful lot more about them than it does Landover. Landover's site is entertaining, but particularly subtle it's not.
TWL
Yeah, I've seen some wacked-out born-again sites, but I'm pretty sure OBJECTIVE is meant to be satire.
OK, I'm pretty sure Vicomte is right, and the Objective: Ministries site is also parody. It has to be. The Landover petition site must just strike too close to the truth, because if you look at the "Hallowe'en Reclaimation" page, it's got two of the most hysterical images I've ever seen, and they can't possibly be serious about them -- a "Bazooka Jesus" comic, and a picture of (presumably) John the Baptist with the caption, "BOO! I'm John the Baptist, and these are my many exciting exploits..."
Also, the "4 Kidz" section is pretty darn hi-larious ("Hey, Habu! How many gods do you have?" "I don't know... I lost count!"). They have to be parody, because no straight publication, even in their goofy cartoon animals section for kids, could concieve of something as ludicrous as Hopsiah, the Kanga-Jew. Follow the link for Biblical proof that kangaroos once lived in the Middle East.
Objective a parody itself.
From the front page:
(March 28, 2003) Dr. Troy Franklin, OBJECTIVE occult expert, has brought to our attention a disturbing new danger to weak-spirited Christians and unsaved persons that we feel needs to be reported.
As he tells it, while out at a local supermarket shopping for food for his cat, Dr. Franklin noticed one of those small tents advertising "Free Rock Chip Repair" that have been springing up in our nation's parking lots. Curious, he went to enquire about getting a ding in his windshield sealed, only to learn that the person manning the tent had other intentions, namely to try and recruit Dr. Franklin into a cult!
Fortunately, the good doctor has become quite immune to cultic recruiting ploys from his years studying their tactics, and thus he was able to extricate himself from the situation with his soul unharmed. However, those less skilled in their Faith -- and especially those of false faiths or no faith at all -- would have soon found themselves back at the cult headquarters doing all manner of unspeakable rites and blasphemies... or maybe even brainwashed into manning a tent of their own.
For the safety of your soul, do not be tempted by the lure of impulse rock chip repair from strangers in parking lots. It may say free, but it could cost you your soul! If you need your windshield fixed, go to a qualified Christian repair shop.
Please. No matter how stupid you may think we Christians are I can promise you there is no one typing that out with a straight face.
Glenn, since it has become quite obvious that Objective is a parody site have you thought about maybe saying so on the front page?
If I recall correctly, the seeds that started the Internet were started by the CIA for crime information transferral or somesuch. Or maybe to facilitate money wiring from cocaine slush funds. But, in all seriousness, I really do mean the CIA was behind it this time.
James Tichy, I hope you're right about the Objective Ministries being a parody. Jack Chick strips are ridiculous -- except to those who take the Bible literally (or at least the parts they choose to believe). Jerry Falwell said 9/11 was God removing a protective banner from the U.S for its acceptance of homosexuals and feminists. And according to the IMDB, Pat Robertson "Claimed that the portion of the U.S. Constitution that pertains to the separation of church and state was not in the original Constitution and was forged onto it by a Communist spy sent to Washington, DC, by the Russians in the late 1920s. According to Robertson, the original framers of the Constitution were told by God that the United States was to be governed by a coalition of ministers, businessmen and property owners, and that the words "democracy" and "republic" are nowhere to be found in the original U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights." And Oral Roberts had said God would kill him unless Roberts' followers sent him $8 million.
Compare how these actions compare to the Objective Ministries. And yet they ALL have thousands (millions?) of devoted followers who take these statements literally and very seriously.
I definitely prefer agnosticism -- lets you resist condemning everything different. Or, as Monty Python wrote, "There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he's really sure whether he believes in anything or not."
(Of course, the *real* religions are Discordianism and the Church of the SubGenius. 'Strue!)
James Lynch
Have "Christian Leaders" made stupid statements in the past? Sure. I mean if Pat Robertson did make the statement about the seperation of church and state then his real crime was claiming that it was in the Constitution in the first place. The phrase originated in a letter written by President Jefferson and was later used by the Supreme Court. However, never in the past or today has it been in our Constitution.
That website is nothing more than a site like The Onion. Wether it is the fake christian rock band(Zounds) that they feature on their page to their claim of "Kangaroos in the Middle East"; the webiste is an obvious parody.
It’s funny, but I was just having a conversation with a friend of mine as to why I no longer go to church. I kept getting into arguments with others in my Sunday school class about the inconsistencies in the splintered Christian outlook, not to mention different religions entirely.
As I explained to them, I felt that God viewed the religions like a car. If it has four wheels, a chassis and a motor (or at least some sort of horsepower, we don’t want to exclude the Amish) it’s OK. You can chose the body style, color, manual or straight drive, whatever. Hell, put neon underneath if you like. As long as it is built around the basics, it’s fine.
Most religions that I’ve come in contact with are built around the same basics. I only went to church for the fellowship. I met some good friends in church and those friendships are still thriving 23 years later. However, some of the good Christian people I went to church with felt my views were too radical and all but drove me out. (No pun intended.)
Personally, I think the Landover site is funny. I also liked the movie Dogma. I also think this is fairly poignant: http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv
By the way, I was a Methodist. Now I’m a mustang.
James Tichy wrote: "That website is nothing more than a site like The Onion. Wether it is the fake christian rock band(Zounds) that they feature on their page to their claim of "Kangaroos in the Middle East"; the webiste is an obvious parody."
I hope you're right, but to me it still seems like some of the hardcore attempts to "reach" the faithful. Heck, look at VeggieTales! (Of course, I can't see that the same after MAD TV did their VeggieTales parody, from the Arab tomato running through the streets with a salad shooter strapped to him, to the Apocalypse ("Armageddon's finally here!" "I'm a gettin' out of here!") with rivers of V-8 juice and a giant salad being made from the characters.)
It is a paraody site, and it's pretty easy to see so. Especially if you look at the page with the new design for the US Flag, with the word "GOD" across it.
But it's more popular nowadays to attack Christians, hence the assumption that this site is a valid site. I mean, it fits the negative stereotype, so it must be true? I'll just remember that when it comes to minorities and gays.
"If I recall correctly, the seeds that started the Internet were started by the CIA for crime information transferral or somesuch. Or maybe to facilitate money wiring from cocaine slush funds. But, in all seriousness, I really do mean the CIA was behind it this time. "
Nope. It was setup by the military as a coomunication network in case of a blackout, or EMP from nuclear war.
To those who think that the Objective site is a parody based on the site's "4Kidz" page, sorry, but you'd really be surprised to learn that there are, in fact, Christian groups who would, and do, espouse such principles. Sure, they sound "goofy" but any goofier than groups who want the Harry Potter books banned from schools because "they teach witchcraft"?
Sorry, but I've been around people who have out-of-mainstream views of Christianity such as the things on the Objective site. These people can be very unnerving, and this site holds some views that would play very well in Alabama. To James Tichy, I can tell you there really are some Christians who would have written that little thing about the "Free Rock Chip Repair" with a very straight face, and there are more than a few in Alabama who would take it very seriously when reading it. I would also note to James, that the Objective site, on the petition against Landover, answers a question about Landover with the following:
While it is true that one or two of the pages on the Landover site declare themselves a parody, these declarations are in very small print at the page bottom, hidden in a copyright statement, or are buried inside mounds of pseudo-legal-babble (such as on their "Terms of Service" page) -- all things that most visitors will not take the time to read. The various inflammatory articles themselves do not have these statements, nor does the front page of the site. Clearly, this is intentional -- designed so that Americhrist Ltd. can legally claim they are informing the public of their true nature, while not actually causing the public to be so informed.
If Objective is nothing more than a parody or satire, then they're being hypocritical since their own site doesn't indicate the satirical or parodic nature of the site on its home page. While something like "Hospiah, the Kanga-Jew" could be parodic (or a bit over-the-top, bizarre humor), is it any more difficult to accept than the concept of "Jews for Jesus"? The whole "explanation" about kangaroos is entirely within the realm of possibility to those who believe in Biblical inerrancy and literalism.
James, it's not so "obvious" that Objectives is a parody site. If you have a more enlightened view of Christianity, that's fine. It doesn't mean, though, that the people connected to Objectives are any less committed to their ideas about Christianity and a strict literal interpretation of the Bible. There's nothing on the Objectives site which leads me to believe it's some sort of parody; I really believe these people are serious about the site.
Joseph, these guys surfaces in the news months ago claiming that Apple was the devil, or something. At the time, they were repeatedly reported as being a satire site.
Now, this may not end up being the case, but if they aren't, then they are so off the deep end to not be considered Christians. Much as we wouldn't hold all Muslims up to the terrorists of 911.
To Jerry Wall:
The Objective's "God Flag" does not prove the site is a parody.
If the site were really a parody, it wouldn't have a bunch of links to other Christian evangelical organizations (unless you want to subscribe to the theory that all those groups are "parodies" as well).
As the page for the flag proposal correctly points out, there is nothing that would prohibit such a flag from being designed and submitted as a real U S flag. As the site also correctly points out, the current flag design has changed over the years, and can be changed in the future.
To me, the most apparent way to prove the Objective site's veracity as a legitimate website, rather than a parody, is the link to the Baptist Press website at the bottom of Objective's homepage. Baptist Press is a legitimate division of the Southern Baptist Convention. Why would a website with parodic intent (especially if it's supposed to be a parody of Christian beliefs) provide a link to an organization which reports news from a Southern Baptist values system?
You're presupposing that the only way that someone could posit putting a white stripe with the word, "God", at the top of the flag is as some sort of "attack" on Christianity because "nowadays it's popular to attack Christians". That's absurd. I suppose you also believe that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's post 9/11 comments about gays and feminists being responsible were just lies being spread to make the two seem like hatemongers. Sometimes, some Christians have positions which others aren't entirely comfortable with, but that doesn't mean those viewpoints aren't genuine.
Objective is a parody site.
Look at this frickin Dinosaur Expedition article
http://objective.jesussave.us/dinoexpedition.html
DINOSAUR EXPIDITION!
if that is not comedy I don't what is.
Sorry, Jerry, but you're basically arguing that all Christians hold the exact same views. The people at the Objective site may be, to your mind, not Christian because they're too extreme in their beliefs, but that doesn't mean the site is a parody.
Good grief, I live in Alabama. It's very common for a person's religious beliefs to be derided because he or she doesn't believe the Bible to be literal. We have people here who are actually trying to start up a Christian political group whose goal is to make sure that every judge who is elected (in this State, every judge, except Federal judges, faces the electoral process) is a "good Christian"--which essentially means, "adherent to our specific view of Christianity". And you think that the Objective site has to be a parody? I'm sorry, but I live too close to people who would find Objective to be very much "The Way" to consider it anything close to parodic in nature. You cite me a place where the people behind the site admit it's just a "parody" or "satire" site, then I'll believe it. Otherwise, I'm going to accept it as real (and be very scared for people who laugh them off as being nothing but "extremists"). The "Army of God" is an extreme group, but I'm not going to laugh at them because of it; in fact, I'm going to be more cautious of them because they are so extreme.
Guys, I think all of you who have mentioned Objective’s legal action “backfiring” and being “entertaining” to watch shouldn’t hold your breath, as these guys aren’t going to do a thing. If you read the section of the page entitled “Things we can do”, you’ll see what Jim Carlson recommends the visitor to the site do: He recommends they pray, contact the webhost of Landover’s site, and contact the makers of internet blocking software, as if any of these people will give a damn about Landover. He then says, without further elaboration or explanation, “Petitions!” (as if the reader knows who he’s supposed to send the petition to). You’d think Carlson would put a petition on the site himself.
When Carlson actually does mention legal action, he says:
Jim Carlson: If none of this works, we must inform the authorities of this obvious instance of anti-Christian hate crime, which is illegal in most areas. If it isn't illegal, we must pressure our congressmen to make it so!
Luigi Novi: These retards claim to intend to take legal action, even though they don’t know for sure if the existence of that website is illegal or not! Given that there is a link on the Objective’s page directing visitors to Objective’s “legal team,” you’d think their legal team would’ve pointed out to them that having a webiste, even one that is not clearly satirical, is perfectly legal, and that hate crimes pertain only to violent crimes motivated by bias. (Kinda reminds me of the idiot at the premiere of Kevin Smith’s Dogma at Lincoln Center who said that the film was a “hate crime.”) These shitheads don’t seem to realize that websites containing porn and white supremacist propaganda is legal, but are under the impression that webpages poking fun at Christianity isn’t! Where did they get their understanding of the law from?
Indeed, if he thinks the Internet is property of Christians (“this is our Internet”), then why doesn’t he report its theft, misuse or trespass upon it to the authorities? Simple. Because he’s not really serious about taking any type of action.
Jim Carlson: The Internet was created by the United States of America - a Christian nation [ref. 1, 2, 3] - and should not be used to spread anti-Christian, secular, or non-Christian propaganda and hatespeech. This is our Internet, and we should exercise our position as its owners and as the guardians of civilization to stop its misuse.
Luigi Novi: Anyone else here see the logic in this statement? Carlson seems to think that anything created in America is property of America, Christians in particular, when in fact, this mentally retarded moron doesn’t own jack shit. He seems to be arbitrarily picking an American-made invention by whim (the Internet), when in fact, MANY inventions were created or pioneered by the U.S. Is he going to argue that the electrical companies are their property? Or television stations? Even if he thinks the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, he seems genuinely oblivious to the fact that the law does not recognize Christians as having any particular power to claim ownership over anything.
If anything, the Objective website seems as much a parody as Landover’s.
Jam, just because you find the "dinosaur expedition" article funny doesn't mean the site is a parody. Did you bother to actually go to the links offered in the article? (The link at the mention of the Smithsonian takes you to an article posted on the site of the Institute for Creation Research--a real organization that honestly and wholeheartedly believes that evolution is a fraud.) I wouldn't accept the story to be any more scientific accurate or valid than I would if it had appeared in "Weekly World News", but that doesn't mean there aren't people who really do believe in such. When you consider that some real scientific documentaries will make rather silly come-ons like "meet a living dinosaur" to attract its audience or consider some of the "When dinosaurs walked the earth" pieces that use computer animation and graphics to make their theories more realistically-plausible, why should a "first-hand account" of a "Creation-based" dinosaur hunt be "proof" of the site's parodic nature?
Sorry, but I'm going to work under the premise that the Objective site is not a parody.
Now I'm unsure again. I followed the link to Zounds (which has all the trappings of a lame-ass way for the clergy to try to make themselves look "cool" -- high comedy, in my book), and the link there to the sale page for the single crappiest game I have ever played -- worse than all three Adventures of Lolo and the original X-Men game for the NES -- in which Uncle Sam wanders aimlessly through a boring maze and learns about Christian influence on American history. The game starts with an over-zealous voice actor reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in far too bombastic a voice as Uncle Sam runs from a platform in space into a George Washington museum -- I downloaded the demo.
This is either the cleverest Christian satire I've seen in some time (save for the Onion -- nobody beats the Onion), or the scariest fundamentalist propaganda I've ever seen. I'm even more frightened by the fact that I have no idea which it is, since, as it's been pointed out, the Objective page never actually says it's parody.
Guys, all you need to do in order to be sure it's a parody is watch the banner ads at the bottom of the page.
When I hit "Works Through Faith" Ministries (a/k/a "W.T.F.") and "Klingons For Jesus", that pretty much cinched it.
My wife's still laughing over the site.
JSM
I just think the people at Objective Ministries need to realise that it was a joke on sites like theirs, and should quickly develop a sense of humor before they crack under the weight of taking everything they see serioiusly.
I mean come on: A Jesus skin in Tony Hawk's Underground. How can you not laugh?
Serioiusly! I just noticed that typo. XD That is the greatest ever. I'm going to pronounce it Ser-i-o-ius-ly from now on. *chants new mantra*
The dinosaur safari is a laugh riot. I hope this is a parody site because if it isn't it means that right wing Christians are some of the cleverest writers alive.
And by the way, as a longtime lover of cryptozoology, I have to say that it isn't out of the realm of possibility that the Mokele Mbembi or whatever they call it actually exists. The evidence is admitedly slim but the supposed creature lives in one of the most hellish places on Earth to visit. There are a number of facinating books written by folks who try to investigate this sort of thing--I strongly recommend NO MERCY by Redmond O'Hanlon (though he concludes that the beast is just a native legend).
Why some creationist types think that finding a living dinosaur would disprove Darwin is beyond me--it would just be added to the long list of "living fossils" like the horseshoe crab and the shark.
Not all Christians are so thin-skinned. I ain't. I laughed at quite a bit of what I read on both sides. The easily-offended site made me laugh out of pity, mainly because they don't seem to realize that - of they get to censor someone - they will be next in line. The other was just ridiculous and silly.
And this is NOT a Christian nation. Nor was it founded by Christians. They were DEISTS, not Christians.
Joseph,
That sites been kicked off of various free "Christian" hosting web sites in the past, for being not a Christian website, but a parody website. That's why they don't mention being a parody. They don't want to get kicked off their current "Free" hosting. The popular theory (try doing a search on newsgroups, or websites - it's called research), is that this website is made by the Landover people to promote their own website. It generates links to their site, and most of the sites that the so called "Christian" website link to, also link to the Landover site.
But hey, they're fooling you, and you're buying into exactley what they want. Landover is getting more people to see it, and more people defending them. And the folks at landover are just sitting around laughing at everyone here who thinks the Chrisitan site is real.
"Why would a website with parodic intent (especially if it's supposed to be a parody of Christian beliefs) provide a link to an organization which reports news from a Southern Baptist values system?"
To make it look real? DUH! Some people are dense.
I'm a free-speech absolutist so I would never support shutting down the site.
I am also a humor writer, so I am offended on the creative level. This is just so obvious and stereotypical. It's like pointing out that gays like musicals or blacks like watermelon. Where's the real satire? Preaching to the choir (no pun intended) humor is, as Norm Macdonald put it, pretty lame.
Only an idiot with no sense of humor takes that site seriously - it's harmless.
Well, there are lots of idiots in the world.
I write articles for a parody site of a fantasy world. It's alot of fun.
One update, we had an article joking about how this older stuff was a rip off of the world we write about.
One nutter, who after saying something to the effect that he read through the site and knew it was a parody, still got upset over this one article.
Just on the premise, he took it seriously.
Even after admitting he knew the rest of it was a joke.
Moral of the story: people (as a whole) are stupid. :)
I really believe these people are serious about the site.
I'd agree. Regardless of whether this particular site is a parody or not, there *are* people out there on this level that would do/say these kinds of things.
And to the point of painting all Christians with the same brush - I think the problem stems from the fact that perhaps there aren't enough good Christians speaking out against the extremists within their religion.
It was Pat Robertson, wasn't it, that said we brought 9/11 upon ourselves by having gays, etc?
That's rather extremist, don't you think?
And yet, there wasn't much in the way of people speaking out against him.
It's the same thing when I talk to people around the world and they go off about how bad the USA is. And I sit there and tell them that the gov't isn't representive of the people as a whole, and I give them my views.
But the point is that I don't sit there and let Pat Robertson (were I a Christian) or Bush speak for me.
Most of the "pastors" and others who contribute to that site are said to belong to "Fellowship University." Too bad there is no such university. I find it almost offensive that people are so willing to believe that a site like this would be real.
Oh, and I still think Glenn should say the whole thing is a parody on the index page(just my humble opinion).
And to the point of painting all Christians with the same brush - I think the problem stems from the fact that perhaps there aren't enough good Christians speaking out against the extremists within their religion.
Why don't you go to the websites of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and see if you can find anything as stupid as Objective's site on theirs? Go to the websites of those you consider so extreme and you most likely wont find anything this foolish. You guys are just so willing to give into preconcived ideas of fundamental christians.
Well, the Objective site seems to be down at the moment, which supports the premise that they're a free web-space mooching parody site.
Frankly, most of the "Objective" website does appear to be excessively subtle parody. But I do try to follow the advice of radio talk-show host Neal Boortz, who always says not to believe anything until you've checked it out yourself, even if you hear it from him. So I did.
There are actually a lot of people who theorize that not only is "Objective" a parody, it is a "honey-pot" designed to draw web surfers into the "Landover" parody site. Having looked at both sites sufficiently to get into their online shops, I'm convinced that this is the case. If you check them out, "Objective" sells a "marital thong" which is similar enough to the "Landover" WWJD thong to convince me that the sites are published by the same people.
I won't argue the point that there are a lot of Christians out there nuts enough to come up with some of the "philosophies" at "Objective." However, the sheer volume of wacky and unsubstantiated "ministries" points toward a carefully thought out parody, and a webmaster with waaaaay too much time on his hands.
BTW, "Objective" lists their staff, along with each member's "favorite Bible verse." At some point, I'm going to check those out, just out of curiosity. But right now I'm too lazy to go out to the car to get my Bible.
James Tichy wrote: "Why don't you go to the websites of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and see if you can find anything as stupid as Objective's site on theirs?"
As I said above, Jerry Falwell said 9/11 was God removing a protective banner from the U.S for its acceptance of homosexuals and feminists. And according to the IMDB, Pat Robertson "Claimed that the portion of the U.S. Constitution that pertains to the separation of church and state was not in the original Constitution and was forged onto it by a Communist spy sent to Washington, DC, by the Russians in the late 1920s. According to Robertson, the original framers of the Constitution were told by God that the United States was to be governed by a coalition of ministers, businessmen and property owners, and that the words "democracy" and "republic" are nowhere to be found in the original U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights." Jerry Falwell later apologized for this, and we all know he's been soooooo much more open minded towards homosexuals and feminists since then...
Why don't you go to the websites of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and see if you can find anything as stupid as Objective's site on theirs?
I don't need to. They have television to make idiots of themselves on.
In the 'Dinosaur Expedition' page, there is a picture of a Land Rover going down a muddy road, with a funny caption under it...
"These are the sort of conditions our Land Rovers had to face during our trek. It was times like this that I longed for the Christian-built highway systems of home."
Of course we all know that any roads or highways built by non-christians are crap! :D
Don't forget that Pat Robertson's 700 Club recently devoted a month as "Operation: Supreme Court Relief" month, where it's viewers were asked to pray that God would "remove" (wink wink nudge) some of the more "liberal" judges.
Don't get me started on Pat Robertson. He gives good Christians a bad name. It takes so much work for me to try to assure people I know that most Christians are not like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. I consider myself a good Christian, as do Robertson or Falwell, I'm sure. But something about these two gentlemen rubs me the wrong way. I guess its that they've assumed positions of political commentators, who attempt to "speak" on behalf of God. Apparently, God registered as a Republican at some point along the way, and I didn't get the memo. :-) Guess I didn't pray hard enough. Heck, Pat Robertson just last week revealed that God told him that Bush would be re-elected in a landslide. I don't doubt that Bush will, unfortunately, be re-elected, but in a landslide. Well, I don't know. God's not answering his phone. Apparently, He has caller ID. ;-)
No offense to Republicans intended. God isn't political. He's above it. Politics is, more often than not, messy. Dirty. Unscrupulous.
BTW, I agree that both of the above sites are parody, and damn funny parody at that. I mean, really...Jesus on a surfboard?
:-)
Number One:
I was raised as a Southern Baptist. Yes, that fine organization that decided the Walt Disney corporation, as one of the greatest sources of evil on our planet, needed to be boycotted. (Actually, I did agree with them on this, but not for the same reasons.) My father was a deacon in the church for most of my life, and my mother was church treasurer at one time. I'm still a member, though not as active as I was in my youth. My ex is a member of the Church Of Christ, as is my son. My daughter is currently a member of the SBC, but tends to swap back and forth.
Number Two:
I've known about Landover Baptist Church for quite some time now and have had it in my favorites since I discovered it. I think it's HILARIOUS!!! Maybe some of their humor does cross the line, but them's the chances you take with humor. Not every joke's gonna be a bullseye. The movie review for Monsters, Inc. was one of the funniest things I'd ever read. And the Return Of The King review... Well, which King of kings were YOU expecting?
Number Three:
My faith is strong enough to take a little criticism. But I've noticed that some people don't have that strong a belief, so they feel that other religions, denominations, politics, viewpoints, etc. are so threatning, so vile, so... well, persuasive I guess, that it needs to be eliminated.
Number Four:
My viewpoint may be a little skewed on this. My mom almost always has her TV set to the Disney Channel or ABC family; has NEVER seen an R or X rated film; has read Orson Scott Card's Rebekah, Sarah, and Stone Tablet's (but she WON'T read Ender's Game); and goes to church every Sunday morning and night, as well has most Wednesday nights. I'm talking FIRE and BRIMSTONE here people. But she thinks that the musical Rent was one of the most touching and beautiful things she's ever seen. So being raised by someone like that does tend to make you a little bit more... What's a word for compassionate, understanding, considerate, empathic, etc.? I guess it would be sorta the opposite of hate.
While I have to agree with the 'honeypot' theory, I'm finding the whole shebang pretty creepy. I live in Augusta, GA; a pretty hardcore Christian town, full of Christian people of the Baptist and evangelical bend. The stuff cited on the OBJECTIVE site would not be out of place on the websites of some churches in my neighborhood. Believe it or not, some religious groups do get that rabid about their beliefs, and such groups are not as uncommon as some folks, myself included, would assume.
While the Landover Baptist site is obvious parody (I wonder if that Jesus on a skateboard skin really works for the Tony Hawk game?), the OBJECTIVE site seems to be some wierd blend of parody and fundamentalism. I poked around with some Google searches and came across this article: http://www.applelinks.com/articles/ 2002/04/20020423140855.shtml (I put a space in the link to prevent it from resizing the thread, so you'll have to cut and paste it to access the site)
It found a lot of the stuff I did: references to the people listed on the OBJECTIVE site on other (legitimate) sites, a Geocities site with a page of exchanges between a supposed friend of the 'converted' Kyle Goldman and this 'Jim Carlson' guy about how Goldman was/was not brainwashed, stuff like that. This other site, http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/25926 , is another weblog wherein those more computer-savvy than I seem to confirm that it is a parody site masquerading as an honest-Christian/evangelical site (ostensibly so they won't have to pay for webhosting).
Altogether, the OBJECTIVE site is a curious mixture of parody and evangelical dogma. Half the links on the OBJECTIVE site lead nowhere, and the other half lead to legitimate evangelical websites. I tried the number to buy the Huggy Jesus (since clicking on the 'Buy Now' option takes you to a page that says 'our web store is under construction'), but I get a busy signal every time I've called over the course of the past hour or so. If the OBJECTIVE site is a parody website, then it's so subtle as to be nearly ineffective. Which may be the point...
I noticed in tracking down some of the leads that when people found out about the website, they were informed with someone with a biblical name (in the above article, a 'Mark St. John' clues the Apple user in to the ant-Apple computers site). Perhaps somebody's out drumming up controversy for their own site? If this is a hoax/parody, it's one that's being perpetrated by someone with a LOT of time on their hands, and a LOT of resources to put it together. I mean, why go to the trouble of constructing a page on Geocities about how your friend was brainwashed to corroborate the OBJECTIVE site? If it's supposed to be a straight-up parody, why invest all this time and effort in adding the detailed elements of 'realism?' As I and others have pointed out, the contents of the OBJECTIVE site sound off the wall enough that they could be those of an actual fundamentalist group. It's been my experience that the authors of such parody sites usually enjoy (perhaps even require) feedback from their audience, yet all the contact points to the site's designers/contributers seem to go nowhere, offering no opportunity for feedback. If you're going to create the kind of site that is meant to be a parody or is meant to sucker evangelical types, why are there no points of contact?
The whole thing smacks of mindgames (anyone remember the silly web-mystery the promos for "A.I." spawned?)... I doubt the "parody" question will never be answered, which I suspect may be the site designer's true intent.
That OTHER John Byrne
Well, I've just been to the Objective site and it was working quite well (sorry, Nekouken, but "the premise that they're a free web-space mooching parody site" really can't be proved by a site's being down, anyway; I've been to sites which have been down, and I know the site is 100% legit--such as Billboard.com, and this site--so the premise can't be determined on that basis).
I have to agree with Brak's comments. If the site is a parody or satire, then it's failed in the purpose. The site has too many links to sites which are definitely fundamentalist or share similar views as religious fundamentalists. For a satire or parody site to link to those just to further the "joke" seems like an incredible load of work.
Discord, the thong theory you posit proves very little. How different are thongs anyway? The basic design of a thong is the same and putting any image on the thong is pretty restricted by the garment's size (either it's a pattern print or just a small image placed where the Objective and Landover thongs' images are). The "honey-pot" theory you suggest to me seems like an awful lot of work (creating a website just to send people to another website, and spending hours to make one site seem so legitimate as to build up a backhistory and even create links to other sites which hold fundamentalist Christian views). Maybe it's because I have a life offline that I find the idea of doing such incredibly difficult to fathom (maybe there are people who make this their whole life, but it just seems to me they're spending a fair amount of money for little return). As for the Bible verses:
Carlson's (the man credited with creating the Landover shutdown page):
\\Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Revelation 3:21
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.\\
Dr Miller's (the church's minister):
\\Habakkuk 3:17
Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither [shall] fruit [be] in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and [there shall be] no herd in the stalls:
Habakkuk 3:18
Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.
Habakkuk 3:19
The LORD God [is] my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds' [feet], and he will make me to walk upon mine high places. To the chief singer on my stringed instruments\\
Mrs Miller's:
\\Luke 11:21
When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:\\
I'm not really sure what you hoped to learn from the verses--perhaps you thought the verses were non-existent or clued people in on the "joke"--but the verses are real and they don't appear to be light-hearted offerings. There are people out there who do have favorite Bible verses (I've seen a few people quote Scripture as sig lines). (For the record, I have a childhood Bible somewhere, but I've found "The Unbound Bible" at http://unbound.biola.edu/ to be a good source to do some quick Bible research when I'm online (the site offers 10 different English translations as well as a couple of dozen modern foreign languages, and a few ancient versions (including the Latin Vulgate and some Gothic).
Perhaps living in proximity to people who would feel very comfortable reading the Objective sit, and sharing and expressing many of the same feelings, I'm a bit more likely to believe the Objective site (Landover, on the other hand, just seems so silly that the parodic nature should be obvious). I'm in Alabama, where the top news story of the year was the whole Roy Moore/10 Commandments deal and there has been a lot of recent talk by some group wanting to make sure that future candidates for political office (this includes state judges) are "real" Christians. So, I hope everyone will forgive me if I can't just laugh off the Objective site so easily.
I wasn't defending or denying what Pat Robertson and others said. However, my point about going to there websites was made so you could see that not even theirs came close to this Objective website.
"sorry, Nekouken, but "the premise that they're a free web-space mooching parody site" really can't be proved by a site's being down, anyway; I've been to sites which have been down, and I know the site is 100% legit--such as Billboard.com, and this site--so the premise can't be determined on that basis"
Didn't say it proved it, simply that it supported it. I figured it didn't negate the possibility that whatever they did that got Glenn's attention also got the attention of a surly service provider.
I honestly have no idea what to think of the Objective folks, and I had to stop trying to figure them out last night because my head wanted to explode.
Jack Chick; now him I get. Check out one of his more recent episodes, "Allah Has No Son!" It's actually entirely realistic until the Muslim started blubbering like a baby asking the Christian man who showed him the light how he could save his soul mere moments after threatening to kill him.
To BrakYeller,
I can totally share your views on Augusta, there. I'm from there and live in Statesboro now, which isn't a whole lot better. I was raised by that whole "SBC Fire and Brimstone" crowd. And, while I have respect for people's personal beliefs, I think I lost a great deal of respect for the SBC when my grandmother told me my best friend was going to hell because she was from CA and happened to be bisexual. -_- As for Landover, I love it. It's hilarious. ^^
Joseph wrote: Discord, the thong theory you posit proves very little. How different are thongs anyway? The basic design of a thong is the same and putting any image on the thong is pretty restricted by the garment's size
Have you looked at the pictures side by side? We're talking two white (apparently cotton) thongs, fairly unusual in itself, structured exactly the same way, and photographed exactly the same way. Much too close for coincidence. The only other explanation I can come up with is that the same people create products and market for both sites, which is unlikely.
As for the intricacy of "Objective", I certainly can't imagine spending that much time on it. But I can see the attraction, to some extent, of going that far to mess with people's minds. Sounds like something my friends and I might have done in high school. Except for we didn't have internet back then and we'd have gotten bored with it fairly quickly. But when you add in the fact that there aren't any real legitimate references to these people anywhere else on the 'net, other than sites discussing "Objective", I tend to believe it's a fraud.
Thank you, though, for looking up those Bible verses -- I had wondered if their text offered any insight into the matter, but apparently not.
BTW, I e-mailed Snopes.com today to ask if they had any info on "Objective." They do carry information on "Landover" that I was able to find.
Hey, how come those Jack Chick comics aren't listed in Overstreet's Price Guide anyways?
OK. In a slighly more serious tone, when looking at the OBJECTIVE site, I noticed they had a banner ad at the bottom of the page for a long distance service with the ad line "Calling up random people to tell them about Jesus has never been cheaper!" (http://zapatopi.net/cads/ad_tcld.gif) I find that a little hard to believe that is not parody.
If any of you guys are so smart, why don't you just check to see who owns the relevent URLs?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Work to get your questions answered?
feh.
CJA
I'm going to throw this out there, and I'm interested to see how many people "get" it:
All this arguing about is the Objective site real/fake/parody/serious...
You would think the Objective site was Footage or something.
Come on...
JLK
Actually, Spider, that was my first thought, too. Unfortunately, no whois search seems willing to cooperate so I haven't been able to find registry information.
'Tis a mystery...
Ditto what Alan M. said, Spider. If you've got some way to check who owns the relevent URLs, by all means share it. It seems everyone's attempts to do so have yet to bear any fruit. I'm no internet wizard, and I've already used what few tricks I have.
Kozemp, I'll bite... you're not talking about that old "Bigfoot caught on tape" clip, are you?
tOjb
Yes, it's a parody.
Look at the pictures in the profile. Aren't they a bit too perfect? Look at Kyle Glodman's homepage. Look at "Skeet"'s profile (it credits him for "bringing this whole internet thing to [their] attention."
Look at the Evolutionism Propaganda. Just because they are Christian doesn't meant they have lost brain cells (don't contest this, or I get the Spork of Pain).
Finally, the damning stuff (arf!): there are at least 2 locations (Mt. Fellowship Baptist Church and Fellowship University), that have no addresses on the site. Look. You won't even find a state. Do a web search. They aren't there.
All this amounts to is people taking glee in the idiocy of Christians (Behold My Glorious Superiority!), and missing the point of the damned site.
WankWankWankWankWank....
"Just because they are Christian doesn't meant they have lost brain cells..."
No, but it doesn't mean they haven't, either.
"All this amounts to is people taking glee in the idiocy of Christians (Behold My Glorious Superiority!), and missing the point of the damned site."
It's a funny thing; the satire of the site, assuming it is satire (I'm still not sure), is dangerously close to real things said by real people in very serious situations. Sure, there's some really absurd stuff on there, but most of it doesn't go so far over the line as to scream "parody" at me, and the parts that do only confuse me because they don't really mesh with the parts that don't.
I mean, read this -- from an AgapePress article, a decidedly Fundamentalist news source:
Associated Press reports that cries of "Amen!" rang through a Massachusetts Statehouse meeting room yesterday as more than 200 people demanded a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage. Bishop Gilbert Thompson, a Boston pastor and member of the Black Ministerial Alliance -- one of the groups in the Coalition for Marriage -- said, "This radical sexual revolution will destroy a road map that our children desperately need."
It's a true story; an article about the Massachussets legislature legalizing gay marriage. What the hell does that quote at the end mean, though? If you put that in the Onion, I'd laugh my ass off, of course, since it's absolute nonsense, but put it on that OBJECTIVE sight and I'd have no idea.
Meshou: All this amounts to is people taking glee in the idiocy of Christians and missing the point of the damned site. If the site is a parody, then isn't "taking glee in the idiocy of Christians" the whole point of the site?
Meshou: there are at least 2 locations that have no addresses on the site... Do a web search. They aren't there. I did search after those locations, and I found the same things, as did those whose sources I cited earlier in the thread. But you know what? It wouldn't be the first time a legitimate group posted false information on their website to make themselves sound bigger and better than they are.
In the final analysis, yeah, it's probably a parody site... though it wouldn't surprise me one bit to to learn that OBJECTIVE is run by a legitimate fundamentalist group that's lying about their credentials and creating false links to throw off detractors and supporters alike. I stand by the assertion that if it's a parody site, it's so subtle as to be ineffective: most parody sites (including Landover) acknowlege that they're a work of parody or satire; the ones that don't are usually so obvious that there's no question about it (for example, a friend of mine once put together a fake 'Amish Porn' website... obviously a parody). So far as I've seen, the OBJECTIVE site (which is suddenly inaccessible) has no such disclaimer.
I guess I just want to know if I'm supposed to laugh at the site because it's meant to be funny, or laugh at the site out of sympathy for the awkward principles it espouses. Is that too much to ask?
tOjb
Btw, I read in a local paper today that a Democrat in the Colorado state legislature plans to introduce a bill to legalize civil unions for same-sex marriages.
Not surprising, a Republican immediately stepped up to try and kill the bill, citing the welfare of children and family values.
Again, I ask, who's children are suffering and what family values are lost in the face of so many damn divorces by people that *aren't* of the same sex?
Talking to some politicians about this issue is like trying to get a response from a brick wall
(...and for the record, the "Amish Porn" website didn't have any actual porn. You'd click on a link like 'Girl & Horse,' and you'd get a picture of some fully-clothed farmgirl riding her horse. That's the kind of parody which needs no disclamer saying "hey, this is parody!"
tOjb)
I can see why people might believe that that site (objective) was real--and trust me, it is no insult to say that some christians do have beliefs like that. I'm a Seventh Day Adventist-- we invented scientific creationism (at least, it originated with certain prominent Adventists. Just to cover my ass, I want to point out that the SDA church has no official perscriptive doctrines other than the vaguely worded "laws of Moses and the faith of Jesus"), and other bizarre and frightening mixtures of rationalism and biblic inerrancy...
But that site is an obvious fake.
Why? I dunno.
Maybe it's because all the mugshots are obviously colorized photographs, probably scanned off some alumni wall.
Maybe it's the anti-triclavianism diatribe (there is no such thing. Clav-, by the way, is latin for "key", not "nail").
Maybe it's the fact that the writing style is the same between Objective and Landover, even down to overuse of the words unsaved and secular.
Maybe it's the fact that the pictures in the carepress shop are photoshopped fakes, using as base the same pictures on the Landover cafepress shop.
Maybe it's the conspicuously crossed out (rather than deleted) Evanesance under Bands We Like.
Maybe it's that the children's lessons are ludicriously out of scale with children's ministry (Doctor Girrafenstein's Irreducible Complexity Mousepad?)
Maybe it's the fact that the Objective Baptist name makes the Shutdown Landover Baptist title text into Objective: Shutdown Landover Baptist
Maybe it's the lack of addresses.
So in conclusion, that site is not real, even though it very well could be. And I think that's the point. As to why someone would do something like this, it suggests me something more than a simple "honeypot" lure. Earlier commentors have stated that this resembles the first, subtle irony at Landover Baptist. Myself I can't say. I only found the latter site today. But if so, that tells me that the Objective site is a relaunching or revamping of the Landover site, a starting from scratch. This whole apparent smear campaign may just be to extablish a chain of continuity (or hyperlinks) between the two pages.
I expect that in the future, Objective will come out, as it were.
Actually, yes--the same company makes the apparel for both Objective and Landover Baptist. CafePress will print just about anything on a shirt/hat/thong.
Sigh. Oh well, I'm not happy to have to deal with this, but here goes.
Mr. Pennington wrote:
I'm of mixed minds on this.
Really, you are? I thought you already made up one, Mr. Pennington.
On the one hand, I find the folks at Objective Ministries to be anything but objective. I am a Christian but I couldn't get through much of their garbage without cringing. I rate them somewhere below Jack Chick's old handouts.
Gee, with the way you're so selfish and biased, Mr. Pennington, I really can't be sure you mean what you say. Not to mention that I couldn't get through much of YOUR garbage without shaking my head at how hypocritical and what a charlatan you are. Tsk tsk tsk.
It should be a simple fact that you don't win people over to your way of thinking by lashing out and insulting anyone who thinks differently than you do. The people of Objective speak of the hate crimes committed by Landover. I feel that Objective is just as guilty of hate; quite different from what Christ taught.
Look at yourself in the mirror when you say that, Mr. Pennington. Do you think that posting potentially racist remarks on a website that doesn't belong to you is the way to react, just because you don't like the opinion of the person you're conversing with? And, do you think that even criticizing the Zionist Organization of America the way you did is how to conduct an argument? I'm not saying that you've got to take their side if you don't want to, but you better bear in mind that that is one of the news sources that I turn to for information, and you shouldn't go telling someone you don't even know personally what sources to turn to for information.
Maybe you're not genuinely informed or aware, but there is quite a lot of antisemitism going on in the US even today, most of which is ignored by the PC-advocating media, and that's exactly why you have to bear in mind that most major news sources simply can't be relied upon for gaining knowledge about the world we live in.
On the other hand...
No, I think the one hand is still relevant...
I would be strongly shocked to find that LandoverBaptist.org is in any way associated with the Baptist Church. Were I a Baptist, I'd quite likely be upset with them for claiming such association.
And I would be strongly shocked to know that you really hate the man you're supposedly good friends with, which doesn't seem too far off an answer. Perhaps you'd like to answer to that query so we can see if you're really serious about your "friendship" with him or not?
I wonder how the gay readers of this site would feel about a website designed to make all gays seem to be conform to the narrow-minded stereotypical way some people like to portray them.
And I wonder how they'd feel if they knew that, contrary to what you say here, that you happen to support and defend the very stereotypes the Landover website specializes in as well. Indeed, what would they think if they knew what you're really like...
Or how the Jewish readers would enjoy one that shows them to be money-grabbing hypochondriacs
Or how said Jewish readers would enjoy knowing that a]you pretend to be "raised Jewish", as you put it, b]that you're actually Judeophobic, and that c]you're anti-Zionist and an anti-Israelist, all of the above being the same thing, I might add, as even Martin Luther King once pointed out in his time.
Or Irish as penny-pinching drunks...
Or knowing that you support even those wretched stereotypes as well. Have you no dignity, no shame, Mr. Pennington, in being such a hypocrite?
Mr. Pennington, you disgraceful little Republican charlatan. I've read some of the hypocritical things you've said, and I can't say that I'm so impressed with what you say, nor am I the least bit flattered by your act.
You know what your problem is? It's that you act like a know-it-all, you're smug, and worst of all, you're shameless. And to top it all off, you even go so far as to pretend that you're Jewish, when, seeing how little you seem to know about the race you claim to come from, it's more than apparent that you're not what you claim to be, nor are you as smart as you think you are. However, you're not so uncommon. Any troglodyte who reads a copy of The American Conservative could make statements like yours.
Speaking of which, as far as I can tell, you're not even a Republican. You know what you are? Quite simply, you're a Reformist. In other words, you support and polish the boots of Buchanan.
etc.
Oh yes, you can say that again. And there's more then that I could say as well about what you really are, but it would take all day, and for now, I think it best to end this conversation.
all right. proof that the Fellowship/Landover sites are both an elaborate parody/hoax:
http://web.linix.ca/pedia/index.php/OBJECTIVE:_Christian_Ministries
http://www.answers.com/topic/objective-christian-ministries
The first one tells who set them up. He has his own site.