David Silverman is ordinarily a pretty level-headed guy, but Bill O'Reilly can test the patience of even the saintliest of sane-minded, educated people. On a segment of The O'Reilly Factor, the host and the president of American Atheists went head-to-head and toe-to-toe over religious displays on public land and whether or not Christmas should be a federal holiday.
Naturally Silverman doesn't believe Christmas should be a federal holiday, and he's right. It should be nothing more than a religious holiday, as it pretty much already is. Most companies give employees days off during their religious holiday observations, so truly the holiday season in the U.S. wouldn't be affected one way or the other. David Silverman is also right in thinking that religious-oriented displays shouldn't be on public-funded lands. This is because it violates the law in that it comes across as the government promoting one religion over the other -- therefore violating the wall of separation between church and state.
Bill O'Reilly can't handle when guests on his show are more educated and logical than he, so as usual he spouts off with the yelling, the incessant interrupting and the overall bellyaching that he is known to do on his Fox News program. He referred to the president of American Atheists as a "fascist" for his opinions, but he couldn't be farther from the truth -- of course making ad hominem attacks against someone with a differing POV is nothing new to Bill.
It's not fascism to expect your government to abide by the laws of the land -- i.e. the U.S. Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. It's clear that a religious display is a violation of the fundamentals of the separation of church and state, so it's "fascist" to expect citizens who are feeling oppressed to just lay down, shuttup, and get over this violation. Sorry, Bill, but you're way off mark this time!
Photo: Inquistr
Crime analyst, profiler & future criminologist Chelsea Hoffman can be found on Huffington Post or Chelsea Hoffman: Case to Case. You can follow her on Twitter @TheRealChelseaH or contact her via her personal blog. Fan the Facebook page for updates on missing persons cases, issues in civil rights and details on Chelsea's fiction works.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 130
Did you see Richard Dawkins on O Riley about a year ago? He was acting like a 12 year old cry baby. It was funny and sad to see at the same time.
Atheist are such drama-queens.
Oh I dunno, depends who we're in bed with ;-)
real women don't talk unless they're talked to
Nikita M, She's a Lady.
Christmas and God are more important and should be reverend more then any one of our Presidents. The problem with atheists they want their way or the highway. Well they are not running the show. And, if they do not believe in Christmas I do not want to see Silverman's kids with a Christmas tree or presents under them. It is a day honoring Jesus if they do not believe in Jesus then go about the day as just an ordinary day. Oh....Chelsea I hope you do not cringe reading the word Jesus.
If Christmas lost it's status as a Federal holiday all those overtime pay schedules and days off should indeed go away. One day off for those who believe... the rest just go on working like normal. No Christmas bonuses, no office parties (probably an unintended blessing there)... and all those affected could thank an atheist for their lost days off, lost overtime and doubletime wages.
I do not find your personality attractive. If you want to correct mistakes some colleges may hire you. I have overlooked may typos and grammatically incorrect sentences. Why you choose to pick on me is a puzzle. I do not see you mentioning their mistakes. So you are bias against me.
Oh and I can give Michelle a high five! Do not hate her as I do not know her.
many,biased
RS, Glad to hear you embrace the Spirit of the Christ, if not the birthday. Perhaps that will be enough. I have heard that Jesus said the most important thing was to love your neighbor as yourself, and no greater love has a man than to lay down his life for a friend. There is a white throne judgement for non Christians, there must be a reason for that, it is not a foregone conclusion, or there would be no Judgement. Jesus also said, whatsoever you shall do to these (his children), it is as if you had done it to Him, himself. Nice that you give out cookies.
And the first amendment keeps the government from ESTABLISHING a religion. It doesn't say that religion has to be kept out of any federal properties. How absurd.
I do wonder why you're so bothered by God and Jesus. If you don't believe in them, why can't you just ignore them? Why do you insist on forcing your belief system on the rest of us?
@Nikita -- disbelieving something isn't fearing something. In fact, isn't it supposed to be "fearing" god when you worship him? Isn't that the term "god fearing?"
so are you saying that you're not fearing god?
IMHO being afraid of god would be like being afraid of a leprechaun or fairies or being afraid of an imaginary friend. Lol.
"Why do you insist on forcing your belief system on the rest of us?"
uhm, forcing us to pay taxes to "put up with" idiotic religious displays on public land, forcing us to pay taxes on public school and then demanding that christian prayer be promoted, etc etc -- THAT is forcing your belief system on us.
Maybe when you can find your way out of bizarro world, you'll see that.. but I doubt you ever will because you because that jesus flavored koolaid and your prayer closet is more important than.. gee.. I dunno... intelligence, and education and picking up a book that has some facts in it for once.
(uhm, we all know the answer to this, so don't worry about it)
Mark 5:9
New International Version (NIV)
9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”
“My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.”
No mam.
Which question Christ put, not for his own sake; for he was not ignorant of his name, nor of the number of the unclean spirits which were in the man; but partly, that it might be known what a miserable condition this poor man was in, being infested, and vexed with such a large company of devils; and partly, that his own pity and power in delivering him, might be more manifest;
My opinion is that it is not necessarily so. I used to be an agnostic because of what the clergy was teaching and the horrible history I read. If the god they represent approved of all that, I wanted nothing to do with him.
What I have read on that subject written by atheist convinces me that they all are atheists for the very same reason I used to be agnostic.
I don't believe in god -- It is impossible to fear something that does not exist. If it doesn't exist it doesn't exist. Period. Nothing to fear. I'm not afraid of sesame street either -- because I know the puppets aren't real. get it?
Hello Dennis. No sir. A careful study will show you.
Don't let clergy mess you up my friend. The scripture is very clear.
And Chelsea, you don't have to believe. It doesn't change anything there's still a God. Also some folks don't believe there's a hell. That also doesn't change anything.
Just remember this Chelsea.
2 Corinthians 6:2
International Standard Version (©2008)
For he says, "At the right time I heard you, and on a day of salvation I helped you." Listen, now is really the "right time"! Now is the "day of salvation"!
Don't get caught dead in the body while being spiritually dead too.
The grave is nowhere to ponder or decide these things.
Seek Jesus Christ my friend. He died on the cross for you too.
Ok bye bye everyone !
Provide a reason to believe.
If you wish Chelsea, I could provide several logical, evidence-based reasons to believe.
Yeah, I'm a regular Emperor Constantine with my blog that nobody is forcing you to read...
This is a false statement -- I've never said anything about people of faith mentioning their gods in public or in my presence (or in schools etc etc)
Seems that you've either read some fiction about me or you've misread something and are writing your own fiction at this point. Sorry.
Why, indeed, the constant need to hear about others' lack of faith. We don't care. Just let us have the freedom our forefathers bequeathed to us.
Stop forcing your christian beliefs in the public square against the words of our founding fathers and you won't have to hear about our lack of beliefs. Just a thought.
If we're forced to see public displays of Jesus in urine "art work", surely you can get a grip and let us have our freedom of religion.
If you're not a believer, then the Nativity should be nothing more than a stable with some animals. Again I ask, why does that bother you?
Nope, but if I lived there my taxes would pay for the land and maintenance of the land that the nativity scene would be on. Would you want to pay taxes on a plot of land where religious sentiment that you don't stand behind is being pushed? I'm sure you and your would be griping up and down a storm here on Gather if the title was "satanist shrine goes up instead of nativity scene for holiday display"
If we're forced to see public displays of Jesus in urine "art work", surely you can get a grip and let us have our freedom of religion.
Nobody is taking away your freedom of religion. You are FREE to be whatever religion you want. You are FREE to go to CHURCH. You are free to CONGREGATE publicly. You are not free to use your religious views to oppress another culture. That is why Atheist lawsuits are victorious more often than not. There's really nothing more to say about that.
If you're not a believer, then the Nativity should be nothing more than a stable with some animals. Again I ask, why does that bother you?
Again, it's not about the imagery "bothering" anyone. It doesn't inspire any emotions, unless it's on property that taxpayers in a community maintain. This violates federal law (unless it is done in the way Santa Monica did it with a "lottery" btw, the atheist won that lottery, and was vandalized causing the ban on unattended nativities... so it really wasn't those nasty atheists' fault that that happened.. I wonder who vandalized their display? Hmm?)
Here's a thought.. if you want freedom of religion, have it, and let others have the freedom to NOT have religion. Stop destroying their legal holiday displays. Stop making death threats to 16 year olds who actually legally win lawsuits against their schools. And I don't mean "you" Marilyn. I mean, in general.
And let's not pretend here. When someone tells atheists to stop "forcing their lack of beliefs" -- when they are winning lawsuits fair and square -- what's basically being said is "atheists need to go back to where we don't see or hear them so we can continue breaking laws and disrespecting, because we're the majority, so there."
Until THAT mentality is gone, proactive atheists aren't going anywhere.
Stop keeping kids from mentioning Jesus in essays or in their valedictorian speeches. Stop forcing people to pretend they have no faith because it might offend you to know that they do.
Your non-faith goes everywhere you go. So does my faith.
I asked you about this several hours ago, but do you mind showing an actual case of an atheist suing a school because on of the STUDENTS mentioned god/jesus/insert_deity_here in an essay?
P.s. -- let me know when you can substantiate your claims without relying on hyperbole and other ridiculous tactics. *yawn*
https://www.secularstudents.org/speakers/DavidSilverman
a few of my exes have been religious, one of them a pastor's son in Alabama
I'm happy that now my boyf of 5 yrs (fiance' of 2) is an atheist as well (a quiet one, mind you) but feels nice to be with someone who gets it and can keep up in a conversation about science & facts instead of whimsical stories
Did you happen to read that they were debate opponents at Brandeis? Just because a few of your exes have been religious, and according to you they didn't match your mental prowess, the conclusion you are implying here once again, just like you did with yesterday's, is an illogical conclusion.
I'd feel the same way if I was a theist and he a theist or what-have-you.
All of the conclusions you're jumping to, blah, boring. Not interested in that debate right now. :) I'm going to go have brunch with my sweetie.
ttyl
"It feels better to be with someone who's at your level." That has nothing to do with whether someone is an atheist or a theist, but that could be an indication of at what level someone is comfortable if that is how you think. If you both think that way, I'd be tempted to say it's a match made in heaven. Have fun!
I was saying.. what I feel... anyone would say when the meet someone who clicks with them right at their level, not above or below.. it's a good feeling.
By pointing out the truths of the bible and declaring my lack of belief? I didn't know anyone was forcing you to be here! You keep clicking blog posts written in a positive light about atheism and then you cry foul about it. Hmm..
And also, What Michele said.
Silverman is against any public displays of anything with the least bit of a religious theme.
That is not in ANY way a person standing up for the "law of the land", nor the constitution, as you claim.
It is in fact, a direct violation of the Constitution AND the "law of the land", in that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
You notice that second part? to not prohibit the free exercise thereof ..................
Since local majority is to become the rule of that area, The US Congress has no authority, to tell the people OF that community, what they may celebrate.
If the local community, wants a menorah, or a manger scene on the lawn - the federal government has zero jurisdiction, and the majority of the population decides.
Where Silverman develops "fascist-like" characteristics, is when he wants to the minority to silence the free speech, and right to assemble (some may want to assemble to worship) of the majority (both also parts of the First Amendment).
So Silverman is violating the law, in at least 3 ways - silence freedom of speech (that he disagrees with), dent the right to assemble (and put up displays), as well as prohibiting the right of the free exercise of their religion.
I am sure you will delete this, as you usually do not like anything stated you don’t like - or nstead, your entire 'gang' will jump on and try to make me into some lunatic.
Have fun with that.
I will not respond furthe4r.
I only ask that you at least consider the points I have stated fairly.
I actually, literally, audibly laughed....
Are you saying that he's violating law by practicing his first amendment right of free speech by talking against religion? Or is he violating the law by filing legal lawsuits and winning them in federal court?
Do tell.
He can talk against religion all he sesires, and I will defend him.
He may not stop my community from putting up a manger scene.
Is that more clear?
I doubt it.
But I find there are some here that you must be explicit for.
"He may not stop my community from putting a manger scene. Is that more clear? Doubt it."
If your "community" is putting up manger scenes on public tax-funded land and is sued by an atheist or constitution-abiding entity, your "community" will most likely lose that battle. As your "community" would be the ones violating the laws. Not the other way around.
But I'm not really going to argue this point because I feel the trail of lawsuit victories regarding this topic is enough to end the discussion.
and no offense about what I said about your understanding of criminal law and irritation... but it does seem that you're using hyperbole to prove a point, and it's not really working. If Silverman was violating any actual laws, he'd be in jail or charged with violations of said laws.
Knew I was wasting my time.
You want to impose your thoughts on me - the same as Silverman does.
You cant simply leave me, or any township, any county any state, to decide what they want for themselvess.
And yes, he HAS imposed his beliefs on many communities that wantedf the manger scenes etc.
When it comes to actual discernment - you seem to be 19 mule short of a Borax team.
Be happy in your world.
Call the cops on him.
Lol.
All in response to me asking you to explain yourself when you're accusing someone of violating laws that they are not violating.
Have a good night, Jesse. I have nothing against agreeing that some people need 'Jesus'.
OK
I also saw the one of the little girl in North Carolina - 6 years old, wrote a poem about her 2 grandpas, who were both in the war, and how they told her their faith in God was what got them thru - she was not allowed to read it.
Or you can come out of the closet as either a sectarian bigot or a psychotic misanthrope. But while you are hunched over your bowl of thin gruel waiting for the ghosts to arrive on Christmas Day, take time to read The Constuitution (I know you will not be reading Dickens, too jolly for you) You will find, or at least The Man On The Clapham Omnibus would, that the clause about separation of church and state does not prohibit Christmas displays on public land as Christmas is not specific to one religion (Christianity is a generic term, which church's Christmas specifically do you want to ban? Anglicans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Syriac Christians, Copts, Ethiopian Christians, Methodists, Lutherans, who precisely do you hate the most Chelsea? The Constitution protects freedom of worship, a civil right you now want to deny people.
The midwinter festival, under a variety of names, is a holiday everywhere in the world. Why should Obamaland be different. I guess what Obie is progressing towards is a situation where nobody is in work and so everybody can spend all day every day praising him.
*The government of Cromwell, the English Puritans, was the last to ban Christmas. Old Ollie finished up with his head displayed on a pike on London Bridge. Best end for all fascists if you ask me.
And Ian -- I hope that one day you evolve intellectually so you can come back and read this with as much entertainment value as I did.
I saw that one too, Jesse. They're so nitpicking that it's difficult to imagine that even if the Constitution actually specified separation of church and state which would have been very simple to specify if that had been their intention, (never imagining the courts would misinterpret the clarity of that amendment as it was written) that there is violation of law in either case because there is not unless you're anal retentive to the point of paranoia.
Ian, have you seen Chelsea's recent comment to someone here on another post that expresses her belief that it's so much easier to respond with personal attacks? And she added something to the effect that ad hominems are only used in place of a valid answer. Not much later she made the comment about you not being intellectually evolved. That's funny all by itself, but in the context of the other comment, that's entertaining enough to charge admission
MAY NOT PASS A LAW " ...prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
Pretty straight forward - only one 4 syllable word and it is fairly understood to all.
How does that become that a single person, can dictate to an entire school system?
The majority has zero rights once they are on public land?
People were arrested for quietly praying in front of the White house a few years ago.
Add in the idea that a classroom is a 'captive audience' and kids are 'forced to listen'.
Most of the kids in my English Lit class were 'captive', but never once understood or heard a single word spoken (you cant hear the speaker, when passing notes, giggling, gossiping, or tryin to look up the cheerleaders skirt).
They make the free exercise clause worthless by interpreting it to mean only that we can freely exercise our religion in our own homes and respective churches. Of course we can exercise our religion anywhere in this country, and if there were meant to have been limitations on that freedom, they would have stipulated "except on publicly owned property."
The Constitution is a pretty straightforward document, and it shouldn't make all that much difference whether a supreme court justice is conservative or liberal because this loose interpretation of the Constitution should have been nipped in the bud at the very beginning. They've gotten so far away from the intentions of the drafters that it's a different rule of law now than what they intended in so many ways other than just these 1st amendment examples.
From the web site of Alliance Defending Freedom for Faith and Justice:
While attending public school, your child can:
Pray at school
Talk about God in class assignments
Start a religious club on campus that receives the same rights and resources as other clubs
Freely share his or her faith with other students
And as a parent, you can:
Opt your child out of curriculum that requires the student to violate your family’s religious beliefs.
Students Don’t Have to Leave Their Faith at Home
Contrary to what you may have been told by your child’s public school administrators, students have the constitutionally protected right to freely live out their faith at school.
You are right that THE STUDENTS are allowed to start and join clubs of their choosing (be they religious or otherwise) You are right that students are allowed to pray openly in school or anywhere else publicly funded. I don't know one atheist or piece of secular legislation that has ever tried to stop these things.
However, "talking about "god" in assignments" is a grey area because if you're taking a science test and write "god" in, when the answer is clearly something else that is explainable, has been proven and is part of public school curriculum, they will most likely get poor grades, fail and end up shoveling manure for a living and I don't know one parent (sane one anyway) that wants that for the future of their kids.
I would do some Googling if I were you. But you're partially correct. I just hope you're not one of the type that confuses the STUDENTS' rights with the laws prohibiting the EDUCATORS' boundaries.
Getting the word out to each and every school district about all of the organizations that will help them for free is something all Christians should be working on.
I doubt you have any way to substantiate this hypothesis, so I'll just nod and smile.
So do you care to substantiate your claims or am I to assume that you were just pulling nonsense out of thin air again?
I think you are correct - except that many times there is only a threat of a lawsuiit, and the school caves in.
Not many years ago, my nephew was very involved in the Jaycees student group - they, like many non-profit organizations, used school property for their students to meet - they were shut down, because part of the ceremony was an opening prayer.
Keep in mind this was a group that WANTED to get together - no captive audience.
It is not a religious service - simply a non-denominational prayer.
So many deny these things happen, or claim there are other reasons - they are wrong.
They DO happen, and the schools cave - over and over again.
The 6 year old in No Carolina simply wrote a poem about what her grandfathers had told her - historically accurate - and yet was censored.
Many students have been disciplined for having a bible at school, or wearing a religious medallion (my son was told he could not wear his St Christopher necklace).
It happens every day dozens of times – some simply ignore it so they can falsely claim they never heard of it happening.
The schools have been threatened with law Suits for over 20 years on this issue, and they routinely cave, because they have no backbone.
There have been numerous examples in this thread.
Dont be so lazy - look up the charlie brown incident, or the 6 year old in No Carolina one.
If you are not savvy enough to look it up - I will do your work for you this last time.
You may not find it on google - try Bing.
Google proved their (lack of) value to me 5 years ago, when my S-I-L tried to look up the Weather Underground, and google gave him 12 pages of nothing but references to some actual weather prediction group.
I expected nothing less. (and nothing more lol)
2. Make insults and snide remarks when asked to prove your claims.
i.e. pigeon chess
Here ya go with a couple for each of the 2 stories MOST talked about in this thread.
https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/good-grief-elementary-school-reluctantly-cancels-field-trip-to-see-merry
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/12/05/church-calls-off-charlie-brown-christmas-show-amid-controversy/
The "freethinkers" an atheist group threatened lawsuits, and the church offering admission, decided it was not worth the effort.
http://www.wlos.com/shared/news/top-stories/stories/wmya_god-removed-poem-9785.shtml
http://nation.foxnews.com/religion/2012/11/29/school-orders-6-year-old-remove-god-poem
Try to think - if there is no threat of lawsuit, why would the school cave in?
I presume you know how to copy and paste - or do I need to imbed them for you?
1. Deny everyhthing
2. Attack the stories that most peope know, refuse historic events as illustration,
3. accuse the person you disagree with of being snide, uninformed, , a liar, or plain stupid,
4. demand sources of examples already given
5. deny some more.
6. ridecuile as tho no more could be expected (from one so stupid??)
7.Deny again,
8. refuse to give any source showing the source is a hoax.
9. laugh
10. deny again - claiming a technicality of difference.
Pig Poker
You have shared other sources, but none backing up this particular claim.
You made the claims, you back up the claims. It's really that simple. If you want anyone to take you seriously that isn't gullible or a simpleton, you should really learn to substantiate your claims.
And you can't substantiate one claim by providing a source that substantiates something unrelated to what you're discussing.
A parent complained to a school about a six-year-old's poem -- an a theist didn't sue the school.
A group didn;t want public school students going to a church for a field trip -- the school wasn't sued by an atheist for a student writing about god.
Let me ask you something; Are you ever dizzy? Because it seems that you're spinning around in circles to desperately prove a point, and you're losing.
Like always.
I surely wish one day that you'll surprise me and actually make a claim, back it up and be correct. I doubt that day will ever come, though.
I like how you knew I was going to discredit your attempts at (not) backing up your claims by saying I'd point out the differences. So you know your argument is weak, just like I do. Thanks! :)
Then why are you having such a hard time finding one to back up your statement?
there are legal groups to help students who have been forced to not mention Jesus, who have been told they cannot pray before lunch, who have been told they cannot say that Jesus was the reason they succeeded in high school in their valedictorian speech.
I do not doubt that these "groups" exist. Anyone can form a group over anything. But that does not change the fact that you seem to be pathologically unable to produce credible proof of these incidents and lawsuits.
To pretend you don't know about them is disengenuous. Seriously. I know that my atheist cousin used to tell me about them if I missed them.
Making claims as though they are facts and then refusing to substantiate them is being disingenuous. Perhaps you should ask your atheist cousin for some of those sources since you seem to be unable to locate them.
Still writing for Huffington post?
I am set up to receive a notice when you post there - havent seen one of 7 or 8 - maybe even 9 months?
BTW - if you had botherwed to read - ot was not a group - it was one single person that didnt want the field trip to see the Charlie Brown play - but there had to have been the treat of law suit - the school (again if you read) said to pound sand (basically), and the Church decided it wasnt worth to aggravation ......aggravation of what? Unless there were threqats of lawsuits - which no church wants.
But - no reason to ask you to reason things out.
I knew I was wasting my time - why DO I bother.
I didnt know what you would say because my arguments are weak - I knew it because I know the sorry, pitiful, obtuse tactics.
Maybe in another few months or year I will decide to see f you have become any more mature and informed.
Turn on tune in and drop out.
Down with the man
Make love not war
we should all live in a commune man!
Ever meet Timothy Leary?
What a trip!
Tim Leary 1967.
My main attraction was sniffin after Oughton ...................
Still writing for Huffington post?
I am set up to receive a notice when you post there - havent seen one of 7 or 8 - maybe even 9 months?
BTW - if you had botherwed to read - ot was not a group - it was one single person that didnt want the field trip to see the Charlie Brown play - but there had to have been the treat of law suit - the school (again if you read) said to pound sand (basically), and the Church decided it wasnt worth to aggravation ......aggravation of what? Unless there were threqats of lawsuits - which no church wants.
But - no reason to ask you to reason things out.
I knew I was wasting my time - why DO I bother.
I didnt know what you would say because my arguments are weak - I knew it because I know the sorry, pitiful, obtuse tactics.
Maybe in another few months or year I will decide to see f you have become any more mature and informed.
So you're still relying on ad hominem statments and underhanded jabs at me personally?
and you're how old?
The more you reveal, the sadder I feel for you. I understand now why you're lashing out at me so much instead of backing up your claims and actually participating in the conversations you inject yourself into. You're an inferior male who is angered by a female of superior intelligence who is a lot younger than you as well. This is probably brought on by feelings of inadequacy due to some kind of spectacular failures in your life. For that I am sorry. We all have failures and shortcomings. Some of us don't take them out on others who represent what we can't be, though.
You continue being snide and venomous -- I am only asking you to back up your claims. Show proof. You claim XYZ happened -- show proof of XYZ happening. There is truly no need to lash out like a caged animal -- all because you are being asked to tie some accountability to yourself. :)
But I will bite one of your questions -- seeing as though I don't "write for huffington post" -- but am one of their many "contributing bloggers" -- I don't post frequently. I work/study too much to donate all of my time to them and they don't publish posts from the same bloggers on a daily basis. Posting for them is an occasional treat for when I feel like writing about something differently from the way I cover it here or on my own blog. I hope that honest answer is suitable, but I know you truly didn't want to know. You were simply throwing the words "huffington post" in your comment directed toward me as some more of your angry inadequacy.
And the icing on the cake is that the church is doing a Charlie Brown play without permission from the rights holder (Peanuts Worldwide). Even if they have no respect for secular laws, isn't there a commandment that says they're not supposed to steal?