Getting Our Message Out

As atheists grow in political power and begin to exert our influence, we should expect to draw attention from religious bigots who will try to silence us. Three stories from the past three days illustrate this principle, showing not just atheism’s increasing assertiveness, but the arrogance of religious groups and individuals who think they can prevent us from getting our message out.

Imagine No Religion

First is Rancho Cucamonga, California. The Freedom from Religion Foundation had placed an “Imagine No Religion” billboard in that city as part of its nationwide billboard campaign. The FFRF paid to display their message for two months, but after only a week, the billboard company took it down in violation of the contract, and apparently at the behest of the city government. Naturally, the FFRF has sued. Legally speaking, this ought to be an open-and-shut case – both against the billboard company, for breach of contract, and against the city government, for acting in its official capacity to suppress atheist speech.

Atheism has encountered similar obstruction in Australia, where the advertising company APN Outdoor refused to permit the Atheist Foundation of Australia to run freethought advertising on buses. No explanation was given for why the atheist ads were rejected – which almost certainly means the real explanation stems from prejudice, because if they had had a legitimate reason, there would have been no reason to withhold it. Notably, APN has in the past permitted Christian groups to run bus ads containing Bible verses. Given this latest evidence, one might well suspect that their involvement in the Christian ads had more than purely commercial motives.

Finally, consider the reaction to another set of atheist billboards in Denver and Colorado Springs (HT: The Liberty Papers). Although these billboards have not been censored like the others, they have drawn a predictable flood of viciousness and bile from Christians, most of it targeted at the group, the Colorado Coalition of Reason, which paid for them:

The hate mail and nasty, threatening phone messages began almost immediately.

Much of it has been directed at Joel Guttormson, who mostly has been serving as a spokesman for COCORE, as they call it.

All three of these stories illustrate an important point that they have in common. In all three cases, the advertising that atheists sought to place was in no way angry or polemical – simple, mild statements like “Imagine No Religion”, “Celebrate Reason”, or “Don’t Believe In God? You Are Not Alone”. Yet even these mild, inoffensive messages drew the wrath of religious groups, who responded not just with censorship but with hate mail and threats. This mirrors the experience of nontheist U.S. Rep. Pete Stark, whose simple declarative statement of his nonbelief was still enough to get him vilified by a hatemongering Christian group.

The spokesman for COCORE has drawn an important lesson from the hate mail, one I want to emphasize:

It is what he calls the radical Christians that are making the most noise, Joel Guttormson said.

“I’ll spend more time defending this than anything else,” he said. “I’ve already learned that anything we do is not going to satisfy them. Anything we do or say is only going to make them more angry.”

These backlashes show the futility of listening to those people who claim that atheists will only be accepted by society if we water down our message and refrain from saying anything that might offend anyone. The bigots will attack us no matter what we say, so there’s no point in trying to appease them.

But one thing we can take heart in is that, in the modern world, effective censorship is impossible. The controversy generated when religious groups try to stifle the atheist message will fuel news stories and coverage that will be seen far and wide, almost certainly attracting more attention than the ad campaign itself could have drawn. People in general are drawn to underdogs, and the “What are you so afraid of?” message is a winner. When we’re censored, we shouldn’t get angry, we should cheer – the religious interests who try to suppress our message are doing us as big a favor as we could have hoped for.

In honor of the season, let me leave you with this heart-warming example of atheists getting our message out, courtesy again of the FFRF:

OLYMPIA, Wash. — An atheist group has unveiled an anti-religion placard in the state Capitol, joining a Christian Nativity scene and “holiday tree” on display during December.

…With a nod to the winter solstice – the year’s shortest day, occurring in late December – the placard reads, in part, “There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

And to those would-be theocrats who hate atheist speech and would like to silence us, I’ve got only this to say: You’d better get ready. You ain’t seen nothing yet!

UPDATE (12/6): Two new developments in the FFRF’s Washington solstice sign. First, the sign was stolen – evidently by another private citizen who wanted to censor us – and was later found at a local radio station. It was returned to the capitol, and police are investigating the theft. Second, some Christian groups decided to respond with signs of their own:

The Rev. Ken Hutcherson of Redmond’s Antioch Bible Church put up his own sign at the Capitol on Friday that says, in part: “There is one God. … Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

This Christian evidently understands that the appropriate way to respond to speech you disagree with is competing speech, and good for him. But he doesn’t have much creativity: all he did was copy the wording of the FFRF’s sign and invert the message. This kind of mindlessness is precisely why I believe atheism can win on an open battlefield of ideas.

However, with competing signs now proliferating, I agree with those who say this is turning into a circus. That’s exactly why government shouldn’t endorse any religious or irreligious position: leave the Christmas trees, menorahs, atheist signs and Festivus poles to private property, where they belong. We are all more than capable of celebrating the holidays on our own, without government help.

About Adam Lee

Adam Lee is an atheist writer and speaker living in New York City. His new novel, Broken Ring, is available in paperback and e-book. Read his full bio, or follow him on Twitter.

  • abusedbypenguins

    They are afraid. Somewhere back in a very deep recess of their tiny little minds there exists a tiny doubt about their faith and to point that out angers them and they react. The good news is they don’t wear rags on their heads and carry AK’s or there would be a blood bath in the streets. Isn’t that sad that our fellow humans have the capacity to act in extreme violence over theory.

  • http://thewarfareismental.typepad.com cl

    Ah, I see. The believers get to promote their ideas, but not their critics.

    Believers who complain about this type of stuff fall headlong into error and hypocrisy, IMO. If we’re talking free speech, whenever churches and religious businesses can utilize public billboards, such privileges should unequivocably extend to atheists or anyone else with a message, IMO. Such is the rule with bill distribution in schools – all or nothing.

    But to what extent?

    For example, how would the reactions vary in the atheist community if YEC’ers or Satanists picked up on the trend?? What if YEC’ers countered with billboards that said, “In 6 days God made the Earth” or more simply, “God created the Earth?” It could be argued the first YEC example contains a factual error and thus should not be printed. I would be okay with that. However, the second YEC example is more complicated. What if Satanists sponsored a billboard that said, “Praise Satan?” Should the Aryan nation be allowed to utilize the billboards if the actual ads don’t reasonably promote hate?

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism Ebonmuse

    What if YEC’ers countered with billboards that said, “In 6 days God made the Earth” or more simply, “God created the Earth?” It could be argued the first YEC example contains a factual error and thus should not be printed. I would be okay with that.

    I wouldn’t. If we establish a policy that it’s acceptable to disallow any and all ads which contain factual errors, atheists and other minority groups would be the first targets (“We reject this ad because atheists are wrong to say that God doesn’t exist”). I think YECism is ludicrously false, but that doesn’t justify viewpoint discrimination. I would prefer that every viewpoint be heard, even the incorrect ones. I’m confident that the truth will win out if all sides are given a fair hearing.

    Should the Aryan nation be allowed to utilize the billboards if the actual ads don’t reasonably promote hate?

    The Aryan Nation has the same free speech rights as the rest of us. If they can find a billboard company willing to display their message (which, being private entities, those companies are not obliged to do), then yes, they can put up any billboard they like. I deplore their ideas, but I don’t believe in censorship. The only exception I would make to this principle is for an ad that advocates violence or other criminality.

  • Brad

    It could be argued …” under totalitarianism, perhaps.

  • Christopher

    cl,

    What if Satanists sponsored a billboard that said, “Praise Satan?”

    1. It would more likely read “Hail Satan” – as that’s their salute to themselves.

    2. I would be overjoyed to see such a thing: a world where once-feared minority people groups (like Satanists) can speak openly in the mainstream of society would be an outward sign of decay of existing social order’s power to surpress the voicing minority opinions. That would signal to people like myself that our golden age is nigh!

  • Virginia

    I have been posting in a dicussion forum in Hong Kong under a name that display my atheist position.
    That forum is about debating religious topics and so atheist, secularist or rationalist views is allowed. Yet bigots from the Christian camp tried to silence us at that discussion forum too — and yes — it is a waste of time trying to appease them — I hope one day here at my city we can also display billboards like that too.

  • http://1minionsopinion@wordpress.com 1minion

    Some of the comments on the Kentucky lawsuit

    http://www.wkyt.com/wymtnews/headlines/35374219.html

    are sigh-worthy:

    “Let’s take all these atheists and send them to Iraq and other war areas and see who they call on to get them home safe.”

    “This nations was built upon Christian values if you don’t like it leave. thats why our forefathers came over her to start with. I for ONE am sick of people like this telling me what can be put on a wall and what it can say. There are men and women dying each day so your kind can walk the streets and be FREE. Your kind makes me sick. Somebody find me a lawyer and I will sue them for pushing thier beliefs down my NECK. IN GOD WE TRUST. If you don’t like you can go to $%&&.”

    “Everybody has their beliefs BUT I’m getting sick and tired hearing from Atheists. Something like this should be where the people get to vote. I bet if that would happen God would be kept, pledge of allegiance, etc….”

  • mikespeir

    I’m all for freedom of speech and expression, but we need to police ourselves. First, there should be none of this tit-for-tat, “Well, they were nasty so that makes it okay for us to be nasty.” Nastiness doesn’t sell. And, yes, selling is what we’re trying to do. Maybe we’re trying to sell people on the notion that there likely is no god. Or, maybe, we’re simply trying to sell that we, too, have a right to express our opinions. Either way, we’re selling. Perhaps it would be good, then, to notice how Madison Avenue does it. One tactic conspicuous by its absence is insult. You don’t sell anything by slapping people.

  • http://whyihatejesus.blogspot.com OMGF

    Mikespeir,
    Was that a general comment or directed at something specific?

  • Entomologista

    Somehow I manage to drive by a zillion billboards proclaiming that Jesus loves me and that embryos are babies and yadda yadda without feeling it necessary to send death threats to the billboard company when I get home. These people see one – one! – billboard and throw a shit fit. That sort of thought process is very foreign to me.

  • velkyn

    we had the privelege to host a FFRF board here in Harrisburg, PA. Not much fuss about that one. However, about 6 months before we had on in Chambersburg, PA, just down the interstate, and there was such a snit over that, including a billboard in “response” saying “Why do atheists hate America?” Letters to the local paper were hugely against such ignorance and hatred. It seems that theists are intent on shooting themselves in the foot with their hatred and wasting money on lawsuits coming from their stupidity.

    and Mikespier, what have you see that is “nasty” as done by atheists in their attempting to spread their messages? I haven’t seen anything even remotely equivalent to the “nastiness” spread by supposed “good Christians”.

    I also don’t see a problem with showing just how stupid and hateful some Christians can are, and I’m sure they would say that was “insulting”. Wah, wah, wah.

  • 2-D Man

    …the billboard company took [the message] down in violation of the contract…

    Are you sure, Ebon? The linked article mentions nothing about the contract. It’s entirely reasonable that there would be a clause in the contract to the effect of “the company can take down the billboard at any time for any reason”. There would probably have to be something further about a refund too, but the article doesn’t mention the contract violation.

  • http://goddesscassandra.blogspot.com Antigone

    The only thing is, if there is a contract, will they ask for damages (money) or specific performance (the billboard being put back up, and then modicum of punitive damages for breach)? If it’s damages, that billboard is not going back up, and courts don’t like specific performance.

  • mikespeir

    OMGF,

    If it’s something that would insult you if turned around, that’s what I’m aiming at.

  • http://whyihatejesus.blogspot.com OMGF

    I was trying to find out if you were reacting to something in the OP or subsequent comments as being too strong, or if you were just speaking in generalities.

  • mikespeir

    I was speaking in generalities.

  • Alex Weaver

    Nastiness doesn’t sell.

    …considering the number of people who consider Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly worth listening to, this is wishful thinking at best.

  • Rieux

    Ebonmuse:

    I would prefer that every viewpoint be heard, even the incorrect ones. I’m confident that the truth will win out if all sides are given a fair hearing.

    I’m not, but I agree with your “preference” and your prior points anyway.

  • mikespeir

    …considering the number of people who consider Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly worth listening to, this is wishful thinking at best.

    Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly don’t sell. They preach to the choir.

  • http://atheistthinktank.net L6

    The claim that censorship makes news headlines is dubious. Atheism is censored all the time, but you only hear about it on internet forums and blogs. When it does make national news, the “story” isn’t that atheists were censored, but that atheists are a bunch of whiney lonely bitter babies.

  • http://bridgingschisms.org Eshu

    The bigots will attack us no matter what we say, so there’s no point in trying to appease them.

    I’m sure you’re right about this. There’s little point trying to talk to bigots and extremists. Thankfully not every theist is a bigoted extremist, otherwise putting up these messages would be pointless.

    That fact that some people will never listen, that some people will always be offended however politely and carefully we phrase our message – is not an excuse to deliberately insult or to resort to ad hominem attacks. I think that’s worth remembering. We might get frustrated, but lowering ourselves to the level of the worst theists will only make us look unreasonable in the eyes of the more reasonable people who might have listened to us. To make reasonable people listen we have to be far more sensible, logical and mature than the fundamentalists on the opposite side.

    Shouldn’t be too difficult.

    mikespeir:

    If it’s something that would insult you if turned around, that’s what I’m aiming at.

    Here’s a good example I’ve seen on a Christian poster recently: “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.”, Psalm 14:1

    That’s not an argument for God, it’s just an insult. In response to which one could quote, Matthew 5:22: “…and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

    I think we should also think carefully about how atheist billboard messages are likely to be interpreted. To me, and probably most atheists, the phrase “Imagine no religion” suggests that the world would be better without religion. It also reminds me of the peaceful lyrics of John Lennon.

    But to a Christian, “Imagine no religion” might be read as “Atheists wish to forcibly eradicate religion”. Alternatively they may read it as a pro-religion message, “How terrible would the world be without religion? – keep your faith!”. I’m sure the atheist who devised the slogan did not have either of those last two in mind!

  • Adele

    In my town, there was a great brouhaha over the erection of a Christmas tree on the town hall green – not because of indignation over the breach of separation of church and state, but because Muslims and Jews were annoyed at the overlooking of their religion.

    The town’s response was to erect a Muslim crescent and a Jewish menorah.

    My first impulse, of course, was to walk into town hall and announce myself as a “pagan,” and demand that they erect something to commemorate
    Saturnalia
    .

    Do you think it would make more sense, though, to remind them of the separation of church and state? Or would this be largely ineffective?

  • Adele

    Should the Aryan nation be allowed to utilize the billboards if the actual ads don’t reasonably promote hate?

    Certainly they should. Free speech extends to everyone.

  • Christopher

    Adele,

    My first impulse, of course, was to walk into town hall and announce myself as a “pagan,” and demand that they erect something to commemorate
    Saturnalia.

    That would be a difficult holiday to celebrate as slavery has been abolished (at least in theory) – who would step into the role of the slave that mocks his master?

  • Crotch

    Do you think it would make more sense, though, to remind them of the separation of church and state? Or would this be largely ineffective?

    I’d go with the first one, personally. Saying “separation of church and state” tends to have people complain about the “party-pooper taking away our religion”. Better to just make it appear as absurd as you can, I figure.

  • http://chromiumoxidegreen.blogspot.com Maria

    No explanation was given for why the atheist ads were rejected – which almost certainly means the real explanation stems from prejudice, because if they had had a legitimate reason, there would have been no reason to withhold it. Notably, APN has in the past permitted Christian groups to run bus ads containing Bible verses. Given this latest evidence, one might well suspect that their involvement in the Christian ads had more than purely commercial motives.

    I think it very well might have to do with purely commercial motives. Christian groups provide good money buying those billboards. Consider things like Focus on the Family’s list of retailers you shouldn’t shop at because they make insufficient use of christmas in their advertising–they are certainly not rare occurrences. It wouldn’t be outside the realm of likelihood for these christian groups to stop advertising with that particular billboard company upon hearing that they are also selling ads to atheists–that means revenue lost for the ad company for upsetting christians too much. It’s still dumb, and still the result of societal prejudice, just not directly on the part of the company–they’re just going with it because it’s profitable.

  • Siamang

    “I’d go with the first one, personally. Saying “separation of church and state” tends to have people complain about the “party-pooper taking away our religion”. Better to just make it appear as absurd as you can, I figure.”

    Nope, that won’t work either. You do something absurd, then you’re attacked for not showing proper respect or being flippant or deliberately mocking, and not intellectually serious.

    Damned whatever you do. Might as well do something.

  • Joffan

    Adele:

    My first impulse, of course, was to walk into town hall and announce myself as a “pagan,” and demand that they erect something to commemorate Saturnalia.

    I suggest a six-foot high model of a common stinkhorn.

  • Adele

    Of course, if you then get as many people as you can coming in with as many religious holidays as possible – Kwanzaa, anyone? – they might just get fed up and remove all of them.

    Then again, they might just start ignoring the protests after a bit.

  • Adele

    Come to think of it, I don’t think Kwanzaa actually is a religious holiday…

    Here’s a list of winter festivals in various religions. Wouldn’t it be great to see how many symbols they’d put up?

    Or… again… they’d just ignore it. Leaders who have violated church/state have a nasty habit of doing that.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism Ebonmuse

    2-D Man:

    There would probably have to be something further about a refund too, but the article doesn’t mention the contract violation.

    It’s possible you’re right. I inferred that conclusion based on the FFRF’s mention that they had prepaid for the full two-month period and that they evidently didn’t find out about the removal of their billboard until after the fact. (The billboard was reusable, and the company apparently destroyed it rather than return it to the FFRF.) If the billboard company was clever in drawing up the contract, they may have left themselves a legal out. Even so, the government has no right to pressure private companies to take down an ad because they dislike the message, especially when it comes to matters of religion.

    Eshu:

    That fact that some people will never listen, that some people will always be offended however politely and carefully we phrase our message – is not an excuse to deliberately insult or to resort to ad hominem attacks. I think that’s worth remembering.

    I agree. I don’t think ad hominem attacks serve a useful purpose. But I also don’t believe in watering down our criticisms just for the sake of politeness. We should say precisely what we feel, and there are times when being polemical is entirely appropriate: for instance, when confronting beliefs that are either morally outrageous, such as anti-gay discrimination, or scientifically ridiculous, such as demon possession or young-earth creationism. Treating beliefs like that calmly and dispassionately, I think, gives them a semblance of legitimacy they do not deserve. Instead, we should put forth the full strength of our rhetorical arsenal to drive them from the field.

    Maria:

    It wouldn’t be outside the realm of likelihood for these christian groups to stop advertising with that particular billboard company upon hearing that they are also selling ads to atheists–that means revenue lost for the ad company for upsetting christians too much.

    In America, I could believe that explanation – that’s pretty much what happened in Rancho Cucamonga, after all. But that seems less likely to me in Australia, where almost one in five citizens are non-religious. Christian lobbying groups are much less powerful in most of the Western world than here, which leads me to suspect the denial was just from prejudice on the part of this specific company.

  • 2-D Man

    Ebonmuse,

    If the billboard company was clever in drawing up the contract, they may have left themselves a legal out.

    I don’t think it’s clever. This kind of thing seems like standard procedure to me. I’m not sure what any billboard company does to approve messages before they go up, but it’s possible that a message they put up is subtly inappropriate for a billboard and they didn’t notice it at first. They need to be able to take it down in that case.

    But I agree that it seems distinctly possible that the city council decided they didn’t like the message and used governmental pressure to suppress a message they disagreed with. At the very least, until it’s shown otherwise, that council cannot be trusted.

  • Erika

    I will admit that the Olympia sign is not my favorite, but even so I have had to deal with an excessively vehement reaction to it. I suppose it is better than the sign not being noticed at all.

  • http://thewarfareismental.typepad.com cl

    Ebonmuse,

    I wouldn’t. If we establish a policy that it’s acceptable to disallow any and all ads which contain factual errors, atheists and other minority groups would be the first targets (“We reject this ad because atheists are wrong to say that God doesn’t exist”). I think YECism is ludicrously false, but that doesn’t justify viewpoint discrimination. I would prefer that every viewpoint be heard, even the incorrect ones. I’m confident that the truth will win out if all sides are given a fair hearing.

    Very well then. The following is a list of hypothetical bus slogans Ebonmuse has pre-cleared as acceptable in his efforts to avoid viewpoint discrimination by allowing any and all ads which contain factual errors, but do not advocate violence or criminality outright:

    The Holocaust Never Happened!

    Earth Really Is Flat!

    John F. Kennedy Is Alive And Well At LaGuardia!

    Detroit Lions – 2008 Super Bowl Champions!

    Fool, Don’t Wrap It – You Can’t Catch HIV From Unprotected Sex!

    Eating Any Food Will Kill You!

    Bayer – From The Makers Of Heroin! (this one’s actually correct)

    Gays And Atheists Deserve No Rights!

    Omaha, Nebraska Beachfront Property!

    “When I Grow Up, I Wanna Be A Porn Star!” (accompanied by picture of young girl)

    I’m not jesting. These are all acceptable bus slogans, because viewpoint discrimination is the real evil, and the truth will win out in the end, right?

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism Ebonmuse

    Yes, those are all legal.

  • Chet

    The Holocaust Never Happened!

    Doesn’t the Holocaust denier crowd (Duke et al) regularly buy ads in the NYT to this effect?

  • Leum

    Look, I got your hint on the other thread and I realize DA is your blog, your domain, your home, your castle. As a taxpaying, Constitution-believing American, I respect your right to do as you wish at DA for whatever reasons you wish.

    However,

    I would prefer that every viewpoint be heard, even the incorrect ones. I’m confident that the truth will win out if all sides are given a fair hearing… I don’t believe in censorship.

    Interesting considering this morning’s decision to close dialog on The Age of Wonder for no other reason than that you deemed such unfruitful. So do you mean that you don’t believe in censorship except when it serves your purposes?

    cl, there is a difference between the right to publish and the right to be publish. If I’m a publisher I have every right to run ads denying the Holocaust, calling for the criminalization of sodomy, and the return of slavery. However, I also have every right, and should have every right, to refuse to publish such advertisements.

    The point here is that we think publishing those ads should be legal, not that we think publishing them ought to be mandatory.

    Freedom of speech is not an easy thing to believe in. It means that you have to support Fred Phelps, the Ku Klux Klan, and neo-Nazis. So why support them? Because to the government, the things we say may be just as subversive and immoral. I support Phelps’ right to say “Thank God for dead miners” because I want to retain my right to say “God does not exist,” and I recognize that there are people want to shut me up. There is no way to ban speech we find immoral without putting our own at risk, too.

    Fair enough. I personally don’t think it should be legal for advertisers to deceive the public in order to procure capital gains.

    To an extent, I agree with you, provided that there is a clear link within the ad to the product being sold (otherwise it could be argued that an anti-gay ad is just a ploy to increase donations).

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism Ebonmuse

    When threads are closed, it’s for a reason. Please don’t restart dead-end debates in other threads.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism Ebonmuse

    I’ve updated the post with some further developments, plus an image of the FFRF’s billboard.

  • 2-D Man

    We are all more than capable of celebrating the holidays on our own, without government help.

    Ha! Well said!

  • Virginia

    In Hong Kong at the middle of the metropolitan areas, you can see Christian signs (one about 200 feet high and 40 feet across in downtown, one at a roof top declaring Jesus in Lord with a cross etc) and numerous across town — I really envy at what the American Humanist and others did in USA — I have to break the Asian taboo (quite a big one) to say something “not appropriate” at such festive season — am checking a local paper try to run an AD around 24-Dec-2008….. and make a cheap poster of my own…

  • Virginia

    Eshu,
    Not attempting to appease religious bigots and extremist or theist is not the same as deliberately insult or to resort to ad hominem attacks. All it means is not to avoid straightforward talks that will inevitably insult, such as displaying the sign at Olympia beside the Nativity scene, or running ads by AHA near Christmas, and certainly includes say “religion is superstition that enslave and harden minds”.

    Religiosity makes people hates the most harmless remarks for no reason.

  • Virginia

    I ran an advertisement in a local paper on 18-Dec-2008. Basically saying the god, Jesus etc are just some “supposed” origin of the holiday celebration, and that holidays are just for us to gather with our loved ones and take a break, and there’s no need of a religion.
    That paper is relatively small, a readership of around 30,000 but hope I can make an impact.
    The ad:

    About the reaction of the Christians to the Ads my friend has a keen observation:
    The problem for some self-proclaimed Christian is that once you think your God is the only one while all the others are of lesser kind or even devils, there is NO limit for you to show discrimination/hatred/bigotry towards another who has another religiion different from yours.
    I just receive an enlightening remark from a friend: