So what if the guy was a nut case? Do you think the actions of the school and police were appropriate because just because this guy may have been agitated when he met with the principal? Principals have to deal with all kinds of parents (abusive, drug addicted, zealously religious, zealously atheist etc…) so what if Smalkowski was agitated or even belligerent about his beliefs? Does that justify the treatment of his daughter? The school was hostile to an atheist student, how does the behavior of the father justify that?
You keep saying "combat veteran’ like it’s synonomous with “psychopath.”
The principal himself was a former Marine and was twice the father’s size.
I can’t help but read that as “I think all this happened because the father is a jackass. Not because they’re atheist.”
They’re harassing his daughter because the dad’s uppity, not because they’re atheists? Is this supposed to reflect more kindly on the faithful people of Hardesty, Oklahoma? This theory of events fails based on the timing of official actions against his daughter, anyway.
I don’t hink he’s “uppity”, I think he’s in a state of permanent rage. He impresses me as prone to violence. And I mention that he is a combat veteran because in his posts, he tries to paint a picture of his weak little self facing the big fat principle. He cites their respective heights and weights (guessing at the principal’s stats, I would imagine) as evidence that he wouldn’t have dared assault the principal. But like I said, it wouldn’t be the first time that a little guy flying off in a rage has scared the bejezus out of a bit fat sedentary office worker.
And you base this on what, exactly? I can understand that you could image that, but your posting on this thread goes way beyond what most folks would take from a taped interview on a news show. Isn’t it possible that any rage you detected came as a result of being attacked by most of the people in authority in this town?
He bases it on the look in the guy’s eyes, his tone of voice, and the fact that he patted his daughter on the back when she was upset, instead of hugging her.
Which, you know, totally devastates our argument, which is based on flimsy crap like multiple witness statements and the findings of a court of law.
Certainly it’s possible. But as I said before, I base my own opinion on two things: his interview and his writings. In his interview with Stossel, his hostility was palpable, and I’ve described it elsewhere. I thought even then that he did a lousy job handling his daughter’s problems and in fact, was instrumental in bringing them about. She had no problems with other kids —zero, zip, nada — while she played football. It was only when she played basketball, and the other kids wanted to pray, that her father, instead of teaching her tolerance for others, decided to use her as an opportunity to make a statement about his own beliefs. In that interview, he hardly even mentioned his daughter’s plight, using it instead as an opportunity to explain that believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus, which is an expression of total disrespect to believers. It’s no different from the “sky pixie” and “imaginary friend” references from hard atheists on this board. It’s the same callous disregard for the beliefs and feelings of others who have a heartfelt reverence for their God. It’s the same as calling a man’s mother a bitch. But it wasn’t until I read his postings that I realized what a total crazed out wildman he really is. His writings were chock full of venom. He described the town’s Christians as though they were zombies who wanted to eat his brain. Every single description of every single event used the worst possible hyperbole. And the writing itself was very much like his speaking — disjointed, poorly composed, and thrown together like the prose of a meth addict. It is still a mystery to me, though, why people would even question how I could come to my conclusion. They’re the same people who have come to conclusions about me through the same method (reading my posts) but without the benefit of ever having seen me or heard me speak. (Though, for what it’s worth, those who have met me in person have consistently defended me here.) If you want to test the man, it should be easy. Post as a Christian where he posts and see whether he blasts you. My money says he will.
If multiple witnesses defended him, he has a damn bizarre way of acknowledging them. He does not differentiate among the townsfolk:
And I might add that this is the place where he has chosen to dig in his heels and raise his poor daughter. Read the rest of his screed. It describes his lifelong struggle with “injustice”. He gloats about contacting the infamous American Atheists, a hardcore activist group of hard atheists formerly headed by the very kooky Madalyn Murray O’Hair (the Jerry Falwell of atheism). None of this matters to him, in my opinion, other than the fact that he gets to bask in the limelight and hear the praises of people sympathetic to him.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8466019&postcount=479
Got a cite for that?
CMC fnord!
Stossel himself, introducing his piece: “Lot’s of people are uncomfortable with us [atheists].”
As long as you’re talking up all of us violence prone ex-military types with a case of permanent rage… I believe it’s also mentioned that the big fat sedentary office worker was a Marine. Smalkowski was Air Force, man.
I don’t want to fire up some inter branch rivalry but between ex-Marine and ex-Air Force… I’m putting my money on the Marine.
American Atheists Legal has PDFs of the ongoing court documents, including Answers from the Hardesty folks.
Based on what’s up so far (particularly the Megan Kennedy motions), it looks like the core of the Hardesty counter-argument is going to be that claim of discrimination on religious grounds is invalid if the victim of religiously motivated discrimination is non-religious.
Should be interesting.
So, you’re basically just making shit up, deciding it’s the truth, and then arguing with people who disagree with you? Nice.
Much like your callous disregard for the beliefs and feelings of people who have a heartfelt reverence for consensus reality, as opposed to the vivid “reality” inside your head.
I get that your faith is important to you. But can you see that you are not extending to others the tolerance you expect them to extend to you? There are intolerant jackass atheists, just as there are intolerant jackass Christians. You are willing to believe that the former exist and make bad decisions based on their beliefs; why not the latter?
I have blasted my share of intolerant jackass Christians including current ongoing blastings of Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps in their respective threads. What intolerant jackass atheists have you been blasting?
Here on the SDMB? None that I can recall, for I intend to post far more often than I do. I find Der Trihs reprehensible, and may have posted as much.
But you’re changing the subject. Since you do believe in the existence of intolerant jackasses, why are you so intent on painting the atheist as one, rather than the town? You’ve repeatedly said he was stupid to move to a small Oklahoma town, for he should have known he’d encounter religious bigotry and intolerance. I don’t get how that makes him the villain.
Wrong and wronger!
The half sentence your twisting around occurs five minutes into the segment.
“Lot’s of people are uncomfortable with us [atheists].” there’s no period there, if there was what do you do with the sentence fragment that follows “people attending an American Atheist convention.”?
Here’s the complete sentence,
““Lot’s of people are uncomfortable with us” said people attending an American Atheist convention,/. some here are afraid to do what Nicole did”.
Yeah the word “said” isn’t really clear but I’m more than willing to hear what other word anybody thinks fits in that spot.
You really expect me to believe that the guy who, in his online column and on 20/20, said that there’s nothing unethical about selling water at $20 a bottle to the victims of hurricane Katrina is gonna be shy about proclaiming his religious beliefs or lack thereof?
When come back bring real cite :dubious: .
CMC fnord!
I almost hate to participate in this trainwreck of a zombie thread, but this post has been bothering me. Do you sincerely mean that we have to make a list of atheists we’ve flamed in order to remark on a town full of jerks? Since when?
After reviewing the video again, I have to agree with you. I took my quote from a transcription, and I should have been more careful.
No. If you examine what I responded to, it was an accusation that I blast only atheists and am unwilling to blast Christians:
“There are intolerant jackass atheists, just as there are intolerant jackass Christians. You are willing to believe that the former exist and make bad decisions based on their beliefs; why not the latter?” — Brainiac4I do indeed blast Christians, as I proved. And I thought it was fair to demand of him what he demanded of me.
Were I to have made such an accusation, your response would have been appropriate. I did not and it was not.
You’re being disingenuous at best; asking you why you do not (in this current thread) believe that Christians could have been at fault is not the same thing as acusing you of only blasting atheists or of being unwilling to blast Christians. I didn’t say you have never been willing to criticize Christians; that’s not relevant to the discussion at hand, and the fact that you have done so weakens your case rather than strengthening it.
What I was attempting to do was discuss rationally the subject at hand. You’re a person of faith and of logic; can you examine your own reactions and see inconsistency? As I noted above, you’re placing blame on the atheist for moving somewhere where he should have known he’d be unwelcome, and casting him as the villain, exploiting his daughter’s pain to advance his personal beliefs.
Is it possible that you’re wrong? That the real problem is religious intolerance, the small-mindedness that you yourself said he should expect to encounter? That perhaps he was persecuted for his beliefs (or lack thereof, if you prefer that formulation)?
That’s what I’m asking. If you are willing to believe in bad behavior from people of faith, is it possible that that’s what happened here? I see you as taking a position and holding to it tenaciously, in the face of significant opposition. I’ve seen you do that enough times that I think you derive some amount of enjoyment from being the underdog.
Can you set aside your own enjoyment of fighting the good fight to take a look at the reasons why? On several occasions, you’ve retracted your statements when presented with fuller evidence, such as the Stossel comment. You should have been more careful, but you were not. Why? Because you liked the first version of the truth, because it fit your preconceptions, and didn’t check it? I know I live in constant danger of that – one reason I avoid left-wing blogs is that I don’t want half-truths that feed my preconceived notions.