Front Page  »  

Fox News site gets 8,000 death threats

August 9, 2011

More than 8,000 death threats were posted recently on the Fox News Facebook page after the communications director for American Atheists, Blair Scott, appeared on the network’s “America Live.” [All Facebook]

Blair was discussing the group’s lawsuit to stop the placement of a cross at the World Trade Center Memorial, arguing that some victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks were also Muslim and Jewish.

The cross has stood on Ground Zero for 10 years and is made of torn I-beams uncovered from the wreckage of the World Trade Center, and has been a symbol of hope rising from the carnage for Christians.

The outrage in response to the lawsuit to remove the cross was almost immediate. One post reads: “i say kill them all and let them see for themselves that there is a God.”

It gets worse.

Moderators for Fox News worked feverishly to eliminate the hateful posts and eventually removed them, but not before the atheist blogger behind One Man’s Blog managed to capture screen shots of the comments, which Media Bistro’s “All Facebook” reproduced on its site:

What’s notable about the posts, the blogger wrote, is “the swift, brutal and violently extreme comments that self-professed Christians made immediately following Blair Scott’s appearance to express his views on Fox TV.”

The memorial is reportedly funded with taxpayer dollars from religious people of all faiths who are not yet permitted to erect symbols of their own faiths, according to the blogger.


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


54 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Attention believers: if you go to any atheist website, you will not see a bunch of non-believers calling for the blood of others just because they disagree.


0

Praise the Lord, more Christian hate.


0

As opposed to more Islamic hate wanting us removed from the face of the earth?


0

SSB, you are too over the top. Not every Islamic person agrees with you, as a matter of fact most of them don’t. The KKK is a Christian org. do they represent you and all Christians?


0

Banna ( a speech by John Loftus)


0

Ahhh…ummmm, It seem that apart from the mention of a cross, I can’t tell the difference between those Face Book bloggers and the people who bombed the Towers!


0

Unbelievable . . . And here I was all worried about the Pharmaceutical Industry . . . These folks need their meds (or something)!


0

OK, so put up a Star of David and other religious symbols of the dead that day too.

But I think I’d draw the line at an Islamic symbol, being as it was some of those followers of Islam that brought the buildings down in the first place.

Too bad the site is publicly owned property, gives the athiests and other God-deniers something to sue over.

If it were private property, the owners could put up whatever religious symbols they want to. The Constitution prevents government from endorsing a religion, but private citizens can do so if they want to.

Sure is getting tiring seeing people fight all the time over one stupid thing or another. The athiests sue over a cross erected at what’s become a sacred site for many people, or a cross out in the desert, in the middle of nowhere really.

Are they equally as zealous fighting other religious symbols, or is it just that Christians feel such a strong need to spread the word and covert others, that they make easy targets?


0

If we cannot have a symbol representing the islamic religion because some of those behind the 911 attack were reportedly of that faith, then we cannot have a symbol representing the christian religion, because MANY terrorist attacks on our shores have been carried out by those reportedly of the christian faith.


Extremism knows no religious boundaries.


0

Agreed Mary. The first thing that came to my mind when I read Paperboys post was, then lets hope that they don’t put a cross up where Timothy McVeigh took down that building. No crosses where Christians have committed crimes,,,why do I believe that this is a once again a double standard?


0

TQ, once again, we agree. And I agree with Mary.Malone as well. Freedom of religion means freedom for ALL religions, not just the one “we” deem to be the light and the way to salvation…


0

danika, if we keep agreeing I might actually take up religion because it certainly is a miracle.


0

LOL!! Wait for it….wait…for it….


0

Huge agreement here. Some people seem to have no comprehension of what FREEDOM really means. They seem to think that it means you have the “freedom” to adopt only their beliefs.


0

Oh Mary, there is a difference. Those wackos who took down the twin towers did it in the name of their god, Allah. I don’t see many US solders running around the arab countries killing innocent people, saying… we do this in the name of Christ. There is a BIG difference. And you say, “were reportedly of that faith”. Wow, you are in total denial if you believe anything else. Why else did they commit suicide? and in who’s name did they do it.


0

The best answer for you is to read bobfromSLO’s post from 9:14 PM.


0

Whoa, whoa, whoa- “self-professed Christians”? I read all of the comments, and not one of those people identified themselves as a Christian.


0

86% of Americans do.


0

That’s true, but there is a narrative forming here, and picked up by many hapless people commenting.


See how easy mob rule can be? The original posters, and now here as well. Interesting and ironic.


0

What would Jesus Do?


I don’t think he would hurt other people as was suggested by the posters on Fox facebook


0

You’d be surprised how much your savior has in common with the Muslim faith.


Luke 19:27

“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'””


0

So by this logic, we are enemies of Islam?


0

I can’t speak for “we” because I’m not a Christian. I am in fact an Atheist, and I’m just fine with someone else being Islamic, as long as they don’t try to force their beliefs on me. According to Luke 19:27, those who practice Islam sure sound like the enemy. Being an Atheist makes me one too it would appear. Of course Matthew 22:39 states to “love thy neighbor”, and 1:7 instructs Christians to not judge, which all seems to me to be a pretty big contradiction to killing everyone who’s not down with Christ.


I’m less interested in the imaginary friend delusion and can’t imagine killing someone over it.


0

Separation of church and state. Simple, straightforward. Easy to understand.

Just because in the past religious got into power and didn’t enforce it for a period of time doesn’t mean it now gets a free pass.


It’s really a no brainer.


0

Obama is no better than the presidents who went before him when it comes to kowtowing to the nutball religious right.


Do you not remember that it was Obama, a black American, who had uber-bigot mega-church king Rick Warren give the invocation for Obama’s inauguration, thereby very publicly, before the entire world, slapping in the face the LGBTs who worked tirelessly to get Obama elected in 2008? That is the equivalent of if GWBush had ex-KKK leader, David Duke, give the invocation at GWBush’s inauguration. How would Obama have liked THAT?


Perhaps you aren’t aware of it, but Obama, starting right after he was elected, started having regular meetings with different religious groups, most of which were interested in getting public funds for their Christian shools? It continued after Obama’s inauguration. During all of this time, Obama did not meet with one separation-of-church-and-state advocacy group, such as Americans United.


The worst of the GWBush faith-based Christ-pimping left in place by Obama after his inauguration was the ability of religious employers to discriminate–based solely on faith–against any employee or potential employee.


As noted in an article from AU:


————————————————–


http://okcamericansunited.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-executive-order-on-faith-based.html

November 17, 2010


OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER ON ‘FAITH-BASED’ INITIATIVE IS DISAPPOINTING

Church-State Watchdog Group Says Order Does Some Good Things, But Ignores Religion-Based Job Bias In Federally Funded Programs


AU is disappointed that the order allows public funds to go directly to houses of worship, allows publicly funded faith-based charities to display religious signs and scriptures and entirely dodges the issue of religious hiring bias by faith-based charities that receive federal funds.

“I’m disappointed,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “This leaves much of George W. Bush’s faith-based initiative in place. That’s not the change many Americans hoped for when President Obama took office.

“I am particularly frustrated that President Obama still has done nothing to ban hiring bias by publicly funded religious charities,” continued Lynn. “That’s the 800-pound gorilla in the room. No American should be denied a government-funded job because he or she holds the ‘wrong’ views about religion.”

Lynn noted that Obama, as a candidate, vowed to repeal this policy. Today’s order, however, leaves the Bush-era rules in places. A wide array of religious, civil rights and civil liberties organizations have appealed to the president to take action on the issue, and polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose faith-based employment bias….


0

Yeah, it’s really disappointing how much Obama has sold out, not just with religion but with the right on many other things. I feel that Hillary would have done a better job.


0

Now there is a scary thought. Hillary as President. Bad enough we came close to Al Gore becoming President. And now we have an inexperienced nobody at the helm doing nothing good for us. When will somebody stand up and pledge and then follow through on guiding this country with nothing but the country’s best interest at hand? Hopefully someday Marco Rubio will be that man.


0

What specifically has Hillary done that’s so offensive?


0

Bless you. I too am disappointed in our President. I can respect a man who stands firm in his convictions even if I don’t agree with them 100%; I cannot abide a man who does not. The man needs to BE President at all times, in all things. We don’t always agree on his politics, but at least we agree he has sold out.


0

TQ, here is an insightful article in the NYT today in case you missed it:


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html


A very good read.


0

Isn’t Obama half white as well? Isn’t his very existence and rise to office proof of evolution of acceptance of what was once unthinkable in our society? Can we not expect the same for religion at some point in our very near future? We live in a “I-want-it-now” society; we expect, no demand instant resolution. Some things take time. Religion, I feel, is one of those things. It will come. To quote a song: “the whole world is turning…as it should”.


0

No. It was just proof as to what the cost was of the Office of the Presidency. George Soros had the money and the pawn to carry it all out.


0

Yeah, I know what you mean SSB. It’s like when the oil, nukes and coal companies gave the repubs ie Bush (82.1) million to get them elected. And what did we get in return, Bush gave them 14.5 BILLION on tax breaks. Those energy corps sure got a lot of bang for their buck with you guys. And man what would the right do without the $$$ that Murdock has provided with free publicity on his networks?


0

danika danika danika, I knew it was too good to be true :( but it was good while it lasted.


Obama’s win actually demonstrated that we haven’t evolved that much. Before he even took office there were right wing politicians (ie one that cries with a dark tan) that said that they would never work with him no matter what and many, especially Tea Baggers followed that lead and that’s exactly what they’ve done. I don’t like that Obama has bent over backwards to placate to them as it’s been a complete waste of time and energy. Every birther is a bigot. Many of those baggers are racist. We haven’t come that far. Name me a con that likes Obama as a person? They all not only don’t agree with his politics, they hate him.


I’m not sure what you mean about religion. What will come?


0

TQ, I disagree (shocking, I know). We have evolved to a point where the nation voted in an “African American” President (who is half-white) thus making him the most powerful man in the world. Put Obama in an election 100 years ago…


Every birther is a bigot? You sure about that? If I find ONE who is clearly NOT a bigot, you would be wrong, again.


My father in law truly respects the person that is Obama; he is very “right” sided. He hates very few people.


Religion will evolve to a point where we will accept all others in equality to our own. This will not happen overnight; probably not while I draw breath. But man must make war and religion is the coziest excuse to kill….


0

I believe the opposite. I believe that religions will eventually be seen as the cults that basically they really are (of course just my opinion). People are slowly moving away from religion IMO. I believe that one day religion will be more rare than common. I also believe the opposite because religions aren’t pulling together, I believe they are becoming more divisive.


I don’t believe that the people that elected Obama are racists. I believe that the people that didn’t vote for him became more vocal after he got elected out of shock and fear that a black man was elected. I believe that the racist (ie birthers and many Tea Baggers) never thought in a million years that an African American would get elected. That is why last year during the mid terms they came out in force and got some of their good ole boys elected. I do believe that many of the right wingers that got elected in those elections are racists. I call the birthers racist because I have yet to hear a legit reason for the entire birther issue. This never ever would have happened if he were white. What prez was forced to show his birth certificate to the world? It’s absolutely stupid to believe that if he weren’t a citizen that McCain along with other Obama rivals wouldn’t have been on it like white on rice. Hillary would have dug that up on day one of the campaign. But McCain and Hillary didn’t because they knew how absurd it was. Again, I have yet to hear a good reason for the entire birther movement, the only one that makes any sense is racism. He can’t be a true good red white and blue American because he’s black.


0

to delay is to deny


0

Refresh my memory. Which article of the Bill of Rights has the wording ‘separation of church and state’???


.


0

It’s really a no brainer

that would be the establishment clause of the first amendment for the thick headed there is the helpful prase provided by the framers ” self evident truths” something about holding them, I forget.

F5 works for this page, memory ? good luck.


0

That old phrase? Shoot, it went out about the time they decided Pluto was not a planet….where you been?


0

Read the constitution and you will understand what “separation of church and state” really means. Over the decades it has come to mean something totally different than originally intended thanks to Thomas Jefferson and his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1802 and the misinterpretation through the ages by different groups. Here’s a little brush up in history:


First Ammendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Putting a Cross on a public place is neither making a law or establishing a religion any more than a Star of David or any other religious symbol.


0

“Putting a Cross on a public place is neither making a law or establishing a religion any more than a Star of David or any other religious symbol.”


That’s funny. Does the cross represent Christianity? Do you see that when a government body puts up a cross it is endorsing and promoting Christianity?


Like I said, it’s a no brainer. That is unless you are looking through your religious colored glasses.


0

I don’t believe a federal government came in and put up a cross where the twin towers once stood. I also believe that when the twin tower fell, they were built on private property. Now there’s the “no brain” er..


0

Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church contained the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state”. For those that don’t understand the first amendment then they should read Jefferson’s letter. It sounds as if we might interrupt The Danbury letter differently. Regardless of the letter, if there is a cross there then other religions should have the right to put up a symbol of their religion. Personally because of the controversy with everyone over all this I feel that there shouldn’t be any religious symbolism. Religion represents war and teaches people to be judgmental and that’s not appropriate in that location IMO.


0

Ok, let’s not judge those who brought down the twin towers. Obviously they were just having a bad day. Has the world become so politically correct that there is no right or wrong because we might call it judgement? BTW, I don’t believe Jefferson was on the supreme court. Therefore that was his opinion, and his opinion only, not to be taken as an addendum to the first ammendment.


0

judge those who brought down the twin towers

they are dead ?


0

I didn’t say not to judge the guys that took down the twin towers. They were horrible horrible stupid brain washed men. BTW, the SCOTUS has also agreed that there should be a separation of church and state. Anyway, it’s black and white, those bad guys flew the planes in the Pentagon, that field in PA and the Towers. But that doesn’t mean that we should judge an entire religion or judge what religious symbols are worthy over others to placed in sacred public spaces. My statement about religions being judgemental was a blanket statement not pertaining to 911 but to the actual writings in the Bible and the wars that it has caused (or other religions for that matter). How the Bible instructs followers to feel, think and act and if someone doesn’t fit in with how the Bible instructs them then they are judged and persecuted. That is what I mean by ‘judgemental’.


0

Is any one surprised? No one scares me more than a over zealous nut case acting in the name of some religion.


0

ITA.


As Sun Tzu said in The Art of War:


“When you become like your enemy, your enemy has won.“


0
1 2