Talk:Landover Baptist Church: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:32, 10 December 2009 editOrangemike (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators126,294 edits →It's Real: It is a parody, a meta-parody of a parody← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:59, 16 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots8,053,467 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Christianity}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Religion}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(78 intermediate revisions by 49 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{afd-merged-from\|Betty Bowers\|Betty Bowers\|29 July 2012}}
	{{ChristianityWikiProject\|importance=Mid\|class=B}}
			{{Old AfD multi\| date = 11 July 2011 (UTC) \| result = '''keep''' \| page = Landover Baptist Church }}
	==Request from Landover Owners?==
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|
	I removed the following request, made by an anonymous user, from the main article:
			{{WikiProject Christianity\|importance=Mid}}
	:''Please do not revert this page (at request of owners). There have been numerous death threats against the creator of the web-site and he and all involved wish to remain as anonomous as possible.''
			{{WikiProject Religion\|class=start\|importance= }}
	This accompanies an on-going low-frequency revert-war, regarding the identity of the people behind this site.
			{{WikiProject Websites}}
			}}
			]

			== Proof that it's a parody ==
	I believe we should not honor this request. First, it is not clear that it really comes from the owners (though it doesn't seem unlikely). Second, the owners have put out a press release about their web site, mentioning their names, so they have no expectation of privacy whatsoever. Furthermore, the identity of the owners is already widely available on the web. Death threats are felonies and should be dealt with by the authorities. Our job is to provide information. ] 18:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
			These are the terms of service for Landover Baptist Church: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/tos.html

			At the bottom of the page, it says: "Note: Mouse Over Below for Spoiler Alert:" And if you mouse over the area below, it says: "The Landover Baptist Church is a complete work of fiction. It is a satire/parody." Another thing is that if you on http://www.landoverbaptistchurch.org click the section called "FORUMS", you are redirected to http://www.landoverbaptistchurch.net <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: Chris Harper often gives public speeches, such as at the , or the . He does not look at all concerned about hiding his identity. ] \| ] 23:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

			== It's Real ==
	:I agree with AxelBoldt in every way. Censorship is dangerous business, and since anyone could simply find the information about the site from speeches the owner has given, as Bogdan said, there is little reason not to include his name. --] 10:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
			It's not real..it's just people trolling...seriously??? go check http://www.landoverbaptist.net/ everything they say just makes you want to laugh so much
			Here is what landoverbaptist.NET says:
			"Perhaps you've heard that we are a joke, true religion or parody, and you came to our site for a few cheap laughs or "lulz", only to find people taking everything seriously. So now you have decided to be the first to "spill the beans" and let everyone in on your "knowledge". Friend, this has been done so many times that it isn't funny any more.

			When an Atheist loses a debate to a fundamentalist Christian, it is a common tactic to accuse the Christian of being a parody. The Atheist is so full of pride, that he cannot imagine being outsmarted by a dumb God-Believer, so he thinks the Christian must be an Atheist like himself who is only pretending to be Christian. This is known as Tabor's Law.
	:Since Chris Harper has just published JesusLand under his own name, I can't seriously see how it can be argued that he is attempting to hide his identity. ]

			Our situation is not helped by the fact that there is some atheist satirist who does an impression of our Pastor Deacon Fred at atheist conventions. People hear about him and start rumors that they are the same person and that the real Landover Baptist Church is also just a joke. Some Atheists go so far as to vandalize our church's Misplaced Pages page to say that we are not a true religion." And then gives a link to the original wiki article, the one they prefer. I think this shouldn't just be catagorized under humor, but give both sides. landoverbaptist.ORG and .COM are parodies. Read the forums at landoverbaptist.NET. If it is a parody, there is nothing stating that it is. It would also be in bad taste and very un-funny. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	==A Real Church?==
			:It is a parody, a ] parody of a parody. Whether that is ''"in bad taste and very un-funny"'' is a matter of personal taste (myself, I dislike most meta- stuff as often overly-precious intellectual mindgames of the pretentious sort). --] \| ] 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
	Just for confirmation: "The Landover Baptist Church is a web site which serves as the home of a church of the same name. Landover Baptist is a shining example of fundamentalist Christianity and the religious right in the United States of America."
			Landover is not a parody my wordy friend. Thats two votes to your one. This description will be changed no matter who you think you are. Your Quaker ways prejudice this article. Shame on you.] (]) 04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

			I'm sure that this discussion is a prank, but go to http://www.landoverbaptist.org/tos.html, scroll down to the bottom, and highlight the space below the line that reads "Mouse over below for spoiler alert." The text there reads, "The Landover Baptist Church is a complete work of fiction. It is a satire/parody." ] (]) 00:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
	Is this true? I know a lot of people who have said they are too weird, but a friend in Iowa said there is a gated complex in a forested region of Iowa that the residents there call Freehold. (Myself included, though I have become a bit believing recently.) ] 20:24, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

			:By moving your mouse over the cursor, you have committed an act of '''original research''' which is '''banned from Misplaced Pages.''' In any case, Landover's website often gets hacked by librals and athianists, who disguise their vandalism with inviso-text out of cowardice. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	The accusations of parodic intent come from atheists with agendas. Landover Baptist Church is as real as God's sovereign grace and as serious as the biblical threats of hell fire. We are serious folks with a serious purpose. We are helping people get saved here. There are desperate, struggling people out there, seeking the real truth about God. Several people have found the truth here, amen, and we hope to help many more.
			::First of all that's NOT original research. Second, it's still there, so joke's on you. ] (]) 01:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
			:::There are also plenty of sentences on the site that say it is real, why exactly is that one sentence you pick out more reliable than any other sentence on that site? Either the site is trustworthy enough to be a source for itself, or it is untrustworthy and should not be used as a source, and any and all claims based on that source should be removed from the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			Its fake. this might be original research, but http://www.landoverbaptist.net/PS3.htm pretty much confirms the link between the .org and the .net of landoverbaptist. The article is on the ".net" domain of landover, which is the same domain as the fourm that everyone hates so much. You can actually access the .org domain from this particular page! ] (]) 22:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
	The Lord is so Good. I am blessed to be a part of this place.
	] 16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

			==It's a joke==
	:A lot of "we" and the claim of being "part of this place" would indicate a ] problem. You should focus on saving those souls in the ''flesh'' rather than converting us damned atheists. I mean we're lost, we're gonna burn. I've got me steaks, mustard and beer waiting for the end of days. Roll on kingdom come. ] 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
			The Landover Baptist Church must be a joke. It's users say that Minecraft, Diablo, Disney, Pacman and even My Little Pony are satanic, and that autist children should be beaten until they stop being autistic. Those thoughts are insane, so it has to be a joke, I hope it's a joke. They also hate Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, gays and everone except themselves.

			For example look at the following: http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=40617&highlight=earth
	::On your talk page, you admit to being an atheist who likes to edit Christian articles. Do you not also have a conflict of interest here? Aren't your interests served by casting doubt on those who spread the Word of God? ] 17:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
			] (]) 14:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
	::I also want to add, that I notice on your user page, you claim to be find censorship offensive, yet you censor every edit I make as soon as I make it. I guess consistency is only for those who don't deny the obvious fact of God's existence. ] 17:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::]...an important point (]) is to never really mention what the other editor claims they are outside of what they provide on the article talk page itself. Here you claim you are part of the LBC and thus I refer you to the ] pages whereas you are ] and extrapolating that without considering ].
	::::Are you saying that I should have kept my interest in the matter concealed, as you have? If you truly don't care, why are you so quick to reverse my edits? Can't we, at the very least, leave a tag up at the top stating that not everyone agrees with the point of view of the article? Why must you persecute me for my beliefs? ] 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::No, I'm saying that the ] policy exists and it is your call as to whether you keep editing or not: nothing to do with me. I have no interest with this web site, just the article is on my watchlist (along with 300 or other pages ranging from ] (I have no idea why that gets vandalised and I don't care for tennis) through to, well this article.
	:::::Your beliefs are irrelevant to editing Misplaced Pages, as are mine and everyone else's. ] 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::On the other hand, I guess you'll agree with me that all those other nasty gods don't exist (I usually quote around 2800 or so gods picked off the Godchecker ( www.godchecker.com ) web site) so we're just arguing on the last one. ] 18:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::I'll agree to nothing of the sort. God said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If those other gods don't exist, who or what was He talking about? Those 2799 other so-called gods exist, but they are not true gods. They are demons, masquerading as gods. ] 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Ah yes, well he would say that. Go down the local car sales yard and ask any salesperson if "X brand is better than Y brand" and depending upon what they sold then you'll get a predictable answer. Given God is a rehash of the Jewish tribal god why they picked from Mesopotamia while on tour I guess that makes him a used car lot as well as he's been round the clock a few times. Heck given the syncretic nature of Christianity I'd probably call it a chop shop. Actually he didn't say "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." but probably muttered something in some dialect. People always seem to have a handy aphorism which sounds fine in one language but probably lost 1/2 its meaning in translation and yet is presented as an axiom.] 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::Just a question, I know it's back up the page a bit but Pastor, you ask why are you prosecuted because of your religion then why does your religion prosecute all the others???? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			*If it's real, there would be a Freehold, IA. And that town doesn't exist according to Google Maps <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Ha, Billy Reuben... as in the shade of brown? Nina] (]) 16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

			: Well, now I'm confused. I was about convinced that Landover is a parody, as the article suggests, and then I read above that "They also hate Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, gays and everone except themselves." So.. it's an actual Evangelical church after all? ] 04:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
	Hey, retard (aka pastor reuben) go back to your fake website where you belong, and give Chris Harper, I mean Pastor Decon Fred, my regards!!! --] (]) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

			There is some evidence it could be in Freehold, Des Moines. ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 15:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	==Semi-Protction==

			== "Protests" paragraph ==
	This article needs some form of protection as vandals keep placing the text of the page from Objective ministries, calling for an LBC shutdown. ] 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
	:{{RFPP\|d}} Not enough recent activity to justify protection. Make sure you warn vandals to adhere to NPOV. -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

			It is entirely based on unreliable sources. "Objective Ministries" is a well-known parody website just like "Landover" and an editorial from theforce.net hardly meets the criteria for reliable sources. ] (]) 02:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
	I attend Landover Baptist Church. It is a real church and it's flock is growing in leaps and bounds. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:True, but that doesn't warrant the removal of the paragraph. I've restored it and added an appropriate tag whilst I find some ] to back up the assertion. ] (]) 09:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
	== VfD debate ==

			::The paragraph was added based solely on phony information from a parody website and a completely unreliable source. I see no reason to keep it now that those two sources have been removed. And I seriously doubt there will ever be any reliable sources found that will justify the paragraphs inclusion. There is not and will most likely never be an organized protest against the website. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of people have never even heard of the website. ] (]) 16:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
	Article has been kept following ]. ] 08:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

			I'm sorry but this paragraph is nonsense. "Objective Ministries" is not a fundamentalist Christian organization protesting about Landover; it is another parody. Many believe that it is a part of Landover and it is every bit as scathing and anti-Christianity as Landover. The other reference seems to be some comments from individuals who dislike Landover's brand of humour. In fact the main article appears to be gone from the site. And there is no way that http://theforce.net/jedicouncil/editorials/070999.shtml represents a fundamentalist Christian organization.
	== Upholding/Holding ==

			And where is the evidence for any of this statement: "These various groups are advocating different methods of forcibly censoring or shutting down the site including petitioning various places (such as the web site's ISP and Congress) to have them shut down or put on blocking or filtering lists."?
	From the article:

			If anything like this had actually happened it would be well worth noting. But there is no evidence for it and Landover is scarcely important or influential enough to warrant such action. The section should be removed.```` <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:''The site also upholds very racist views. It believes that Native Americans were the first terrorists in American history, and that African Americans should still be slaves and be segregated from whites. It also holds a strong anti-Muslim belief.''

			Sorry, I meant to sign my above comment. I screwed up attempting to type the tildes :(. ] (]) 07:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	I'm not sure about the wording here. Can a parody site be said to "hold" or "uphold" views if those views are merely part of the parody? To me, "hold" or "uphold" would imply that they are serious about it - maybe it should say "purports to hold/uphold"? -- ] ('']'') 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

			== Knightdale, NC ==
	Why not just 'claims to hold'? Stunz2

			There is an unfortunately-named Landover Baptist Church near my home. Would there be any merit in adding that as a footnote? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	The wording is not good in my opinion. It's not the site that holds or claims views it's the church -- Landover Baptist Church -- that is claimed to hold various views. This may seem pedantic, but the "site" and those behind it don't hold the same views as the fictional church that they have invented. ] 10:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

			==Abraham Lincoln said that... ==
	== Neutrality ==

			You can fool some of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool some of the people some of the time.] (]) 04:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
	This article feels a bit biased, particularly in the first paragraph's end. Also, having a casual question in the middle of a point isn't a good idea for an encyclopedia. 05:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
			:, but how is this relevant? . . ], ] 07:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

			== Remove tags ==
	Actually, it is quite the opposite. The article was vandalized when you read it. Now, it should be better. ] 18:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

	:I ~~decided~~ to ~~stick~~ ~~the "neutrality" tag here~~. ~~There's~~ ~~little~~, if ~~anything~~ ~~about~~ ~~the~~ ~~Church's~~ ~~activities~~ ~~and~~ a ~~lot~~ on ~~what~~ ~~their~~ ~~opponents~~ ~~do-~~ ~~certainly~~ ~~that's~~ ~~biased~~.-] (]) 19:31, 25 ~~March~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		The page now seems well-cited. Also, in an article about a webpage, the webpage itself can server as a reliable source. ] (]) 13:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
			:Agreed. Thanks for taking care of that. <span style="color:green">Green</span><span style="color:silver">'''Glass'''</span><sup><span style="color:green">'']</span></sup> 01:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

			== Edit request on 12 July 2012 ==
	:That's because the church doesn't exist. They have no activities. It is a parody, a mockery, a satire. --] \| ] 21:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

			{{edit semi-protected\|answered=yes}}
	== Let their site prove reality. ==
			<!-- Begin request -->
			A real church has unwittingly followed one of the more extreme examples set by Landover Baptist Church. Pastor Erik Dykstra of Crossing Church in Elk River, Minnesota allegedly offered those attending his church a chance to win a Nintendo 3DS, 3D flat-screen TV, or 3D movie tickets, as part of the “Jesus in 3D” sermon series. His opinion on the matter was that he didn’t mind “bribing people with crap” in order to meet Christ.

	Reality is that Satan influences Atheism because they use deceitful tactics. This strengthens my beliefs.

			In the Description of this article, the last point:
	First of all, you have no proof of anything you say about your own beliefs. I'm an agnostic(though you just want to lump all non-theists into athiests), and to say that I have no choice of my beliefs is both idiotic and unprovable. Get some proof to back up your bogus claims, and next time, and if you actually get some "proof", don't post it here, since arguing religious beliefs anywhere on Misplaced Pages is irrelevant. The site is a parody of the religious right, and you are an example of the people they make fun of. Second of all, this has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages or this article, so either be constructive or just don't say anything at all. Third of all, sign your posts by putting four tildes in a row at the end of your message. --] 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
			"A real church has unwittingly followed one of the more extreme examples set by Landover Baptist Church."
			could use further explanation, as it tells very little in current state. Following the source (i.e. ) which was provided:
			http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/04/real-church-steals-parodys-bribe-idea/
			some further details could be added (as above) to make a more complete and coherent paragraph.
			<!-- End request -->
			] (]) 11:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
			:] '''Not done:''' please be more specific about what needs to be changed.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ] ] 13:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

			The current source is a biased representation of the church in question. The crossing church is located in an old movie theater and is focused on being an unusual/experimental place of worship in the middle of a populated city. To compare it to the parody of the Landover Baptist Church is a misrepresentation of both groups, as The Crossing is focused towards Christians who are uninterested in the current pattern of church worship and community involvement. Essentially, from what I understand, it is meant for Christians who were driven away from churches that Landover parodied. (not directly of course) I believe in it's current state this section has been simplified into a misrepresentation and should either be deleted or changed. source: http://www.crossing-church.com/?i=15575&mid=1000&id=389528 (] (]) 16:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
	He won't listen.He just spat his stupis message and gone.--] 12:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

	== ~~Parody~~ on ~~the parody~~ ==		== Merging ] ==

			I think a consensus on what to bring over and what to leave out would be good. Thoughts? ] (]) 03:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
	There are even parody Christian sites opting for the immidiate shutdown of the Landover parody..
			:Okay, then. ] (]) 01:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
	Had me fooled for a second too.. Where does the parody end? :P
			::I'm not clear why anyone wants them merged. What are the reasons for the change? Are they run by the same person or something?<span style="color:green">Green</span><span style="color:silver">'''Glass'''</span><sup><span style="color:green">'']</span></sup> 21:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
			:::Never mind, I see now - it was the consensus of the delete discussion to merge the article here. I think just a paragraph talking about Betty Bowers and the author, connecting it to Landover, should be sufficient. <span style="color:green">Green</span><span style="color:silver">'''Glass'''</span><sup><span style="color:green">'']</span></sup> 21:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
			::::Has sat for a while so I made a paragraph from the cited content there. Not familiar with this so feel free to improve. ] ] 08:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
			:::::What's the use of still listing a "See Also" link near the bottom, when that link just redirects to this page again? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== No longer updated? ==
	In any case,
	Those who whine over Landover and such sites should look to their own backyards:
	Usually its the same kind of persons that believes "sinners" will suffer eternally, that it's ok to physically hurt homosexuals, that it's ok to beat women & children, and so on..

			The "what's new" page shows that last updated date as January 2012. :( ] (]) 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
	If you have such offensive opinons then you better tolerate that someone will make offensive satire out of you.

			== Misconception about LBC ==
	::Nice anti-Christian bigotry there. A link to the subject of ] seems appropriate here. I've no problem with Landover/Whitehouse and even find their sites entertaining at times (depending on the particular author). Unfortunately, just as racist types have been attracted to religeous groups because of misconceived notions of common interest, similarly hateful types are drawn to these satirists' sites

			It's a common misconception that the target of LBC is merely fundamentalist Christianity (as stated in the article). In fact, the aim of >90% of TCs is to show the stupidity of all religion. It actually frustrates some of the TCs when people limit LBC's scope to fundamentalism/literalism. It allows the moderate "Christians" to simply dismiss the cogent arguments made on LBC against Christianity. ] (]) 16:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::The fact that you "forgot" to sign your name speaks volumes. ] 04:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)~

			== External links modified ==
	:::Anti-Christian bigotry? Ha, this site is a parody of the religious right, which is the most bigotrous of any organization with some power(of course, when I said some power, that excluded the KKK and neo-Nazi groups). I mean, when you have a book such as the Bible, which has many bigotrous verses, to expect it not to be parodied is insane. I have seen many Christians bad-mouth atheists, agnostics, and etc., but I have never heard them accused of Anti-Atheist, or Anti-Agnostic bigotry. ] 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::::You only illustrate the point that satire of the Landover/Whitehouse variety attracts bigots. Your ''argument'' is no diferent than that of white racists trying to downplay their own hateful slander by complaining about reverse racism. Again, a link to the[REDACTED] ] page is suggested, if not a subsection on the subject here.

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:::::Oh, please, take your religious right stuff to a religious right encyclopedia, not to this encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral. The site is not Anti-Christian, but Anti-Christianity, which is a complete difference. I am Anti-Christianity, but I am in no way Anti-Christians. To make such a claim is ridiculous. If anybody is prejudiced, it is the tons of ministers that do not even recognize atheism and agnosticism as ideas. To say that we should put a link to "Anti-Christian Prejudice" is absurd. I am so sick of you and the religious right calling any opponents of theirs "Anti-Christian Bigots". The site is, I repeat, NOT bigotrous. It is a parody of the religious right which is exactly bigotrous. How can you compare making fun of bigots to people downplaying racism? ] 23:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160323231001/http://gawker.com/the-empire-of-harmlessness-hello-kitty-at-40-1649994915 to http://gawker.com/the-empire-of-harmlessness-hello-kitty-at-40-1649994915

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::::::: Both of you, please remember to be ] and ]. That said, I don't see a strong reason to link to ]. The site isn't even a general parody of Christianity but of certain more extremist forms of Protestantism. ] 23:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	::::::::I would just like to note that neither of us were attacking each other personally or uncivil(though I admit, that the argument may have been turning in an uncivil argument). ] 00:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 08:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
	::::::::Thank you for considering the suggestion, JoshuaZ. Your point about the American Protestant focus is true, and I defer to the judgement of an experienced Wikian. Rshu, I apologize that my choice of inflammatory language amounted to something of a personal attack. I don't intend to be a Christian Crusader or an Agnostic basher. Probably I should have mentioned that it was the open contributions then viewable (since purged) on the landoverbaptist.net forum that lead me to the suggestion that the site ''attracted'' a more extreme sort of people.

	Pack onto the topic (ahem!), I decided to edit the last paragraph of the "Controversy" section, where someone added "No, It dosen't!" with and emoticon. I deleted the phrase, and added a link to the "Terms of Service" section the article refers to. The claim to it being a parody are indeed there, and are easily located via using a "find word(s)" tool from most any web browser.
	] 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

	To be fair, the way the article is written it says (taken literally and grammatically) that the link at the bottom of each page says that it is a parody and and a satire, when it is in the TOS that it says the place is a parody and a satire. The link is to the TOS. This is probably being pedantic but the thing could be written less ambiguously.
	] 13:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Length of time? ==

	Could some information could be provided as to how long this parody site has been in existence? I want to verify that to see if it has been around as long as JC has been calling Coast to Coast...as a way to count/discount the possibility that JC is also Pastor Deacon Fred. --] 15:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
	:The oldest record of it on shows it first being indexed on November 28th, 1999, but their lists as far back as 1998, and their Copyright goes back to just 2000. So it's some time around then. --] 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
	I moved to Landover, Maryland the first of October, 1998. I did a search on Landover just before that to see what was there. I was horrified to find that the Landover Baptist Church was there until I desided it was a parody. It looked like a well developed site back then, but didn't list an address or state where it was supposed to be. I had a lot of fun telling my friends back in CA I joined this church and provided them the link. It was definately there the end of Sept 1998, and probably well before that since it looked very polished back then. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Page on Chris Harper?? ==

	I know the inclusion of Chris Harper's name on this article is contentious right now, but didn't there used to be a page about him? I'm asking because I can't find anything in the deletion logs... ] 04:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)



	??^^^^???^^^^????^^

	Is Misplaced Pages biased, giving special favor to Atheists? I guess so, since any comment made about Landover Baptist Church which isn't flattering is deleted.

	Communists are Atheists, they both use the same tactics. They squelch all opposing viewpoints, while simultaneously spewing lies and deceitfulness (aka Propaganda) about their political opponents. The Landover Baptist Church in conjunction with the efforts of Misplaced Pages is a perfect example. All reviews are positive, all disgussions are positive, and all negative feedback is deleted.
	If anyone attempts to enter their website and post that Landover Baptist Church exists simply to mock Christians, and is run by a lying bastard of an Atheist, then your post is immediately deleted.

	:: What's a "disgussion"? More importantly, your comparison with Communists is illogical: "Communists are Atheists. Communists censor. Therefore, Atheists censor." That doesn't work. How about if we use YOUR beliefs instead?: "Republicans are Christians. Christians are deluded and believe in an invisible man. Republicans are deulded..." Oh wait...that one actually works! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. ] 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I've deleted multipul personal attacks from the above post. Please be civil and please sign your posts. ] \| ] 05:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

	::"Is Misplaced Pages biased, giving special favor to Atheists? I guess so, since any comment made about Landover Baptist Church which isn't flattering is deleted."

	::"Isn't flattering"? You mean "wasn't sourced and wasn't flattering". If unflattering things have been said about the site in the media (which I don't doubt), then you could add references to it, with citation. If it's just your personal opinion, then it doesn't matter if it was "unflattering" or not, it shouldn't be there. Whether I were to insert the phrase "Landover Baptist is the most brilliant parody ever of fundamentalist Christians" or the phrase "Landover Baptist is willfully bigoted and offensive to all Christians", it ''wouldn't matter''; EITHER would be deleted as "POV", the unneccesary personal opinions of an editor in lieu of actual (supported i.e. cited to a notable, reliable source) facts.

	::Communists are Atheists, they both use the same tactics.

	::While I do believe, IIRC, that ] usually includes atheism, at least in its governmental forms (such as in Russia or China), being an ] doesn't make one a Communist. Atheist = doesn't believe in a higher power, which is a much different concept from that of Communism, and is easily seperable from it, unlike select other belief systems such as ], which are extremely difficult to seperate from government. For example, ] was a ], which is basically moralistic atheism (that is, Humanists believe that mankind is responsible for its actions; secular of course means it is a non-religious branch of Humanism), and he was very much NOT in favor of Communism (seeing as his family delibrately FLED Russia in order to avoid it!), and was in fact in favor of people being individuals and striving for excellence (if you read enough of his work, you begin to get the feeling that he believed the only way Man could survive was consistent technological innovation, which is difficult to genuinely have in full without some level of personal freedom). Even in the ], where a fictional statistical science can generally predict the behavior of mass groups of humanity, there is inevitably sections of humanity that do not conform to the original "Plan", and this is not always portrayed as inherently bad (indeed, at least once, it was the sole, unaltered discretion of an utterly unmodified mind that saved the entire galaxy from living under a tyrannical rule). Not every atheist is a amoral or a jerk.

	::"They squelch all opposing viewpoints, while simultaneously spewing lies and deceitfulness (aka Propaganda) about their political opponents."

	::I can't think of a single atheist politician in the U.S. that has gotten so much as a Senate seat. I'd argue that the groups most prone to yelling down opponents and lying about them are politicians, and comparitively few politicians are atheist. Furthermore, I refer you again to Isaac Asimov, who though he was decidedly and openly non-religious, had no problems against people having religion in general, and was, quite frankly, one of kindest, most easygoing, intelligent, modest men who has ever walked this earth, who would never "squelch" the "opposition" unless it was being genuinely destructive and disruptive beyond reason. I especially refer you to the novel version of ], which he wrote with ], in which '''(spoiler alert!)''' the religious fundamentalist group is the one that binds people together in the face of a terrifying crisis and, point of fact, saves the "humanity" that exists on that world ("humanity" is in quotes here because they are probably aliens as they live on a different world that has six suns and is obviously not Earth, though the origins of the species on that world are never mentioned and they're described as distinctly humanish, from appearance right down to behavior).

	::"The Landover Baptist Church in conjunction with the efforts of Misplaced Pages is a perfect example."

	::Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with Landover Baptist, so you can kill the "in conjunction with". Misplaced Pages merely reports on whatever is notable, and Landover Baptist Church is considered a notable parody site. Misplaced Pages strives to be neutral, which means only reporting on the claims and general content of the site, its history, any notable controversies relating to it, and what people say about it. Opinions have nothing to do with it (whether yours OR mine), and merely noting the site's existence and detailing its history do not lend any kind of support for the site. The fact that you apparently see no difference between reporting notable facts about the site and being "in conjunction with" it is probably rather telling.

	::"All reviews are positive, all disgussions are positive, and all negative feedback is deleted."

	::This article is NOT the place for personal "reviews" or "feedback" on the site. The intention should be, and in general on Misplaced Pages is, for coverage to be as neutral and informative as possible. The reason your "negative feedback" was probably deleted is because it was your own opinion, and not the stated opinion of a notable source that you were able to cite. If Pat Robertson had stated something about the site being offensive, then you could note it, provided you had a reliable source to prove he actually said as much. If it's just YOUR opinion on Landover Baptist, then it matters no more than mine. If you really think the article is unbalanced and not showing enough of any extant criticism, then find a NOTABLE SOURCE that decries the site, and include references to that, including full citation. Otherwise, your edits will likely continue to be deleted for being, essentially, pointless vandalism to the page (just as it would be if I did the same with an opposite point of view).

	::"If anyone attempts to enter their website and post that Landover Baptist Church exists simply to mock Christians, and is run by a lying bastard of an Atheist, then your post is immediately deleted."

	::Again, Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with Landover Baptist, and cannot control their policies in the least. Assuming though you speak of Misplaced Pages and not Landover, though, then the reason for the deletion is that it is inflammatory and "POV", not neutral, informative or supported by any reliable, citable sources. First, referring to the site's owner as "Atheist" would need a cite to a reliable source where he actually claimed to be atheist; calling him a "lying bastard", though, is merely an insult, not an actual proveable fact (furthermore, of course he "lies". The whole point of ] or ] is to mock the target by portraying it in exaggerated form, or in this case, pretending to be it in an exaggerated form). If he has actually been untruthful about the site or its policies in the non-satirical sense, then if you can cite it, you can include it. Otherwise, again - it would be an expression of an individual editor's opinion as opposed to verifiable, neatrally-reported fact.

	::In case you fail to see the logic in this, assume we're talking about ] itself, or the messiah, ]. Do you like seeing people bash Jesus or Christianity on their respective pages, with no rhyme or reason behind it, spewing forth nothing but nasty, baseless claims and abrasive personal opinions? Of course not. It's not any different with any other article, either. We want EVERYTHING to be merely reporting, neutrally, on the "notable" things and people that exist, why they're notable, and what people have said and done about them. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages is completely useless as an informational tool for ANYTHING. ] 22:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

	== high school college users ==

	This page is very good for teachers to use in terms of how to tell bogus and/or deceptive sites. The discussion page is especially enlightening. when editors and commenters are reduced to making up terms (eg I'm not anti-Christian, I'm anti-Christianity) the jig is up. Of course the 'see also' list on the original article should have given it away (you slipped up - you meant the Oniondome, not the Onion). congratulations guys. ] 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

	== "Hate Speech?" ==

	] has changed the introduction to describe the Landover Baptist site as a "hate speech" site. I think it's a parody site. If I don't see a substantial reason to keep "hate speech," such as a clear dividing line between parody and "hate speech," I'm going to reword it to a less POV designation.

	Alternatively, to support the categorization of this article as "hate speech," it would be useful to find other examples of "hate speech" sites that are similar to the Landover Baptist one.

	<font face="strong" color="green">]]]</font> 21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Another user changed the adjective back to "humor," and ] has reverted that back to "hate."
	:I have asked ] to discuss this issue here rather than simply reverting changes back to describing this site as "hate." I am going to change it back to the neutral "humor" designation pending further discussion: I don't think it's deniable that L.B. is a humor site. If it's ''also'' a "hate" site, we can list it as such iff there is a '''citation'''.
	:<font face="strong" color="green">]]]</font> 15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Following are the Misplaced Pages definitions of both ] and ]:
	::] is the ability or quality of people, objects, or situations to evoke feelings of amusement in other people. The term encompasses a form of entertainment or human communication which evokes such feelings, or which makes people laugh or feel happy.

	::] is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance...

	::Upon reading both of these definitions, it remains factually clear that the Landover website degrades a given group based on religion, thus fitting the definition of hate speech. Classifying the website as humor is more subjective, as that definition refers to "feelings". Some may have a feeling of amusement, while some may not when reading the website content. Regardless of feelings some readers may experience, the website content is prejucial and degrading based on religion and should be categorized as hate speech accordingly.

	::<font face="strong" color="green">]]]</font> 11:28, 2 May 2007

	:::I feel obliged to raise the point that the definition of "hate speech" includes the word "controversial." To me, that would indicate that the use of this term is at least somewhat POV. Furthermore, can you cite a reference to a ] indicating the ''intention'' of the creators/maintainers of the site?
	:::You may feel that it's "hate speech," but we are striving for ] here.
	:::I think you're also going to need to show a clear distinction between "hate speech" and "parody:" I'm inclined to think Landover falls more under the second term than the first. However, if you can document claims of "hate speech" regarding Landover, I'd support changing the intro to something like
	:::''Landover Baptist is a ] website described as a 'hate site' by ... {insert citation here}''
	:::<font face="strong" color="green">]]]</font> 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC) (and may I say I'm flattered that you chose to copy my format for your signature?)

	I added a section merely mentioning that there are protests - let the reader decide.
	] 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
	:The only protest site I can find is the Objective Ministries one - are there any others I've missed? ] 19:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

	I quick google search provided:
	http://objectiveministries.org/shutdown/
	http://theforce.net/jedicouncil/editorials/070999.shtml
	http://www.missionamerica.com/witchcraft.php?articlenum=9
	http://www.geocities.com/hands_off_lb/
	] 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Spandox, I had to remove the PetitionsOnline link...apparently Wiki thinks its spam...-] (]) 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

	==Still a parody?==
	Well I just think it's absolutely hilarious that people can't tell the difference (like when they get all offended because they actually think that the "pastor" is being serious, or the Christians who (and I would question their devotion to Christ) join thinking that it's a real church and those are its principles--does NO ONE understand satire anymore? I guess the mark of a good satire is having a following of idiots who take it literally (viz. Mark Twain's work). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	Is this site still considered a parody? Has anyone looked at the forums there lately? They're filled with uber-Christians. If it's intended to be a parody, they're doing a good job, but it isn't funny. Can anyone verify that the site still is actually a parody, or at least that the forums are not part of the site itself? ] (]) 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

	:All the contents of the forum show, is either that some people are totally clueless, or that some people rilly, rilly get into online role-playing (or both). Either way, the forum is no evidence of anything in particular, for the same reason that most blogs and fora are not deemed ]; "]" and all that. --] \| ] 17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

	::"The Landover Baptist Church is a complete work of fiction. It is a satire/parody." That's from their own terms and disclaimer. ] (]) 21:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

	:::That is from the landoverbaptist.'''org'''. The actual site in question, their real site, is landoverbaptist.'''net''' <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Not neutral/factual ==

	90% of this article is written as if the "backstory" behind the website was in fact true. Wouldn't an actual article aboyt the wbsite, its history and the controversy surrounding it because of a few fundies with no sense of humor be more useful than what amounts to a mirror of the site's own self-description? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	: That's due to vandalism yesterday by anon IP 71.196.4.21 Looks like they pasted a lot of the site's own content in.
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Landover_Baptist_Church&diff=226576955&oldid=226077555
	If anyone is familiar with how it ought to look (I'm not), maybe they'd like to revert it. ] (]) 15:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

	:: I've done so, Andy, with a bit of copyediting; see if it all looks good to you. --] \| ] 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Wrong URL people.. ==

	This article is apparently (unless i'm wrong) based on the wrong church. The TOS cited from the article looks to be from a parody site of the actual site for Landover,
	The .net site shows a clearly different rhetoric in its in-page TOS at the bottom of the main page. I also know personally this happens to be the real site. Though I can't attest to its actual existence. Unfortunately I would love to help rewrite it but that would violate ] as I am one of their regular and ever so hated trolls (5+ names banned and going strong.)
	However, I would hate to see Landover portrayed as anything else but what they really are. A ] wannabe. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

	== WP:EL ==

	Carlaude, I'm going to have to agree that the "landoverbaptist.com exposed" site does not seem to meet ]. There is no info about the host / author, so it does not qualify as an authority on the subject (although, would the subject be parody or theology? Oh well, no evidence of expertise in either for the site). It could not be used as a reference, because it is not a ], and so seems unuseable here per any of the criteria of EL. The Links do not need to have a "balance"; i.e., one pro- and one con-. The Landover link is included, per EL, as the official site of the subject of the article. '''] • '']'' ''' 15:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

	== It's Real ==
	Here is what landoverbaptist.NET says:
	"Perhaps you've heard that we are a joke, true religion or parody, and you came to our site for a few cheap laughs or "lulz", only to find people taking everything seriously. So now you have decided to be the first to "spill the beans" and let everyone in on your "knowledge". Friend, this has been done so many times that it isn't funny any more.

	When an Atheist loses a debate to a fundamentalist Christian, it is a common tactic to accuse the Christian of being a parody. The Atheist is so full of pride, that he cannot imagine being outsmarted by a dumb God-Believer, so he thinks the Christian must be an Atheist like himself who is only pretending to be Christian. This is known as Tabor's Law.

	Our situation is not helped by the fact that there is some atheist satirist who does an impression of our Pastor Deacon Fred at atheist conventions. People hear about him and start rumors that they are the same person and that the real Landover Baptist Church is also just a joke. Some Atheists go so far as to vandalize our church's Misplaced Pages page to say that we are not a true religion." And then gives a link to the original wiki article, the one they prefer. I think this shouldn't just be catagorized under humor, but give both sides. landoverbaptist.ORG and .COM are parodies. Read the forums at landoverbaptist.NET. If it is a parody, there is nothing stating that it is. It would also be in bad taste and very un-funny. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:It is a parody, a ] parody of a parody. Whether that is ''"in bad taste and very un-funny"'' is a matter of personal taste (myself, I dislike most meta- stuff as often overly-precious intellectual mindgames of the pretentious sort). --] \| ] 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

	== "Protests" paragraph ==

	It is entirely based on unreliable sources. "Objective Ministries" is a well-known parody website just like "Landover" and an editorial from theforce.net hardly meets the criteria for reliable sources. ] (]) 02:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

	:True, but that doesn't warrant the removal of the paragraph. I've restored it and added an appropriate tag whilst I find some ] to back up the assertion. ] (]) 09:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:59, 16 February 2024

Betty Bowers was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 July 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Landover Baptist Church. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Start‑class

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Archive 01

Proof that it's a parody

These are the terms of service for Landover Baptist Church: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/tos.html

At the bottom of the page, it says: "Note: Mouse Over Below for Spoiler Alert:" And if you mouse over the area below, it says: "The Landover Baptist Church is a complete work of fiction. It is a satire/parody." Another thing is that if you on http://www.landoverbaptistchurch.org click the section called "FORUMS", you are redirected to http://www.landoverbaptistchurch.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaneOfScandinavy (talk • contribs) 11:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's Real

It's not real..it's just people trolling...seriously??? go check http://www.landoverbaptist.net/ everything they say just makes you want to laugh so much Here is what landoverbaptist.NET says: "Perhaps you've heard that we are a joke, true religion or parody, and you came to our site for a few cheap laughs or "lulz", only to find people taking everything seriously. So now you have decided to be the first to "spill the beans" and let everyone in on your "knowledge". Friend, this has been done so many times that it isn't funny any more.

When an Atheist loses a debate to a fundamentalist Christian, it is a common tactic to accuse the Christian of being a parody. The Atheist is so full of pride, that he cannot imagine being outsmarted by a dumb God-Believer, so he thinks the Christian must be an Atheist like himself who is only pretending to be Christian. This is known as Tabor's Law.

Our situation is not helped by the fact that there is some atheist satirist who does an impression of our Pastor Deacon Fred at atheist conventions. People hear about him and start rumors that they are the same person and that the real Landover Baptist Church is also just a joke. Some Atheists go so far as to vandalize our church's Misplaced Pages page to say that we are not a true religion." And then gives a link to the original wiki article, the one they prefer. I think this shouldn't just be catagorized under humor, but give both sides. landoverbaptist.ORG and .COM are parodies. Read the forums at landoverbaptist.NET. If it is a parody, there is nothing stating that it is. It would also be in bad taste and very un-funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.41.56 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a parody, a meta-joke parody of a parody. Whether that is "in bad taste and very un-funny" is a matter of personal taste (myself, I dislike most meta- stuff as often overly-precious intellectual mindgames of the pretentious sort). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Landover is not a parody my wordy friend. Thats two votes to your one. This description will be changed no matter who you think you are. Your Quaker ways prejudice this article. Shame on you.Cosmos0001 (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that this discussion is a prank, but go to http://www.landoverbaptist.org/tos.html, scroll down to the bottom, and highlight the space below the line that reads "Mouse over below for spoiler alert." The text there reads, "The Landover Baptist Church is a complete work of fiction. It is a satire/parody." Jackal59 (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

By moving your mouse over the cursor, you have committed an act of original research which is banned from Misplaced Pages. In any case, Landover's website often gets hacked by librals and athianists, who disguise their vandalism with inviso-text out of cowardice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.166.60 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all that's NOT original research. Second, it's still there, so joke's on you. 149.152.192.229 (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There are also plenty of sentences on the site that say it is real, why exactly is that one sentence you pick out more reliable than any other sentence on that site? Either the site is trustworthy enough to be a source for itself, or it is untrustworthy and should not be used as a source, and any and all claims based on that source should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.84.147 (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Its fake. this might be original research, but http://www.landoverbaptist.net/PS3.htm pretty much confirms the link between the .org and the .net of landoverbaptist. The article is on the ".net" domain of landover, which is the same domain as the fourm that everyone hates so much. You can actually access the .org domain from this particular page! 76.67.7.142 (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a joke

The Landover Baptist Church must be a joke. It's users say that Minecraft, Diablo, Disney, Pacman and even My Little Pony are satanic, and that autist children should be beaten until they stop being autistic. Those thoughts are insane, so it has to be a joke, I hope it's a joke. They also hate Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, gays and everone except themselves.

For example look at the following: http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=40617&highlight=earth DaneOfScandinavy (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's real, there would be a Freehold, IA. And that town doesn't exist according to Google Maps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.29.249 (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, now I'm confused. I was about convinced that Landover is a parody, as the article suggests, and then I read above that "They also hate Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, gays and everone except themselves." So.. it's an actual Evangelical church after all? Laodah 04:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There is some evidence it could be in Freehold, Des Moines. Uehfku — Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Protests" paragraph

It is entirely based on unreliable sources. "Objective Ministries" is a well-known parody website just like "Landover" and an editorial from theforce.net hardly meets the criteria for reliable sources. Seregain (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't warrant the removal of the paragraph. I've restored it and added an appropriate tag whilst I find some references to back up the assertion. Crafty (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph was added based solely on phony information from a parody website and a completely unreliable source. I see no reason to keep it now that those two sources have been removed. And I seriously doubt there will ever be any reliable sources found that will justify the paragraphs inclusion. There is not and will most likely never be an organized protest against the website. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of people have never even heard of the website. Seregain (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this paragraph is nonsense. "Objective Ministries" is not a fundamentalist Christian organization protesting about Landover; it is another parody. Many believe that it is a part of Landover and it is every bit as scathing and anti-Christianity as Landover. The other reference seems to be some comments from individuals who dislike Landover's brand of humour. In fact the main article appears to be gone from the site. And there is no way that http://theforce.net/jedicouncil/editorials/070999.shtml represents a fundamentalist Christian organization.

And where is the evidence for any of this statement: "These various groups are advocating different methods of forcibly censoring or shutting down the site including petitioning various places (such as the web site's ISP and Congress) to have them shut down or put on blocking or filtering lists."?

If anything like this had actually happened it would be well worth noting. But there is no evidence for it and Landover is scarcely important or influential enough to warrant such action. The section should be removed.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stunz2 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to sign my above comment. I screwed up attempting to type the tildes :(. Stunz (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Knightdale, NC

There is an unfortunately-named Landover Baptist Church near my home. Would there be any merit in adding that as a footnote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.31.108 (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln said that...

You can fool some of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool some of the people some of the time.99.231.242.65 (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll Let You Be In My Dreams, If I Can Be In Yours, but how is this relevant? . . dave souza, talk 07:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove tags

The page now seems well-cited. Also, in an article about a webpage, the webpage itself can server as a reliable source. Harddk (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for taking care of that. GreenGlass 01:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A real church has unwittingly followed one of the more extreme examples set by Landover Baptist Church. Pastor Erik Dykstra of Crossing Church in Elk River, Minnesota allegedly offered those attending his church a chance to win a Nintendo 3DS, 3D flat-screen TV, or 3D movie tickets, as part of the “Jesus in 3D” sermon series. His opinion on the matter was that he didn’t mind “bribing people with crap” in order to meet Christ.

In the Description of this article, the last point: "A real church has unwittingly followed one of the more extreme examples set by Landover Baptist Church." could use further explanation, as it tells very little in current state. Following the source (i.e. ) which was provided: http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/04/real-church-steals-parodys-bribe-idea/ some further details could be added (as above) to make a more complete and coherent paragraph. Mjsk (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The current source is a biased representation of the church in question. The crossing church is located in an old movie theater and is focused on being an unusual/experimental place of worship in the middle of a populated city. To compare it to the parody of the Landover Baptist Church is a misrepresentation of both groups, as The Crossing is focused towards Christians who are uninterested in the current pattern of church worship and community involvement. Essentially, from what I understand, it is meant for Christians who were driven away from churches that Landover parodied. (not directly of course) I believe in it's current state this section has been simplified into a misrepresentation and should either be deleted or changed. source: http://www.crossing-church.com/?i=15575&mid=1000&id=389528 (Zacharia.cd (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC))

Merging Betty Bowers

I think a consensus on what to bring over and what to leave out would be good. Thoughts? JayHubie (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then. JayHubie (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear why anyone wants them merged. What are the reasons for the change? Are they run by the same person or something?GreenGlass 21:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I see now - it was the consensus of the delete discussion to merge the article here. I think just a paragraph talking about Betty Bowers and the author, connecting it to Landover, should be sufficient. GreenGlass 21:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Has sat for a while so I made a paragraph from the cited content there. Not familiar with this so feel free to improve. AIRcorn (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What's the use of still listing a "See Also" link near the bottom, when that link just redirects to this page again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.4.121.179 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No longer updated?

The "what's new" page shows that last updated date as January 2012. :( 71.198.69.254 (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Misconception about LBC

It's a common misconception that the target of LBC is merely fundamentalist Christianity (as stated in the article). In fact, the aim of >90% of TCs is to show the stupidity of all religion. It actually frustrates some of the TCs when people limit LBC's scope to fundamentalism/literalism. It allows the moderate "Christians" to simply dismiss the cogent arguments made on LBC against Christianity. 82.24.56.87 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Landover Baptist Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160323231001/http://gawker.com/the-empire-of-harmlessness-hello-kitty-at-40-1649994915 to http://gawker.com/the-empire-of-harmlessness-hello-kitty-at-40-1649994915

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories: