Controversial Sign Outside Baptist Church in Virginia Links Equal Rights to Satan

By Elaine Magliaro

Hermant Mehta (Patheos) reported on Thursday that there’s a sign outside the Taylor Road Baptist Church in Chesapeake, Virginia that “is rightfully pissing people off.”


Dallas Franklin of KFOR noted that the church sign has caused lots of folks to take a second look at the sign. He added that the sign–which appears to link Satan with equal rights–“has some people fuming.”


Taylor Road is a busy road through Chesapeake but that hasn’t stopped some people from taking U-turns when they saw the sign out front the Taylor Road Baptist Church.

“I was frustrated and angry at the time,” said Terri Young. “When I drove by it, I wasn’t sure I read it right. So I did a U-turn.”

One man said, “It’s a good place to put things…But put the right thing. Not the wrong thing.”

Franklin said that people who live in the area of the Baptist church were unsure what “equal rights groups” the sign was referring to.

“Are they talking about the gay community, are they talking about minorities, are they talking about women? But any of them, it’s dogma over humanity, is all I kept thinking — how ridiculous it was to put something like that there.”

Franklin noted that Mel Kunkle, the pastor of the church, declined to do an interview.

Herman Mehta said he thought that since the church is Baptist, “the sign is probably referencing LGBT people who, along with everyone else, await a decision from the Supreme Court on marriage equality.” Mehta added that it was ignorant for the church to post such a message and not to “realize that the struggle for civil rights is one that has been fought by multiple groups of people and not just the one you hate.”

Kunkle claimed that he wasn’t talking about one particular group at all.


[Kunkle] said it’s about evil, referencing Satan trying to be equal with God, and he said he stands up for what scripture says.

Way to step back from your bigotry. If you’re going to be an asshole, at least own it. And if the sign isn’t meant to be about one particular group, why leave up such an ambiguous phrase when that’s exactly how everyone is interpreting it?

According to Liz Palka of WTNH, Kunkle said he understands that people are offended. He added that the sign is meant to make people think.

Terri Young, who lives a few miles from the church, said, “I mean, what is that teaching children then? It’s not okay to ask for equal rights? If you do, and someone else thinks you shouldn’t have them, that’s you equal to Satan? I don’t get it.”

Controversial Virginia Church Signs Connects Satan with Equal Rights


Pastor Kunkle said that the sign posted outside his church “is meant to make people think.” What do you think about that sign?



Virginia Baptist Church Sign: “Satan Was the First to Demand Equal Rights” (Patheos)

People fuming over church sign connecting Satan with equal rights (KFOR)

Chesapeake church sign links equal rights to Satan (WTNH)


This entry was posted in Equal Rights, Homosexual Rights, Racism, Religion, United States and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

97 Responses to Controversial Sign Outside Baptist Church in Virginia Links Equal Rights to Satan

  1. Interesting that proposing unequal rights is a) on a church sign for a church that promotes a God that allegedly loves everyone equally, b) that unequal rights is a large part of the proposition of Roof’s alleged political manifesto and c) that unequal rights are at the core of corporatist drivers in the GOP, DNC and Libertarian parties who also happen to often appeal to religious values (just so long as it is their religious values of choice).

    Aristotle once said, “A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.”

    Or as Peter Gabriel summed it, “How can you be in if there is no outside?”

  2. bigfatmike says:

    Hmmmm….. maybe he is not so bad after all.

  3. randyjet says:

    What else do you expect from a religion that was founded to promote slavery? I wonder what they think of the American slogan of no taxation without representation, or of votes for women. I think that the pastor needs to do some thinking of his own.

  4. michaelbeaton says:

    The quantity of logical, philosophical, even theological errors in this statement and its underlying sentiment are staggering, but ultimately boring to enumerate, to me at least. Gene does as good a job as needs to be done to address the blinkered mind of this man, group , church.
    But what remains of interest, to me at least, is not so much the content of the “stink’n think’n”…but that it gets any acknowledgement at all. Why are we even taking the time to be aware of such inanities? And the answer must be that it is because still, after all, this sort of monolithic stupid remains representive of to much of the structural thinking of to many “Americans”.
    My contribution to this thread , such as it is, is simply to call dumbshit on such stuff… and wish that there was some way to believe that there might be some way to actually , finally , grow out of such childish, simplistic way of looking at the world. Or at least stop treating the occasion as if it were any more interesting than proof reading Jr. High essays on the meaning of life.

    It really is time to grow up as a nation. At least treat these small minds with the distain they deserve.

  5. Aridog says:

    randyjet .. I’d recommend that deluded Pastor was his mouth out with some nice Fels Naptha daily for a month. Then go take a job digging ditches…he’s certainly unfit to give sermons….he needs work where he can keep his mouth shut.

  6. Charles E. Miller, Jr. says:

    There is nothing wrong with the sign. It refers to Isaiah 14, where the Prophet is demonstrating what is called in theology a double fulfillment. It compares the spirit of the dead King of Babylon to Satan who attempted to take heaven and creation from God. Sin has always been with us; however, many people do not care for morality any more. The world appears to grow worse. Why should homosexuality be shown on prime time television? When I was a child in the 1960’s, such odd acts were not shown on television. Children were innocent. The world in spite of its troubles was beautiful to us. Why does Mr. Jenner have to present his mental problems to us? Animals do not show homosexual behavior. That is a scientific fact! Pastor Kunkle is a good man of God, and therefore I must support his equal rights too. It is called in the constitution freedom of religion and speech. I wish to make a suggestion: If you do not like the sign, just don’t read it. It is that simple. Do think about it. If the sign disturbs you, you must have something wrong in your lives. Others have expresses their views here. Do I have a right to express mine? I Wonder! Also, I wish to say that I am a United Methodist.

  7. That’s one way to look at it, but it totally ignores the 1st and 14th Amendments. This isn’t a nation founded upon canon law despite the myth that some would like to propagate. The letters of Jefferson and Adams clearly indicate the intention of the Founders to create a secular form of government. If you don’t like homosexuality and think it is a sin? Don’t practice it.

  8. Mike Appleton says:

    What does the sign mean? With apologies to Mr. Miller’s efforts, you don’t need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.

  9. bettykath says:

    Any thought as to who took the pictures of the church killer that are on his facebook page and making the rounds? They don’t look like selfies unless he has a tripod and timer.

  10. Bob Kauten says:

    Charles E. Miller, Jr.,
    There’s nothing at all wrong with the sign. The sign, and the incredible stupidity that produced it, are hilarious!
    As is your post, waxing eloquently about “scientific fact.” Creation science fact?
    A cursory (you don’t need to curse if you don’t want to) examination of the subject of homosexuality would bring thousands of articles similar to the one I. Annie graciously supplied you.
    You’d know all of this if you broadened your reading beyond a book written by Bronze Age sheepherders. Perhaps that’s where you’re acquiring your scientific fact?

  11. I wish to say to my new found friends that I appreciate their right to express their views. I know they differ from me on this issue; however, I still feel that some programs should not appear on prime time television. Should not our children have the innocence of childhood? Knowledge of things will come in time. It did with me. Jefferson and Adams were Unitarians and that was their right. It is Dr. Kunkle’s right to express what he believes. Jefferson and Adams believed this. Jefferson was a great man. I am proud to say that I am a member of the Jefferson family. I am a social conservative and a fiscal liberal. Even though I do not always agree with Tom’s party, I usually vote Democratic. On January 1, 1802 Thomas Jefferson said the following to the Danbury Baptists: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, ” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural nights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” I must say therefore that Taylor Road Baptist Church has a right to express its opinion as long as it does not harm our social duties. My friends, it does not! As I suggested before, if the sign bothers you, don’t read it. Tom would have agreed. May God bless all of you. Live happy lives and just do not worry about a sign.

  12. You know what else Jefferson said?

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

    Wait, there’s more . . .

    “[I]t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

    Lest we forget . . .

    “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”

    How ’bout this ‘un?

    “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”

    And this nugget of wisdom . . .

    “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.”

    And yet . . .

    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. ”

    Also but not limited to . . .

    “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. ”

    Yes. Have some.

    “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”

    Wait a minute . . .

    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

    Which would include religions other than and including your religion of choice. Oh, and this . . .

    “Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”

    If you have a problem with people criticizing the sign, perhaps you should take it down. That free speech. She is a two-edged sword.

    • I know what Tom said. I am a Democrat, remember. Charles Miller, BA, MA

    • Gene Howington, Chuck Stanley, Randy Jet and Charles E. Miller Jr, I am not gay, however, I have no objection to same sex marriage. The bigotry that the LGBTQ community is subjected to is distasteful. Since same sex marriage has no impact on traditional marriage, I see no logical reason to oppose it. What business is it of society at large if 2 people of the same sex want to marry?

  13. I wish to respond to an earlier statement. I am not a Young Earth Creationist; on the contrary, I believe in Theistic Evolution. Jahweh spoke and Jesus created by evolution. Frogs can change sex; however, I have never seen a human being naturally evolve into another sex. Mr. Jenner had to get sliced to pieces. I would like to see him have a baby. We must remember that his chromosomes are still XY. What does that mean? He is still a man. In any case let us leave this issue. This has to do with religious freedom. Tom made it clear: There is a separation of Church and State. Taylor Road Baptist Church has a wrong to express their views of religion. You do too. Please keep that in mind. I must say that some of you have been judgmental of me. It makes no difference. Also, Taylor Road is a Southern Baptist Church. No matter what it’s history is, the current president of the Southern Baptist Convention is an Afro-American. I see no racism there!

  14. I am an old man. The sentence should read: TRBC has a right to express their opinion of religion. I am sixty years old and age is catching up with me. May God, no matter what you believe, bless you. Your friend, Charles Miller

  15. Hermaphrodite.

    And by all means ignore that pesky history.

    • I understand what you are talking about. They are poor people who are born with both sex organs. Their chromosomes are still either XY or XX. A doctor must be sure to remove the right organs so that the child will be the sex it was meant to be. Gene, if people keep talking about the sign, you will make TRBC famous. Does not that worry you? I thank for your input. Charles

  16. “May God, no matter what you believe, bless you.”

    Does that include those who believe that God loves homosexuals lest He would not have created them and that all men are created in His image?

  17. The sign is about subjugation. Does that comport with the notion of love thy neighbor?

  18. And what Mike A. said.

  19. I have gained a lot of friends here! No not make fun of someone’s religious beliefs. Remember, you are supporting freedom of religion, or are you? In any case, I hate none of you. I have a internationally who is my second cousin once removed. His grandfather and my great-grandfather were brothers. He is homosexual and I speak with him quite often. I still do not approve of his life-style; however, he is my flesh and blood and I will not harm him. TRBC still has a right to express its opinion. They have done nothing amiss. Oh, I must mention that I am now reading Moses Mendelssohn’s translation of Plato’s die Unsterblichkeit der Seele. Also, I wish to say that Baptists were burned even in Colonial Virginia!

  20. “Remember, you are supporting freedom of religion, or are you?”

    Yes, I am. Including those that may differ from yours.

    “TRBC still has a right to express its opinion. They have done nothing amiss.”

    Yes, they do. They also have the added benefit of being subjected to criticism for it by those with differing opinions once it is introduced into the public realm.

  21. To be clear: they have both a right to have their opinions and express them just as they have the right of free exercise but they do not have a right not to be offended if they are criticized for their opinions. It is an unwritten corollary to the Right to Free Speech that you have no right to not be offended or criticized.

  22. I hate no one. I am saying that TRBC has religious freedom. Let us leave this issue alone. If we do, I may go away. You are making TRBC famous! Would it be better to forget it and enjoy your lives? Also, do not attack my faith. I pray for the whole world. My doctor is a Hindu. Do I hate her? No! God sent her to help me and others who are ill. I am a diabetic and my heart is failing me. Would you pray for me or at least give me best wishes? I wonder. Surprise me!

  23. You must let me go now. I do not feel well. Charles! PS: stop fighting over this!

  24. Hate has nothing to do with it. But also having Freedom of Speech, I am (and indeed anyone is) free to not leave this issue alone no matter how inconvenient that may be to some.

  25. The sooner you stop talking about this issue the sooner it will go away.

  26. It is a cute doll; however, I am not sure what you mean by it. Annie, I may not approve of all of your views; however, you do have a good mind. I wish to tell all of you that you are interesting to debate. My advise is to ignore the sign. I know Pastor Kunkle. He changes his sign weekly. It will go away if you pay no attention to it. I have lived long enough to know. More time than I like to remember sometimes. Even though we disagree on some issues, take my advice. The people of TRBC are not ignorant. Some of them are even followers of Dr. Francis Collins of BioLogos and Charles Darwin. Believe it or not.

  27. I. Annie says:

    Sorry Charles, you reminded me of someone.

    • It is fine, Annie. He does have some wild hair, I must say. Thanks for your contrabutions. I do have trouble with Gene. He seems to have a lot of hate for something that really does not matter.

  28. Sixty years old is an “old man?”

    Quick, get me a cane and wheelchair!?!?!?!

    Hey there sport, I was in college when you were born. Old man…..[walks off shaking head].

    • Make them famous?
      Don’t mind if I do.

      • Charles E. Miller says:

        Gene, I am sorry for you. There was a song in the 1950’s song by Al Hibler. Do you remember that? There is a phrase in the song that says: And time can do so much.” Time will make that sign go away as well. You contradict yourself. I am not trying to judge you, but I detect hatred for you. If no one had mentioned this sign, almost no one would know about it. As for my age, if you do reach it, you will truly discover the difficulties of life. I pity you. You have no spiritual love in your heart, do you? You are making too much out of this.

        • Why feel sorry for me? I am getting exactly what I want. You, however, are not. You should feel sorry that your efforts to silence critics is such a miserable failure.

          Sucks to be you.

          • Gene, I am not the one who is having trouble. It is you, dear Gene. I do not hate you, Gene. I just do not agree with you. Accept that and get on with your life. I AM! I do not worry about myself; I worry about you. Are you going to try to hurt someone at Taylor Road Baptist Church? If you say yes, I will let the FBI know about this Blog. Are you like the boy in Charleston, South Carolina?

        • BTW, I’ve written about the Streisand Effect. Thanks for providing an illustration of it in action.

        • Also, if you’re sensing any hate, might I suggest that you look at the one making excuses for a message of discrimination. I think that if God is love, He even loves oppressors. I, however, have no such obligation. I pity them.

    • Chuck, I see we have the same name. You are quite educated and I respect that. Yes, you are older than I; however, sickness of the body can make a man older than his time. In ten years, I will be seventy. In thirty years, I will be ninety. My father died at fifty-six years old. I was twenty-nine. My mother, Betty Miller, went to heaven when she was seventy-four. She loved me unconditionally. You studied a major that looks to help people. Have you turned against your own principles? I wonder. You should remember that you have less sand in your hour glass than I do mine. I think you should remember that, Chuckie

  29. You mistake scorn for hatred, Charlie. Of course I scorn would be oppressors.

  30. Here. Maybe this will help you understand where you are going wrong in your effort to silence critics:

    Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Streisand Effect and the Political Question

  31. Gene, you want the last word. You do not agree with me and I do not agree with you. I stand on what I have written and said. You are not going to change my mind nor will I change yours. Don’t you have something more interesting to talk about? I wonder. We all have an obligation to love, Gene. We must also forgive one another. Jesus said that. I am not afraid of you, Gene. Matthew 10:28 says: “Do not fear them that can kill the body but cannot kill the soul.” I do not hate anyone, Gene.

    • michaelbeaton says:

      it is interesting what gets the churn of conversation, or whatever this exchange has been , going… it does seem that more substantial and interesting ‘discussion’ that could happen doesn’t seem to achieve lift off, while this sort of banter and ‘trollin’ does… often…
      I did , however , quite enjoy the riff on Jefferson.. that was worth it..
      so this bit: <

      Gene, you want the last word. You do not agree with me and I do not agree with you. I stand on what I have written and said. You are not going to change my mind nor will I change yours<

      strikes me as the essential/governing idea charles… has said. Regardless of the point, or the rebuttal, however well done, he …that is you charles…., have already committed to being of the same mind. No discussion, no thought will dislodge you from your idea, belief, no matter how tenuous it is shown to be, how shaky the ground upon which you stand.
      That said, I suspect that if you did manage to argue a point that actually held together with something more substantial than simple, slavish adherence to a predefined position you might be able to change Gene’s, and others, mind… But you have unfurled your colors… and you have not made your case, or any case really. Humility is called for.

  32. To Those on This Blog,

    If you must continue with this, you have a right as Americans to get a partition against the sign. If the City Council agrees, then you might win. This could end up in court and you just might not win. Remember separation of church and state. If anyone of you attempts to harm anyone at Taylor Road Baptist Church, I worry you most strongly that I shall report you to the FBI. I hope you remember that! Ms. Magliaro, I believe you have your beliefs; however, I must encourage you to calm Gene down. He is disturbing me. I believe he would do something foolish.

  33. Sand in the hourglass? Who knows. I plan to write about another remarkable person, Evelyn ‘Mama Bird’ Johnson. She was still giving flight instruction at age 96 until she was in a motor vehicle accident and lost a leg. Hard to use rudder pedals and toe brakes with only one leg. So she simply managed the airport. They finally talked her into retiring from her job as airport manager at 101.

    She died about a year later at the age of 102. Rumor has it that she died of boredom.

    However, if you are old at 60, you have my sympathies. Maybe I will lift a toast of single malt for you at your wake.

  34. I. Annie says:

    This Baptist preacher says he’ll immolate himself to stop same sex marriage. What is it with these Baptists?

    “News from the UK Independent reported Saturday that Texas pastor Rick Scarbourgh has found a way to stop the threat of gay marriage in its “sinful” tracks. Scarbourgh pledged on the National Emergency Coalition Show, a right-wing Christian propaganda outlet hosted by E W Jackson, that he was willing to die by burning to death in order to stop same-sex marriage.”

  35. Chuck, you are right in this case. I wish you the best. You are writing a book and I think that is interesting. Perhaps I will buy it one day. I might just see you in your casket! You must admit that you deserved that. I hope you accept Christ. You can be liberal, neo-orthodox, or conservative. I doubt the conservative. Do accept Christ. If you have already done that, perhaps I will see you in heaven and be friends. Ms. Johnson was amazing. In any case, may you be with us a long time. This world needs scholars.

  36. We better be careful about those partitions. One might fall on us and somebody could get hurt.

    No, my dear Charles, we wouldn’t think of doing anything about that sign. It has already provided entertainment for countless millions of people around the globe. We wouldn’t be so rude as to spoil the fun for everyone.


  38. Oh yeah. What Annie said.

    Bless your heart.

  39. Annie, are you in Great Britain? I descend from the Williams-Wynn of Wales through a great-grandmother. Sir John Wynn of Gwydyr was my ancestor. In any case, I do like your dolls. You seem to be a nice person. Best of wishes.

  40. Dr. Chuck, you are all right. You liked Annie’s doll. Since we are talking about church, I must reply: Isn’t that special? The Church Lady on Saturday Night Live

  41. Annie, I afraid I do not get the one about. In any case, I must depart now. I am tired. I have enjoyed the debate even if we do disagree.

  42. Bob Kauten says:

    You seem to be having a conversation with yourself. You are answering issues that no one here has raised. Who, for instance, has mentioned violence? Only you have mentioned violence. I believe that violence is on your mind a great deal. Is there a reason for this? Why are you afraid of us? Can we help you with this problem?
    Many of us believe that problems, such as the attitude expressed by this ridiculous sign, will not go away without a lot of public scrutiny. You would like us to drop the subject because you are uncomfortable with actual free speech. You do not believe that, having listened to someone else’s free speech, we have the right to express our opinion on what they said. Well, we do have that right. We demand it.
    And hiding behind your supreme being will not get you out of this argument. Your supreme being is not a U.S. citizen, and does not vote or pay taxes. Most certainly pays no taxes. That supreme being therefore has no say in our political process.
    I’m sure that this upsets you very much, but, by your own belief, your supreme being created me to be skeptical, and to be an atheist. I am only, by your own view, following his divine plan.
    You have also baffled me by quoting your academic degrees. “Charles Miller, BA, MA.”
    A phrase of friendly advice: “While on this blog, don’t go there.”

  43. Dear Bob,
    I was concerned about Gene. I could sense anger there. I just wanted to make certain that no harm comes to the people at that church. Now that I have heard from some of your members, I am certain that you are expressing your right to free speech. You are wrong that I am in a fight with my own thoughts. That is not the case at all. This has become a circular argument that leads to nothing. My advice is this: Forget the sign. I said the minister changes it weekly. Next week it will be something else. If you continue to stir up the old pot, it will stink a lot worse than it needs to. May I ask you a question? I am assuming the answer is yes. Do circular arguments lead to anything? The answer is positively NO. Let the church have its sign. People would not have noticed it if groups such as yours would not mention it. Most do not go around reading church signs. If they do, they do not always agree with them. Remember free speech. Churches have a right to their views just as you have a right to yours. You cannot force me to believe as your group does and I cannot force you to change your minds. I can only express mine as you can only express yours. Circular arguments lead to nothing. All of you have expressed your views and I have told you mine. Let that be the end of it. As for my degrees, I earned them and have a right to note them just as you have a right to document yours. I know how academia works. You do too. You know that professors note that degrees all the time in their books. In any case, I consider my part in this matter closed. You may argue amongst yourselves. It is odd how a little Baptist Church can disturb so many people. I wonder why.

  44. Also, might I mention that I studied in West Germany and France in the 1970’s. I suppose that bothers you too. Also, I will go wherever I wish as long as it does not break the law.

  45. Is your name Pete Moss?

  46. 1) You mistake sport argument, rational counter argument and an intractable will for anger. Anger? Violence? Oppression? Have you ever heard of the term “projection”? That was a rhetorical question. Criticism is neither violence nor oppression and while it can be rooted in anger mine is rooted in amusement (and coincidentally in reason). I should know. They are my emotions not yours. Especially since you are bemoaning the Streisand Effect whilst perpetrating that error in a major way. I find that hilarious and I never stop an opponent in the midst of making a mistake. You in your attempts to silence criticism have drawn far more attention to this than it might have ordinarily garnered. Brava! Bravissimo, diva!

    2) You really don’t want to start flinging your alleged education around in blog full of critical thinkers especially when you apparently never learned the basic skills of debate.

    3) Your assumptions that you announcing the “matter closed” and that at this point anyone is trying to convince you to personally change your mind are simply assumptions and incorrect ones at that. It is apparent as others have noted that you’re intractable. Have you considered that the target of the argument is the larger audience and not you personally? A rhetorical question.

    4) Now . . . a demonstration of deconstruction:

    “Do circular arguments lead to anything? The answer is positively NO.”

    Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with which, oddly enough, is the pattern of your argument.

    “Let the church have its sign.” and ” I am saying that TRBC has religious freedom.”

    No one is arguing that the church cannot have its sign or exercise their religion of choice. This is called a strawman argument. It is not just a logical fallacy but an inherently dishonest tactic.

    “Most do not go around reading church signs. If they do, they do not always agree with them.”

    Really? Then what’s the point of having a sign if most don’t read it or agree with it? A rhetorical question as the applicable definition of “sign” is a notice on public display that gives information or instructions in a written or symbolic form..

    “Remember free speech. Churches have a right to their views just as you have a right to yours.”

    The irony of this statement from someone whose stated goal is to get people to quit talking about a sign is not just irony writ large, it is absolutely hilariously hypocritical and just plain ol’ hilarious.

    “Let us leave this issue alone.”

    Why? Because you said so? There you go trying to take the free speech of others again. Free speech isn’t just a right that belongs to those who agree with you. Just so, Free Exercise isn’t a right that just belongs to those who share your dogma of choice. People are free to criticize and point out the sign as much as they wish and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.

    “If we do, I may go away.”

    Oh, don’t do that! You are providing a great deal of entertainment.

  47. Gene,
    I do have that education and I can take any of you on anytime. Do not be arrogant Gene. Watch your language, Gene. I am happy that I entertain you. I suppose you think that you are the only educated one in the world. When you have the knowledge I have, perhaps you will quit being an angry little man. You, Sir, cannot accept other points of view. Also, it may anger you to know that my wife is a former college professor. You can have your opinion and I will have mine. Just accept it. I will now leave this Blog. It does not interest me any more. If you continue your madness against me, I will have to stop being a liberal Democrat and become a conservative Republican.

  48. “I do have that education and I can take any of you on anytime.”

    Not very well, apparently.

    “Do not be arrogant Gene.”

    Really? I am not so arrogant as to tell people what they can and cannot talk about so look to the beam in your eye before the mote in mine.

    “Watch your language, Gene.”

    I’ll say whatever I like and so long as it isn’t defamation, sedition, incitement or threats of violence there really is nothing you can do about it.

    ” I suppose you think that you are the only educated one in the world. When you have the knowledge I have, perhaps you will quit being an angry little man.”

    Again with the “anger” thing. Really, you aren’t equipped to make me angry but it is cute that you think you might be.

    “You, Sir, cannot accept other points of view.”

    Acceptance and agreement are not the same thing. That is why we have different words for the concepts. I accept your argument. I even respect your right to make it. However, I do not agree with it. Agreement is not required.

    “Also, it may anger you to know that my wife is a former college professor.”

    Good for her. Has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

    “You can have your opinion and I will have mine. Just accept it.”

    I’m not the one trying to silence the critical opposition here, so might I suggest you take your own advice.

    “I will now leave this Blog. It does not interest me any more. If you continue your madness against me, I will have to stop being a liberal Democrat and become a conservative Republican.”

    “All men are created equal”. Be what you like so long as it doesn’t trample the rights of others. I really don’t care what you self-identify as politically so long as that axiom is adhered to. I don’t play partisan. I think partisan politics is a sucker’s game.

    Thanks for playing.

  49. Satan wants the RIGHT to be equal to the One Creator.
    Satan wants the FREEDOM for his RIGHT to do what is right in his own eyes.
    Satan wants to be free to serve and magnify oneself as a god.
    Satan wants his way of self-freedom to be the “god of fortresses”.

    Satan rebelled against the One Creator and he presented this way of self-freedom, of freedom of self-rights, of equality of rights to Eve ( the spirit of man) saying ” are you free to take of any of the trees?”…”most surely you (your freedom) will not die for in the day that you take of this tree ( you disobey) you will be like “god” “.

    And Eve confessed that this tree ( forbidden by the One Creator) is instead “good” for one’s self-wisdom and desires……disobeying the One Creator and TAKING her freedom to do what is right in her own eyes.
    …and today man ( all mankind) willingly desires and carries this mark on his forehead and on his hand.

    BUT man is not free to do “his will”, he is not free to do “his rights”, he is not “equal” to the One God for the Creator warned man that the judgement and punishment for this disobedience, this lawlessness, this sin is death.

    Very soon, the Lord Jesus Christ will return to rule the earth in power and obedience as the One King according to the Will of ‘I AM’ and NOT according to man’s first love for “his freedom, his rights, his equality”, for his desire to serve and magnify oneself (XES).
    …and man will weep and clench his teeth in intense anger when his FREEDOM will be no more.

  50. Who can argue with a rational evidenced based rebuttal like that?

  51. bettykath says:

    charlesenancywmiller, ” Their chromosomes are still either XY or XX. ”

    Not necessarily. Extra X’s or Y’s happen.

    • Dear Ms. Kath,
      It must be said that you are correct. The Boston Strangler had too many X chromosomes. Perhaps this is what made him a murderer. There are many questions in science that remain unanswered. I respect your response to me. It was straightforward and polite. Even though we may disagree, you did not have to try to ripe a person to pieces. True debate does not include anger and cruel words. It is two people that are just discussing the facts as they see them. This blog is named after Socrates, the teacher of Plato. In my studies of Plato, Socrates did not seem to argue with his students about the immortality of the soul; on the contrary, they discussed the issue with one another before Socrates drank the poison and were polite. Others of your group should take heed to this. This should be a discussion group of intellectuals and not an arena of impolite argument. In any case, I will not return. I still believe it would be better to leave the Taylor Road issue alone. If certain ones continue to stir the pot, it will only make things worse. If nothing is mentioned of the sign at that little church, it will soon disappear. All people are making too much of it. I remember seeing a film in the sixth grade called Future Shock. Orson Wells was speaking about the possible changes that would affect the world. It seems like this issue is one of them. I fear for the future and wonder what it would lead to. I realize this may be not exactly related to the conversation of this blog; however, I believe there can be some relation to it. When communism fell in the late 1990’s, I began to believe in postmillennialism. I really thought that the millennium of peace and prosperity was coming. Jesus would return after the millennium. Now I see the world changing in a bad way. I try to be an optimist and help my fellow neighbor when my limitations of life allow me to do so. The world today is not the one of my youth. My world was not perfect, but things were different. I worry for the next generations to come. Now I shall part without ill-will. Gene, if you continue in the way you debate, you might have a stroke. Is this issue really so important? I think not. Freedom of speech does have some limitations. You cannot use language that is inappropriate. It is against the law in Virginia. That is all I will say. Goodbye.

      • Well thanks for your concern but my health is my concern, Charles.

        And “appropriate” is an individual value judgment that is neither a fit standard for state law nor one of the Constitutionally recognized exceptions I noted earlier. I know this because some of the letters behind my name are J.D. Please note that an appeal to authority is only fallacious when the authority in question is not actually a subject matter expert.

        What you believe is appropriate in regards to this story is immaterial and simply a weak attempt to restrain the free speech rights of others. If critical analysis of this sign bothers you, you are in no way compelled to read it but your efforts to silence said critics are ultimately futile and a rather simple and poorly executed attempt to deprive others of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

  52. Bob Kauten says:

    “Very soon, the Lord Jesus Christ will return to rule the earth in power and obedience as the One King according to the Will of ‘I AM’ and NOT according to man’s first love for “his freedom, his rights, his equality”, for his desire to serve and magnify oneself (XES).
    …and man will weep and clench his teeth in intense anger when his FREEDOM will be no more.”

    Bring it on! Quit talkin’ and threatenin’, and haul your Lord’s ass over here, to chastise me!
    You guys have been ineptly trying to terrorize people for centuries. Maybe you can scare little kids, I don’t know.
    Let’s do this.
    Do I sound like I’m about fed up with all this ersatz fire and brimstone bullshit?
    I wouldn’t want to leave that impression.
    Odd how you made yourself a pseudonym that’s exactly the pattern of ol’ charley, ain’t it?

  53. Aridog says:

    johnstefanyszyn … although Christian, I am far from certain that any “return” of the Christ to “rule the earth” as literal fact. Several latter day “prophets” have claimed that mantle. None were or are positive in fact relevant to the ideal of a 2nd coming. Some [too many] are downright vengeful. I believe that the “2nd coming” refers to the results of our actions rather than a prophecy of Revelation [perhaps the most mystical of the books of the Bible in sundry forms]…where I am more inclined to se the 4th horseman on the pale horse as representative of our follies. I am far more inclined to see that prophecy as rhetorical not reality. I believe Christ gave us what we needed and the rest of the outcomes are our own. We own them. The true “2nd coming” occurred on the day after the resurrection in Bible parable parlance. After that, we own the outcomes we generate….no matter what faith is cited. The “end times” dogma is a mechanism [for control] not a prediction [for a new beginning] in my point of view. We already have what we need to beupright and decent…that we fail at that is quite human, not spiritual IMO.

  54. Aridog says:

    Another point worth mentioning is the definition of what a “Baptist” really is, given there are numerous version of that faith, but only one, or very few, that can be called the original source for racism. We have at least 6+ varieties in my town, the simplest of which are the “Primitive Baptists” whose adherents are quite a small group that bothers no one. The most common are the Black community versions and that certainly is not support for slavery in the past or present. Fred Phelps is pastor of a “Baptist” church founded on outright anti-social doctrine…he appears to hate everyone. One weird guy I’d say. And scarcely the epitome of the “Baptist” protestant faith(s). But he claims the name none-the-less.

    When charismatic features are incorporated in a faith, of any variety, you get guys like Phelps, or worse the loon Terry Jones and his meager flock of 50 in Florida who yet must come to my town to “spread the word” as if there are not enough people in Florida for his pseudo-missionary zeal. Within the Catholic community there are also the charismatic groups, all about mystical zeal, but not worth the time of day, all focused on themselves, not the population at large. But when facing one, good luck on talking any sense to them.

    Just to top it all off, we have a new grand who-know-what pastor coming here during Ramadan to “save Muslims” by a door to door campaign. With luck they will skip my porch, because if they are foolish enough to try and waste my time, it won’t be a pleasant encounter for them. What is it about these guys who must travel 900-1400 miles, to places they know virtually nothing about, other than a large population of Muslims, to spread their word? Surprise dude, there are copious Catholics here as well, with a Christian church, from Catholic to Protestant, which gives a ratio of about 6:1 versus mosques. No one listening to them in their own locales is my guess…that and a thirst for publicity [hubris x 10]. I mean just what media will follow them in their podunk residencies …however if they show up here and get spurned, that’ll be “news.”

    If I am “missing in action” for a few days this month, its likely due to my nasty responses to any of this idiot’s door to door campaign, if they resist leaving my porch when asked or are in any way confrontational, …e.g, send me some bail money, please. 😀 [You can use my email address in my profile for PayPal transmission of bail funds.] Doncha dare miss it!

    Nah, I’ll just loose “Dera” doggie on any who refuse to just leave me alone and move on. Good ole
    “Dera” can be quite convincing. Better they go to households with Pekingese doggies…worst they can get there are ankle bites. 🙂 Ole yellow eyed stocky strong wolf like “Dera” might be more than most can handle. I am one sick puppy to refuse them their first Amendment rights, of course…but my sickness is a product of my sense of humor. YMMV….

  55. Gene,
    You won’t let me go in peace, will you? I must say that you did do a better debate this time. Oh, my dear friend, yours is also an individual value judgment. Yours is your opinion and mine belongs to me. That is what makes America great. We can express our own opinions. Let’s close this conversation now. You have had your say and I have had mine. My debate was as valid as yours. That is just the way it is. Goodbye, Gene. PS: I will look your name up on the internet. I have found Chuckie on there. Perhaps I will find you too.

    • On the contrary. You are free to do as you please. And mine is an principle based argument resting in the Common Law, the Constitution and logic. That I find that framework useful against an argument based solely on subjective beliefs is just your misfortune. But you may feel free to leave at any time. No one is forcing your participation in this forum.

      Or are they?

  56. Dear Gene,
    No one is forcing me to do anything. Remember, I am a Methodist and I am an Arminian. I have freewill. I see that you are lawyer, Gene. If I need one, I would probably try to hire you. My views are based on the constitution as well. They are also based on a higher Power. How do you find the time to take part in this blog? You must be out of practice now. I could be wrong, of course. I see now where you get your debating skill. I should have known that you were a lawyer. I did enjoy talking with all of you. We do disagree and that will not change. But I have still enjoyed this endeavor. You will find me on the internet also. I communicate with scholars and university deans all the time. We discuss theology. I have even recommended a book by neo-orthodox theologian Dr. Emil Brunner to a professor whom I greatly respect. Brunner talks about instantaneous resurrection. Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, a fellow Methodist, accepted this view also. I am now going into my personal library and read a novel in German. Goodbye, Mr. Attorney.

  57. Bob Kauten says:

    Charles, please,
    Promises, promises.
    You keep telling us that you’re leaving. Then we find you still here.
    How can we miss you if you never leave?

  58. Dear Bob,
    Thank you for your comment. I have broken my promises, haven’t I? I just find this blog interesting. Gene, I wish to thank you again for the debate. You are a great man. I will try to resist returning. My mind needs discussion. I suppose that is why I keep returning. I have written something in reference to the Confederate flag. I hope you read that and comment. Your friend, Charles

  59. I wish to announce to all of you that the sign is changed. I told each of you that it was only a matter of time. I would imagine that most of you live in Hampton Roads. You can see it for yourselves. Let the issue die. Doesn’t the world have enough problems? I have written Chuck about his daughter. I just wanted to say I was sorry. I hope I have not disturbed him. If I have, please apologize for me. I meant no harm to him. I will try to keep my promise this time, Gene. I started to call you Clarence Darrow. I hope you will not call me William Jennings Bryan.

    • michaelbeaton says:

      good grief Charles.. aka William…
      it was never about the sign… can you not at least get that much from this over extended exchange?

  60. pete says:

    “My mind needs discussion.”
    Given the number of switchovers between “Charles E. Miller, Jr.”, “charlesenancywmiller”, and “Charles Miller” I’d say your mind gets plenty of that.

    Ask your doctor if Batfuckitica™ might be right for you.

  61. Does talking to yourself or hearing voices constitute a conversation?

    Now there’s an interesting philosophical question.

  62. Bob Kauten says:

    Charles, or whatever TF your name might be right now, why involve me in the conversation? There are at least three totally clueless people inside you, talking randomly. Just call one of them ‘Bob,’ and you’ll be all set.

  63. randyjet says:

    If it is a she, it must be even worse, since NO amount of makeup could make such a person look good.

  64. I. Annie says:

    This is sick beyond belief. I hope that the lawyers here find some actionable cause they can sue this excuse for a human being over. My God, what is wrong with some people?

  65. The issue has been remedied.

  66. Randy just made me snort orange juice. It burns.

  67. Wanting equal rights being compared to Satanism-that is absurd. Every human being should be entitled to the same rights.

  68. Agreed, Jefferey. Unfortunately such misguided missives as above are an unfortunate consequence of lacking or not properly integrating knowledge to take into account the historical nature of the teachings of Jesus and just how they were distorted by men in positions of power to rationalize and sell a social order based on patriarchal hierarchy. There was a reason Constantine courted the Pauline tradition and not the Gnostic tradition and that reason was purely political. It’s a shame really. The Gnostic view is so much more well rounded and benevolent. I found it to comport more with the teachings of a wise man than the Pauline distortions thereof used to justify the rule of the egotistical and venal over the masses. In the end, it’s almost a semantic and ethical illustration of the butterfly effect – a beautiful and potentially stable system turned into a storm by small changes to its initial state.

  69. Gene Howington, what are your thoughts regarding same sex marriage? Personally, I do not have a problem with it.

  70. Jefferey,

    Legally, I see marriage as nothing more than a specialty contract. If the parties are of age and the consent is valid, I have no issue with it. Whether or not a particular religious tradition approves or disapproves is immaterial as ours is a secular form of government. The laws only legitimate interest in marriage is rights upon formation, dissolution and the protection of the interests of any minor or incapacitated dependents of the union.

    Ethically, I have no issue with it either. Two people loving and caring for one another? Why . . . that’s terrible unless they do so in a way that makes me comfortable! Sorry. I am prone to huge fits of sarcasm. Seriously, two people care for each other, what business is it of mine how they have sex so long as it doesn’t involve minors and/or no ancillary crime is being committed? None whatsoever. To paraphrase Jefferson from a different (but related) context, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

    Philosophically, I have no issue with it either. Love and trust are important things in life and they are hard to find and often harder to maintain over time regardless of orientation. If two adults find it no matter their gender identity then I applaud them and wish them the best of luck.

  71. Chuck Stanley and Gene Howington, since love is the foundation of a romantic relationship, why does expression of that get frowned upon when expressed by same sex couples and not heterosexual couples? I believe in traditional marriage, however, if 2 people of the same sex want to marry, that is really none of my business.

Comments are closed.