I would like a cite for this because I have lived in EL Cajon near Granite Hills High School since 1989 and I never heard of this and I am sure it would have made at least the local news.
We all agree that his family has gone through hell. We just disagree about who is most responsible for that happening. You think the town is full of zombies who want to eat their brains, and I think the father is a monomaniacal bastard who’ll stop at nothing to make a point. The difference between you and me is that I don’t think someone who sees something like this differently from me is disingenuous or should be ignored. Nothing could be more disingenuous than telling me that I have to see things the same way you do or that my view is not worth hearing.
Amazing. Simply amazing. I didn’t realize anyone could fit that many words that I never said into my mouth.
I have never taken the stance against the Hardesty Christians that you have taken against Smalkowski.
I have not ignored any arguments made except when other posters responded to them first and more effectively, while I’ve seen you ignore quite a few posts, particularly by redtail23, in both this thread and in the GD one.
I have never said your view is not worth hearing, though I have argued against it to the best of my ability. Nobody here has done otherwise.
Your attempt to play the martyr is simply fascinating. Good luck with it.
It certainly doesn’t, but I simply don’t see how you’re getting the impression that you are. One (or both) of us are probably bringing a bit of preconceived prejudice to the situation and reading it into the video, of course. But of all the information so far available to us, that doesn’t add up to the picture of Chuck that you are drawing. Already you’ve had some confusion of the chronology of the situation, leading me to believe that you’re arranging the facts to fit your notion. The only real hard facts that we know is that Chuck was accused of felony assault, and was found not guilty. And now he is suing the school district. That hardly requires a monomaniacal bastard.
The other difference between you and us is that we actually have some evidence to support our positions.
I don’t know what chronology confusion you’re refering to, but you try handling ten (rather passionate) respondents at once and keeping it all straight. When I had seen only the Stossel interview, I thought the dad was just plain mean. But after reading his postings, that is when I thought he was crazy. What I don’t understand about all this is why my thinking he’s crazy makes all of you so mad. Just because I think he’s a nutbag doesn’t mean I’m mad at you. Or at his daughter, for that matter. But with the facts as you present them, my view of him is just as valid as your view of the town.
Remember, I even stipulated to take your viewpoint for the sake of argument. And when I did, my conclusion was that he was an idiot for moving his family there. Name any random town in rural Oklahoma, and if I’m an atheist, I have a pretty good idea what I’m likely to encounter there. If not outright hatred, at least lots of cold shoulders. Well, y’all didn’t like that viewpoint either. In other words, you’re not going to be satisfied until I toe the line and agree with you in every particular. But if I did that, someone would swing by to tell me that my agreement is disingenuous or that I have a history of blah blah blah.
Well, I think the girl has it pretty rough. And I think it’s largely because of her father. If you simply MUST be pissed at me for thinking that, then I can’t help you.
I know full well what it’s like to be on the unpopular side of a Pit thread, so yeah. Confusion happens.
What you got wrong was that Chuck found out first-hand how fundie that town could be, the various altercations happened, and then he decided to move there. What in fact happened was that he moved there first, and lived seemingly happily for 3 years. It was only recently that he found out just how intolerant people could be. Now you could make the point that he should have known what a small southern town would be like. Fair point. But as was suggested, it could very well be that he visited before deciding to move. He found the people to be nice, and he didn’t see any crosses burning on anyone’s lawn. “Nice town” is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw from that.
You may also argue that “everyone” knows what small southern towns are like. But don’t forget, you probably have a lot more insight into the subtleties of that than most northerners would. What might be bloody obvious to you might be invisible to us Yanks.
If you don’t think it, why did you say it?
I tend to stay out of these conversations because you make my head asplode.
Cheers,
G
What? Liberal making up shit about atheists?
No, it can’t be true. He’d never do a thing like that, would he?
CMC fnord!
Wouldn’t that just be painting the small town south with a broad brush? Assuming that the people in the South would be small minded bigots just because they lived in a small southern town?
I hardly think the father can be blamed for not relying on stereotypes when deciding where to live.
How would you have handled it? Talking with the principal about it sounds like a great first step. That’s what he did. The principal assault him, the law about them parts falsely charged him with assault. The judge tripled his bail when he tried to pay the first amount quoted. The sheriff attempted to get the bondsman to revoke the bail bond when there was no further legal means to get the godless atheist in jail. That’s just the first week. Throw in some death threats, people killing your pets and work animals, more or less non-stop harassment by local LEOs… I think you’d be a bit squirrelly by the time 20/20 decided to pick up the story, too.
And on a continuum of community response behaviours including “outright hatred” and “lots of cold shoulders”, I’d say the sheriff, IIRC, soliciting murder for hire is a pretty extreme deviation. Or is that an acceptable response in a “small southern town” to an uppity n^hatheist who should have known his place?
I’ve already answered that, but I’ll come back and address it again. First, though…
…that’s just so amazingly loaded. It paints a picture of the dad walking merrily into the principal’s office with a smile on his face and kindness in his heart, whereupon the principal inexplicably flew into a rage and whupped his ass. But where are all the facts regarding this encounter, except in the dad’s postings or on speculative blogs? And if we’re all just going on our suspicions, then I get to do that too. I suspect that the dad stormed into the office screaming his slogans and scared the shit out of everybody there. Yes, I’ve read his account that the principle was bigger than he, but so what? It is not at all uncommon for a fat old desk jockey to be intimidated by a physically fit combat veteran on a rampage. The dad was already pissed and looking for a confrontation. If the principle did indeed assault him (not an established fact), then one has to (or ought to) wonder how he got into an agitated state. Is it your contention that the principal is permanently on edge, swinging his fists randomly at people who come to visit him? If so, upon what basis? And if not, then what would cause him to assault the dad? Some distraction in the office? A bad phone call? Drugs? What? It takes two to tango, and if there was a fight, then one of the two men was already sitting peacefully in the office when the other entered.
None of which he mentioned in the interview, by the way. Nothing about killed pets and such. Again, I haven’t seen any account of some of this stuff other than on extremist websites and his own postings. And even if indeed it were all true, there is nothing about his atheism that is necessary to make it all happen. Ordinary people, calling themselves Christian, go through shit like this in the justice system every day. No, I’m not saying it’s okay; I’m saying it happens. People get railroaded and pushed around. Sometimes it even happens to completely innocent people, but it more often happens to uncooperative troublemakers. I think that if — BIG IF — it happened to him even remotely to this degree, it was because he was a full-on jackass every step of the way. That’s my opinion, and it’s just as valid as yours. I draw it from the type of person that he impresses me as, just exactly as you draw yours. You and I have a different impression of the man. Why that means you and I have to disrespect each other is a mystery to me.
His whole account is a “pretty extreme deviation” from what I think reasonable people would conclude. Stossel, himself an atheist and cause-bearer (for libertarianism) would have pounced on this stuff like a tiger if there had been any hint of it. Instead of interviewing four church members to show how ignorant they were about atheism, he would have tried to interview all these alleged murderous savages and would have reported if they had refused to talk. But he reported nothing about any of this. Meanwhile, people here (like RTFirefly, or instance) have merrily declared Stossel to be a reporter who deliberately twists facts and distorts truth to suit his own agenda. I guarantee you that his agenda was not to vindicate the Christians. (His was the only anti-faith report in the whole two hour special.) If something had been there, no matter how slight, he would have told about it. That’s how I feel, and though you might disagree, it is ridiculous to say that I have no basis for feeling as I do.
Finally, to your question of what I would have done. And that’s assuming that I had been so clueless and careless as to move there in the first place. My number one concern — in fact, my only concern — would have been for my daughter. I would have considered what was best for her. (Granted, I would not have done that when I dragged her there, but since we’re just supposing…) And I don’t think that what’s best for her is a confrontation with her principal. I think what’s best for her is peaceful coexistence with her peers. Like I said at the outset, I would have counseled her on how to be tolerant and accepting of others, and how to fit in without compromising her beliefs. She was already a hero on the boys football team. They adored her. They would have defended her from bullies.
In my opinion, what he did with her instead was flame her insecurities. It’s the same thing that happens when a child falls down and the parent screams “NO!” at the top of their lungs. The child cries, not because he was hurt, but because daddy scared him. He’s not just an atheist; he’s an anti-theist. His lifelong obsession meant more to him, in my opinion, than his own daughter’s happiness did, and that’s why I fault him. Disagree? Then fine. Be pissed at me for it? Then that’s just completely irrational.
“We’ll tend to your wounds and broken bones in a moment, ma’am, but first I just need to ask you— what did you do or say to make your husband attack you?”
Setting aside the pointless hyperbole about broken bones, do you honestly believe that a combat veteran on a mission storming into a school’s office is analogous to a helpless wife trapped by an abusive husband? If so, at least I can understand why we view this so very differently.
You keep using loaded words like “storming”. I’m sure the picture you paint in your head is oh so very pretty, but try not to assume it must necessarily fit reality.
In any case, according to the reports, he’d actually gone to the principal’s home, not the school office. Perhaps you think he’s crazed and demented enough to trespass on private property, but I’m not sure he would have done so without an invitation or at the very least permission.
To his home?! :eek: And you’re still defending him? Y’all treat this maniac the way Congress treats Bush — he can do no wrong.
Well, yes, I don’t see anything wrong with it. I’m not claiming to know the truth of the matter, but while you can clearly see that this man is a rabid psychopath, I can see another scenario:
Smalkowski, on the phone: “Hello, sir? My daughter has been claiming to have some problems at school. She says the kids and even the teachers have been harrassing her because of her views on religion. I would like to discuss the matter with you at some point.”
Principal: “Certainly. Listen, why don’t you come over to my house tomorrow to talk about this?”
He shows up, the discussion probably got heated, and suddenly assault charges are being filed (which Smalkowski was found not guilty on, I must stress once again).
Again, let me make the disclaimer that I am not claiming this is what happened. It’s simply a very likely scenario that fits what we know of the situation and in no way requires Smalkowski to be out for blood.
Yeah, the awful crime of going to someone’s home. I know that when I go to visit my friends in their homes, I often do you enraged and with the intention of beating the Jesus out of them. That’s what we atheists are all about.
The fact that you thought it was the office further reinforces my opinion that you have read nothing about this case.
Is THAT what you think you’re doing? :rolleyes:
Setting aside the pointless hyperbole about our defense of Smalkowski being equal to Congressional fellation of a criminal President, if the event did take place at the principal’s home, I am inclined to view it differently than if it occurred in the school— but I would still like to hear evidence that the father deserved to be assaulted (if that did actually occur) before assuming it was just an act of self-defense against the raging atheist, which seems to be the assumption you’re most comfortable with.