Comments on: Atheist Billboard Vandalized Again

By: ‘A’ Week On Facebook « Coreys Views

‘A’ Week On Facebook « Coreys Views — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:32:32 +0000

[...] seems to be fair game. From the vandalism that plagues secular billboards (more examples here, here and here) to the disparaging comments made by public figures, such as Bush Sr. reportedly [...]

By: ‘A’ Week on Facebook « Jessica Ocheltree

‘A’ Week on Facebook « Jessica Ocheltree — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 04:19:20 +0000

By: ‘A’ Week on Facebook

‘A’ Week on Facebook — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 04:07:08 +0000

By: Leah

Leah — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:55:53 +0000

While it’s easy for us to call them out on this, after some consideration I must admit that id the sign originally read “Many people are good with god” and someone scribbled in “Without” at the end, I’d probably laugh.

By: David

David — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:27:09 +0000

Since when is committing a crime, however insignificant, an acceptable practice for people of religion? I think many Christians have lost their sense of perspective, not to mention their sense of justice.

By: VJ

VJ — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:17:53 +0000

That’s an outrage. Good loving christians are criminals once again. I think perhaps if we got rid of christianity, the crime rate might go down.

By: Cincinnati Atheist Billboard Taken Down | Unreasonable Faith

Cincinnati Atheist Billboard Taken Down | Unreasonable Faith — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:15:09 +0000

[...] they vandalized the billboard in Moscow, Idaho. [...]

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:09:46 +0000

It seems to me that Christians are missing an opportunity to “let their light shine”, so to speak. I’ve seen, and have felt great respect for, some very pro-active steps taken by several Christians who post on this board in reaction to various forms of bigotry and intolerance directed at atheists.

So… why not start a letter-writing campaign to various churches in the vicinity of this sign, asking them to contribute to a fund which will reimburse AHA for this and all future acts of vandalism against their billboard?

Unlike minority organizations such as AHA, churches of the Christian community could probably raise this level of funds in a single service – and such a move would send a clear message that even I’d have a hard time dismissing. Naturally, I’d expect a portion of said fund to go to some sort of competing “JESUS” billboard right next to the atheist billboard – but that too speaks loud and clear about the *right* way to engage in this type of discourse.

Tizzle – one question. If, for each occurence of this type of incident, you had to pay $2500 out of your pocket, would your attitude toward the “little buggers” remain somewhat light-hearted?

By: Vas

Vas — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:11:52 +0000

Yo Tizzle
You can’t get worked up about this? Fair enough, it’s not my 2500 bucks either so I’m not all that worked up myself, but the folks at American Humanists must be hella pissed. Do some homework on hate crimes, not what you think they should be but rather as they are instated in law today. A hate crime does not require a physical assault or personal injury, it can be and often is a property crime. Take for example when a Neo Nazi group spray paints a swastika on a synagogue, maybe breaks in and desecrates a Torah, breaks some random religious brickabrack and doodads maybe a few windows and stuff. This is a hate crime. Look it up yourself, find a creditable source and fact check it. When Klansmen burn a cross on a black family’s front lawn, this is a hate crime. No physical assault on a person is required. Physical assaults can ALSO be hate crimes. I’m not advocating hate crime laws nor denouncing them, I’m not writing about how I feel they should be, I’m making an observation and comparing it to the rule book we are one and all obligated to live by. Frankly I am of the opinion that this incident qualifies rather well as a hate crime, which is to say it meets the criteria. If the perpetrators are caught they should rightfully be subject to the law as it was written when the crime was committed and if convicted should be sentenced per the guidelines for hate crimes.
The construction sign hacking comments have nothing to do with this incident or applicable laws no matter who thought it was funny, why compare the two? They are independent of each other and neither one influences the other. I think the comments on the sign are still open if you want to post about it.

The folks who put up the cash for this thing get to decide how to manage their own publicity not some random vandal, the vandal did not do anyone a favor. Heck it may have even been an inside job, a media hoax, not an attack. Who knows, you could speculate till the cows come home. Until someone is apprehended we just don’t know the who of this thing. But the facts in evidence right now could very easily qualify this as a hate crime. This was no random tag, it was a purposeful targeting, and the remaining question is why this billboard was targeted.

By: Tizzle

Tizzle — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:44:43 +0000

Hey, Vas, say what you will about me, but leave my father out of this. He doesn’t even cheat on his taxes or use curse words.

I’m sorry about your building. Certainly, prosecute the little buggers perpetuating this crime. Tagging is “worse” than graffiti art because it’s only intent is to destroy, I think. I have never vandalized, and have not to my recollection had anything of mine vandalized. I just can’t get worked up about this, but I wanted to point out that a few people thought it was funny when the person changed the traffic light, but don’t think this is; perhaps different people are posting.

Billboards seem like fair game, though, since it’s about advertising, and as someone else said somewhere, this will only bring atheists more attention. I don’t know too many religious people, but I’ll bring this story up now, where I wouldn’t have when it was just a billboard.

Hate crimes: since no one was injured, and there was no call to injure someone, I thought it wouldn’t be a hate crime. Clearly there are measurable damages here, but I didn’t think there was intent. *I’m not a lawyer.