by Jesse Galef
What is so threatening about our billboard ads?
I don’t understand why religious individuals get so offended by the words “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.” or “Millions are good without God.” They have an absolute right to be offended and an absolute right to speak out against our peaceful message. What they don’t have is the right to stifle our speech.
First they vandalized the billboard in Moscow, Idaho. Twice.
Now, the Cincinnati Coalition of Reason billboard is being taken down and moved because the landowner leasing the space was receiving multiple threats.
Around 2:00 PM yesterday, the United Coalition of Reason, which paid $3,875.00 for a one-month run of the billboard, was contacted by Lamar Advertising of Cincinnati. Lamar reported that the landowner of the site had been threatened over the billboard’s message and wanted it taken down. Lamar only leases the land the billboard stands on.
“We weren’t given the landowner’s name or precise details,” reported Fred Edwords, national director of the United Coalition of Reason. “Nor did we pursue them. It was sufficient to learn that this person had received multiple, significant threats and that Lamar would act quickly to alleviate the problem.”
Edwords added: “Lamar was most apologetic to us regarding the situation. It was a development they hadn’t expected. Nor had we. Nothing like this has ever happened to us before.”
I think everyone involved is handling the situation well – the Cincinnati CoR is concerned for the owner, the advertising company will accommodate the move, and it sounds as though everyone is being civil and reasonable.
Oh, except the people making threats. Seriously, what’s their problem?
If we could get rid of christianity, maybe the crime rate would go down.
Way to go! Vandalism and crime, justified by the perpetrators.
If this billboard so offends god, couldn’t he just strike it with a lightning bolt? But he does seem to strike a lot of church steeples. Allah at work?
God’s too busy to do anything, so he always has his followers do his bidding. It might seem like he’s not really there, but trust me, he’s just really good at delegation. He told me so in person without any witnesses last night!
And the seventh day he rested. And rested. And rested…
Funny how “Christian” it is to threaten violence just because somebody says something you don’t like. Given Christianity’s early history of being persecuted, my irony meter is off the scale.
Reminds me of the scene in Religulous where Bob Maher goes into the trailer church, questions their beliefs, and that big guy threatens to throw him out – physically.
Seattle Atheists (seattleatheists.org) is buying ad space, inside of city buses. They’ve done it before and gained a lot of members. I haven’t heard of any vandalism, but the people of Seattle seem to be pretty laid-back…
We are pretty laid back, but there is still a lot of hate against the signs. FFRF is in the middle of signs on buses (for the convention last weekend) and people are pissed (so are the Seattle Atheists). If it wasn’t for billboards I wouldn’t be part of FFRF.
That’s Ridiculous. I’m Pagan, and certainly not offended by it. To each his own! Have you seen this from the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html
I believe they used the correct word in the article – “childish”
From that article:
“Lets say an individual caterer is a staunch Christian and someone wants him to do a cake with two grooms on top,” said council member Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 6), the sponsor of the amendment. “Why can’t they say, based on their religious beliefs, ‘I can’t do something like that’?”
For the same reason that a “staunch” racist caterer could not refuse to suppy a wedding cake with a black groom and a white bride, that’s why. Just because a religious organisation has it’s right to be bigotted protected, that does not mean that individuals and non-religious entities should have that same right. Where does it end? Holiday Inn refusing to let a double room to a gay couple? Would that be acceptable? No, of course not. These people need to grow up.
I bet it would cause a stink if an atheist business owner denied service to a religious person…
while a caterer refusing to supply a certain cake decoration out of bigotry is disgusting I think its within their rights (as is my right if I hear of such a shop, never to buy anything from it). The equivalent for this story will be the KKK sending death treats to a shop that made a cake with an interracial couple on top.
Mmm… it is the cateter right, but it is not shop’s right. They would have to find another cateter as they are a public service, shouldn’t they? You can’t deny me a service based on racists believes
I’m not an expert on the legal technicalities but I think in such a case not doing buisness with such a shop, whether they have broken the letter of the law or not, will be more effective then any legal action in making them change their policy or go under either will work for me.
Yeah, because if they are forced to do it, they’ll probably spit in your cake!
Funny you should mention the gay couple being refused a room example –
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163810/Gay-couple-sue-Christians-barring-hotel-bed.html
thought you might find this interesting..
This is what it must feel like to be in an Islamic country where the religious zealots threaten those who don’t do the “right” thing, who don’t succumb to religious pressure.
Makes you wonder if more ardent action won’t eventually be required to spare us the barbarism that religious pundits seem so willing to undertake.
What a shame. Rotten shame. If ever anyone needed more reason to become an activist, to counter these religious terrorists, to put your secular money where its needed most, THIS IS IT!
I think that we forget one crucial fact when we see something like this: a billboard like this offends the very core premise of a believer’s being. Not only that they are wrong, but that everything they have built on that core belief is built on a lie. You can’t be surprised when they react with violence, with hate, with terror in order to protect that core belief. What is a matter of rationality to us is a matter of that most irrational of feelings: faith. Some people can’t survive without that core belief and are willing to go to extreme lengths to protect their world view. It’s sad, but not all the baby turtles make it to the sea; some people are never going to examine their beliefs with any sort of rationality.
The thing I noticed is that the billboard company actually put up the ad somewhere else. It seems that almost all of the other billboards and bus ads have been removed. At least this company has the integrity to put the billboard back up. Maybe there is a little bit of hope for this country.
Existentialist version:
Don’t believe in God?
You are alone.
Reason #866 why I moved the hell out of Ohio…
I think everyone involved is handling the situation well – the Cincinnati CoR is concerned for the owner, the advertising company will accommodate the move, and it sounds as though everyone is being civil and reasonable. Oh, except the people making threats. Seriously, what’s their problem?
They are religious.
This has been another edition of “Short Answers to Simple Questions”.
There’s a lot of talk about “Islamofascists,” but what about general religiofascists? On American soil, I fear Christiofascists as much or more than “Islamofascists.”
Death threats against the owner of the land on which the billboard was erected are very much akin to threatening women with stoning if they leave their homes without a burka.
Acquaintances have earnestly told me I’m going to hell if I don’t “find Jesus.” First of all, I don’t think I ever had him, so how could I have lost him? Secondly, as I have said many times, if the assortment of people I’ve met who are certain they’ll end up in Heaven is any indication, hell is a much more appropriate and pleasant place to be. At least some of those present will be good company. Since that’s apparently where all atheists are going, I’ll fit right in. Maybe we’ll have our own little flaming corridor to inhabit.
Toasty! I’ll see you there!
I’ll ask to be buried with a coffin full of burgers and hot dogs. Since the fire is already on we can have a BBQ as soon as I get there.
Veggie burger for me please!
If Christians get mansions in Heaven, do atheists get mansions in Hell?
Though I would prefer a penthouse overlooking the Lake of Fire.
Or perhaps merely plush hotel rooms, like in Heinlein’s Job: A Comedy of Justice.
nomad—Love it …. it is so ZEN!!!
Don’t believe in God?
You are alone.
If you really think about that you soon realize (if you use any brains) that the phrase naturally finishes to
Believe in God?
You are still alone.
That was good enough that I’m not going to comment about how religious pluckers are nothing but dirt-bag criminals using a really lame excuse.
Anyone remember the thread that was here a while back about the atheist who vandalized an advert (in a subway?)? IIRC, there were quite a few people — including Daniel, as the comments make obvious — who found his actions to be funny (although there were some who saw it for the crime that it was).
But what’s interesting to me is the tone of the OP in both threads. In this one, we get “Seriously, what’s their problem?” In the previous thread, we got “A man decided to check his answer (being “no”), which caused him to be arrested.”
Vandalism is a crime, regardless of who’s doing it and what’s being vandalized. I sincerely hope I’m not the only one who sees the glaring inconsistency between these two posts.
Here’s the previous post/thread: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/
Yah, because Vandalizing a poster who’s advertisement is inviting you to check a box and making threats against the owner of a Billboard, they are the same thing. You got that all you bigoted athiest bullies!
I never used the word bigot, nor did I come anywhere close to implying it. I simply mentioned the inconsistency of the tone and content of the two posts/threads.
But your comment is a case in point example of what I’m talking about. Vandalism is okay in the one case but not okay in the other — that’s what you’ve just said. And that’s inconsistent.
I agree that vandalism is not ok – I dont want to look at your dirty spray paint on anything – billboard, wall, building, whatever.
I think the difference people are seeing is that paint is a benign weapon that doesn’t hurt anyone. Yes it’s ugly, but harmless. A death threat is a bit over the edge. Multiple death threats are just plain ridiculous.
Well, you’re absolutely right. Death threats are beyond ridiculous; they’re criminal and dangerous.
But I think if you were to read the comments from the thread to which I posted, you will see that some (not all) people literally madethe argument that Sunny Day did above — vandalizing that advertisement was acceptable, because the advert was asking for it.
To me, that implies that the issue isn’t as much about the vandalism itself but more about what is actually being vandalized. Sort of a prototypical ingroup/outgroup issue.
Sorry, I did not read through the other thread, and I don’t disagree that people can be biased one way or another.
On the one hand, vandalism is wrong. On another hand, it’s communication of a sort. So you are comparing answering a written question by checking one of the boxes provided with making threatening remarks? How is this not apples and oranges?
No, I’m not comparing deaththreats and checked boxes.
I’m comparing this article, which rightly raises the free speech issue in connection to a twice-vandalized billbaord, and the previous article, which makes a joke out of a vandalized billboard.
That’s the extent of the comparison. As I’ve said at least five times now, the deaththreats are awful, horrible, criminal and should be taken very, very seriously. OF COURSE that’s more serious than a checked box. I’ve never once questioned that.
Brgulker – I think your overall point is valid and worth discussing.
If we were looking for distinctions, I think the “check in the box” did little to conceal the intended message. The vandalism didn’t also destroy the free expression of the advertisers. On the Iowa billboard, our message was painted over to change it – something not easily noticed by anyone driving by. Our ability to express ourselves was squelched.
I think you’re right that there’s some ‘us vs them’ mentality. It’s a good reminder and a good thought.
Wouldn’t it be great if there were a plainclothes cop nearby our billboards to arrest the vandals?
Jesse,
I think we would both agree, the “check the box” advertisement was a rhetorical tool, not a literal request. And if we’re honest with each other, I would think anyone with basic reading comprehension and basic familiarity with advertising/marketing techniques (i.e., anyone who lives in a second or first world country) could properly draw that distinction. IMO, to make the argument that said advertisement was “asking to be checked” is simply not fully honest nor rational.
But please take my point above for what it was — there was very little protest in the OP or comments in that thread. Yes, there were some who said it was wrong. But others (the majority?) found it humorous. Here, no one finds the vandalism humorous at all. Heck, read the very first comment here!
Way to go! Vandalism and crime, justified by the perpetrators
Yes, you’re correct. The death threats differentiate the two issues substantially; I don’t mean to downplay that. But the inconsistency hear is blinding. It’s a case in point example of ingroup/outgroup bias.
Around the blogosphere, UF included, atheists blast Christians for being inconsistent and hypocritical. Often, rightly so, as I’ve voiced here and elsewhere. But frankly, what’s happening here is inconsistent and hypocritical as well.
I understand your point and I agree – I was merely saying that one form of vandalism was worse than the other by preventing the advertiser from getting the message across.
It’s definitely valuable to have this self-reflection in our community to make sure that we’re not being inconsistent and hypocritical, and I think you’ve raised a good point on that front.
Jesse Galef wrote:
I understand your point and I agree – I was merely saying that one form of vandalism was worse than the other by preventing the advertiser from getting the message across.
I definitely don’t agree, and his point is not valid. I don’t give a shit about vandalism of billboards, it’s the content of the message that is important. I am actually all in favor of vandalism of billboards, in principle, as a freedom of expression, no matter what the message is. I consider it a separate issue outside of regular vandalism of personal property. Usually they are an eyesore and a blight on the landscape, even when I occasionally agree with the message or like the product. So, fuck ‘em.
The more important issue to be debating here is what the fuck is wrong with someone who would issue death threats to people over a billboard being posted? So, spinning the argument off into a sidebar about how wrong it is to put paint on people’s property, making a comparison between the two completely different incidents, misses the point completely, and distracts from the crux of the argument.
It’s definitely valuable to have this self-reflection in our community to make sure that we’re not being inconsistent and hypocritical, and I think you’ve raised a good point on that front.
I don’t, I think he raised a point that micromanages the details of the debate and ignores the important heart of the matter. I think this is an example of something that atheists often fall prey to, which is overthinking things to the point of crippling any consensus and action. Now we will all sit here flagellating ourselves for how wrong we were in not having the same animosity toward the guy who vandalized a Christian billboard. What’s the point? One message deserved to be vandalized because it is stupid, and the vandalism served a purpose in that case. In this case, the vandalism represented bigotry and hatred. So, they are not equivalent, and focusing on the simple act of vandalism across the board is silly.
I don’t, I think he raised a point that micromanages the details of the debate and ignores the important heart of the matter.
Then re-read my comments, 3D. I’ll even copy and paste them for you:
Well, you’re absolutely right. Death threats are beyond ridiculous; they’re criminal and dangerous.
One message deserved to be vandalized because it is stupid, and the vandalism served a purpose in that case. In this case, the vandalism represented bigotry and hatred.
So, vandalism is acceptable in one case and not in the other. You just proved my point, thanks.
So, they are not equivalent, and focusing on the simple act of vandalism across the board is silly.
I never said the acts themselves were equivalent. On the one hand, vandalism is vandalism in that both are criminal acts in the same way that speeding is speeding, whether you’re going 5 over or 50 over. But that’s not even the point I’m making.
I’m comparing the reactions of the two posts by UF authors and the comments of UF readers. One act of vandalism seems to be generally accepted while the other is being vehemently rejected. That’s inconsistent, no matter how you might explain it away.
Are there other factors? Absolutely, and the death threats merit serious concern, as I’ve said several times now. But those other factors don’t cover the inconsistency. Period.
I agree that, probably, if our other’s post vandal would have done the same with an atheist billboard I wouldn’t have symphatized with him (my fault). But once said that… I think that vandalising with an spray is not a serious crime, it is a childish one. Definitely it is not a hate crime per se (depends on the missage written)
And I don’t think the same about threatening someone. My reaction to an atheist threatening to hurt a religious person would have been the same as in the other way around, I would ask the police to pursue him.
oops, by the way, nice to see you commenting again :-)
“I never used the word bigot, …”
You have in the past, I was just trying to agree with your wrongheaded point.
“nor did I come anywhere close to implying it. I simply mentioned the inconsistency of the tone and content of the two posts/threads.”
The inconsistency is because they were not similar. Your attempt to equate the two are idiotic. In one case a billboard was vandalized once. In the other case billboard was vandalized repeatedly and because it wasn’t enough threats were made against the owner of the billboard.
As to the tone and content of the two threads this is just more of brgulker’s Failed Martyrdom Bullshit. Nobody has posted anything about the just the vandalism as being worse in this case and not the other. In all cases the threats were mentioned or implied.
“But your comment is a case in point example of what I’m talking about. Vandalism is okay in the one case but not okay in the other— that’s what you’ve just said. And that’s inconsistent.”
Only if you stuff words in my mouth and intentionally miss the point. I guess christians making threats must be so commonplace in your world you just disregard them.
You have in the past, I was just trying to agree with your wrongheaded point.
…
Only if you stuff words in my mouth and intentionally miss the point.
So, you’re putting words in my mouth, which you admit to, and I’m the one intentionally missing the point.
The inconsistency is because they were not similar. Your attempt to equate the two are idiotic. In one case a billboard was vandalized once. In the other case billboard was vandalized repeatedly and because it wasn’t enough threats were made against the owner of the billboard.
No, I’m comparing the reaction of UF authors and UF readers to the two situations. I’ve singled out the act of vandalism specifically because the reactions are inconsistent. I’ve freely admitted the seriousness of the death threats and the dissimilarity between the two acts of vandalism.
Let’s try it this way: if the death threats were missing from this entire event, do you think UF would still react negatively to an atheist billboard being vandalized?
Obviously, yes.
So why not object the same way to vandalizing a Christian advertisement?
Ingroup/Outgroup bias.
You can take all the shots at me that you care to; it only makes my point more obvious, Sunny Day.
“So, you’re putting words in my mouth, which you admit to, and I’m the one intentionally missing the point.”
So, expanding on a point that you brought up before by using words you’ve used in the past where you’ve vainly attempted to conflate atheism with bigotry,is putting words in your mouth?! HAHAHA!
“No, I’m comparing the reaction of UF authors and UF readers to the two situations.”
Absolute Bullshit! Name three.
You must not be reading the same forum posting’s I’ve read here. If you claim
“I’ve singled out the act of vandalism specifically because the reactions are inconsistent.”
Name them.
Besides Aor, I defy you to find another regular commenter here who thinks I have even one hostile bone in my entire body toward atheists simply because they are atheists. I absolutely don’t like some of you, because you act like jerks in your comments. But I have absolutely never attempted to conflate atheism and bigotry, absolutely never. Are there individual atheists who are bigots? Absolutely. Same is true for Christians, Muslims, fill in the blank. But I’ve never made the types of generalizations that you’re accusing me of.
Absolute Bullshit! Name three.
You must not be reading the same forum posting’s I’ve read here. If you claim …. Name them.
Read my comments. I’ve done so multiple times. Over and over again. With quotations and links.
@brgulker
I’m not sure why you need to misrepresent my opinions of you brgulker. I merely think that you lie when challenged on your words and opinions because I have seen you do so and put you in those situations where I could predict that you would lie. At no time have I ever claimed that you are hostile toward atheists simply because they are atheists. I’m frankly doubt that I ever referred to you as hostile at all. I think you are afraid of the truth because your behavior implies that you know when you need to be deceptive, and that is impossible without knowing there is a truth you must avoid.
This is me challenging you to back up your claims again. Find a quote, or drop the shtick. Playing the wounded believer is a common tactic from those who want an excuse to not back up what they say.
I disagree with you about brgulker, Aor. We’ve debated a lot, and I don’t think we’ve ever gotten into the kind of sniping match which you guys seem to get into, despite the fact that I’m (a really very militant) atheist and he’s a Christian. In fact, NOT getting into an argument with me is a pretty clear sign that he must be a calm and well reasoned debater, ‘cos I’ll pretty much argue with anybody about anything, just for shits and giggles.
He is generally calm, sure.. and a liar. Well reasoned? Sometimes, but still a liar. What is the chance of having an honest debate with someone who will lie to defend his religious beliefs? Without honesty there can be no honest debate. When push comes to shove, when you make a point that he cannot deal with honestly he will choose to deal with it dishonestly rather than concede a point that has been made.
Try asking him about how reliable an education on the history of the Maya would be if it came from a university that assumed all Maya mythology were true. When he scrambles around looking for a way to not concede a point like that which any honest person would, then you may have a different opinion of him.
Aor,
I’ve said this to you before. I have no interest in conversation with you. My interest stopped when you accused me of enabling murder. You’re beyond irrational, and I see no point in continuing a conversation with that type of person.
As Custador said, he (as well as several others here) and I have no problem disagreeing agreeably. OTOH, you go straight for the personal attack. I sometimes think that you, Sunny Day, and Glenn Beck might all be the same person. Your styles of argumentation are eerily similar.
I DID answer your question about Mayan history and religion, for the record. In several posts. You just didn’t like the answer, so you called me names.
@brgulker
Of course you have no interest. I ask you questions that make you want to lie rather than answer honestly. Why would you want to keep being put in a position where you have to lie? You lied about me on this very thread. I challenged you to back up your claims, and you lied to cover up your lie, again. This is predictable behavior from you. When you get challenged, when someone you don’t like makes a point you can’t deal with.. you lie. You accuse me of hypocrisy and when challenged to back it up, you play your little bullshit games.
You can play the victim all you like, but its not convincing.
If this would have been 3 checkboxes asking if someone believed in a god, and someone checked “yes” I’d of found that amusing too, though less amusing on a billboard than a small paper. If they invite people to do something, they’re stupid if they don’t expect someone to do it.
Regardless, just because I find something amusing doesn’t mean I think it’s right. Vandalism is still a crime and there should be consequences for it.
When people are threatening people because of a harmless billboard, though, that’s another issue than vandalism.
I think the threats are also an issue of hypocrisy. Doesn’t the church promote the message that “God is peace” and whatnot? Resorting to threats is not peaceful (or mature).
Daniel,
If you ask someone a rhetorical question, are you always expecting an answer?
The “check the box” advert was obviously, and painfully so I think, a rhetorical tool, not a literal request. I don’t see how you can continue to maintain that the sign was “asking for” a response.
My point is someone is going to check a box on such a flyer. Don’t you think? About such passionate issues, it’s best not to have an ad that invites a physical response like that. At least that’s my perspective.
If a billboards said, “What do you think about atheism?” and then had a blank line, I wouldn’t expect most people to vandalize it. But I’d be pretty thick-headed not to think someone was actually going to climb up and write something.
Let’s go to politics. Someone puts up a ad that says, “Do you like Obama?” and it has two large checkboxes with “yes” and “no” — wouldn’t that be stupid? Someone is going to check the “no” box because people feel that passionately.
It doesn’t make vandalizes right. It doesn’t make the ad makers wrong. But it shouldn’t make anyone surprised that such an ad is vandalized.
But regardless, I’m agreeing with you. Vandalism is wrong on any side.
Daniel Florien wrote:
It doesn’t make vandalizes right. It doesn’t make the ad makers wrong. But it shouldn’t make anyone surprised that such an ad is vandalized.
But regardless, I’m agreeing with you. Vandalism is wrong on any side.
I disagree, I think vandalism of billboards hurts no one and is an effective advertising tool, on any side. I’m more likely to think about the message on a billboard if someone took the time to vandalize it, than if it is in its corporate, pristine state, because it represents a certain level of passion about the topic.
The glaring problem here is not the vandalism, it is that Christians are a lot more likely to write bigoted, hateful messages while atheists are more likely to be satirical and turn the billboard’s visibility to their own advantage.
If the atheist had written “DIE XTIANS” on the billboard or something of that nature, I would consider the events equivalent. But that wasn’t the case.
I still don’t think that writing on someone’s add is equivalent in any way to threatening a specific person
The only person who has said that those two things are the same is Sunny Day, Francesc.
Actually you implied it when you attempted to portray the 2 different articles as dealing with the same subject matter while ignoring the additional niggling detail about threats being made.
“But what’s interesting to me is the tone of the OP in both threads. In this one, we get “Seriously, what’s their problem?” In the previous thread, we got “A man decided to check his answer (being “no”), which caused him to be arrested.””
I disagree, I think vandalism of billboards hurts no one and is an effective advertising tool, on any side.
Untrue. Someone is paying to advertise something. The customer paying for the advertisement space is out that money. So, unless theft is no longer injurious, someone is hurt.
Brgulker, I hear what you’re saying, but I think you also have to remember that the events took place in different coutries. The first one was in the UK, where we are mostly atheist/agnostic and pretty much ALL have a very sardonic sense of humour. Any billboard with a check-box in the UK is pretty much guaranteed to have the box checked by a member of the public – it’s just how we are.
The other part of it, of course, is that the UK incident INVITED people to check the box. It was only dealt with as vandalism because they didn’t like the box that got checked – well, tough luck, think of better adverts, frankly.
That is NOT the same thing as threatening violence because a billboard says something you don’t like. No atheist has done that over a religious advert (to my knowledge), however there are PLENTY of instances where theists have acted quite outrageously because atheists want to be able to advertise too (remember the London bus driver who refused to drive a bus with an atheist ad on the side of it? He was paid compensation over it – he should have been fired for religious intollerance, and if it had been the other way around, he would have been).
In sum, the tone of both articles was different because they dealt with different incidents. If, instead of checking the box, that man had threatened violence against the advertisers, he would have been just as wrong – but he didn’t, so he wasn’t (and if he had, it would have been front-page news – note again that because it’s the other way around, it gets little or no coverage).
If he understood the difference between the two articles, he wouldn’t be able to climb up on the cross and tell us how unfair we’re being.
I think he understands the difference, but as usual he is unwilling to admit it because it would weaken his overall position. It is similar to when he wouldn’t honestly respond to my hypothetical about religious/historical education from a Maya perspective. To speak the truth would weaken his argument (and in the case of my hypothetical, it would admit weaknesses in his own religiously based education) so he uses distractions and little semantic games to deceive.
When challenged, people like him revert to deception. Its all they have to defend their opinions with.
I think he understands the difference, but as usual he is unwilling to admit it because it would weaken his overall position.
That is blatantly untrue. It’s amazing to me that someone who claims to be reasonable and rational can so consistently lie about another person and his words. You are the very definition of a hypocrite, Aor, or at the very least, that is how you present yourself in these comment threads.
Even your fellow atheists on this forum have called you out for that when you’ve misrepresented my comments in the past.
If I’m a hypocrite then show some examples. Cite your sources, in other words. You make these accusations and never seem to back them up. On the other hand, I can go back and find those times when you played little games rather than admit things that any honest reader would know to be true. Like you do here in this post and on other posts on what seems to be a regular basis.
So if you think I’m a hypocrite, back it up or its just another example of your self serving lies.
You’re a hypocrite because you accuse me of this:
On the other hand, I can go back and find those times when you played little games rather than admit things that any honest reader would know to be true.
which is untrue, while doing the identical thing yourself. You can’t find one comment thread in which I actually do what you accuse me of. Hypocrite.
Goodbye, Aor.
Interesting. So you are saying I am a hypocrite for something I did after you called me a hypocrite? Are you out of your mind?
I have already referred to the hypothetical about the Maya, where you played your little games. If you want me to link to that post I’m sure I could do that easily enough. On the other hand, you don’t seem to want to provide some example of my hypocrisy.. a real example, not another of these self serving lies of yours.
Yeah, I know you won’t respond. That is because you are smart enough to know when you have been caught in a lie, but not honorable enough to admit to it. This, again, is why I come down you regularly.. you are a cowardly liar who refuses to back up his claims.
Hello? Are you going to back up your claims, or is this another example of your self serving lies?
Brgulker and Aor, can I make a suggestion? You guys are never going to see eye-to-eye. Your discussions have become circular and are not achieving anything but making you both angry. Stop. Just stop. Seriously. Accept that you disagree with each other, hell, accept that you dislike each other, and just leave it there.
I’m fine with disagreeing. I just happen to think that if this liar calls me a hypocrite I have the right to ask him to back up his claims. A world where people like that didn’t get challenged on their bullshit would be a very unpleasant place. Would you just take it silently if someone pulled that crap on you?
Not willingly, but since you’re both levelling the exact same accusations at each other and it’s gone on for days on this thread alone, if it was me I’d have called it quits by now and just expended my energy on something else. I do think (and please don’t take offense, I’m just being honest) that your tone with gulker is generally confrontational from the outset, and that doesn’t leave much chance that he won’t get offended. I have to say that from my point of view he’s one of the few reasonable theists I’ve ever debated.
I’ll give you an example from my own comment above. I was addressing gulker about the disparity between the two articles he referred to, and you said:
I think he understands the difference, but as usual he is unwilling to admit it because it would weaken his overall position.
You’ve pre-empted gulker’s response in a very confrontational manner, which I personally didn’t see any call for, especially as gulker’s actual reply to me was:
Good point. That’s something I didn’t consider. I wouldn’t have had you not pointed that out… I think if you read my comments… you’ll see that I’m not trying to conflate the seriousness of the two events. Rather, I’m simply comparing how UF readers/authors have reacted to the two events.
Now, he’s answered my point in a thoughtful way which has clarified the discussion for me – and on that point he’s quite right, there is a significant difference in the way we as a group have reacted to the two incidents, because the two incidents were very different and we were reacting to different elements of each story – a point gulker has already accepted.
Bottom line: You’re both wound up at each other and doing the classic blog-arguing thing of seeing each others faults at times when those faults aren’t actually on display.
Chillax, dudes.
Custador wrote:
Not willingly, but since you’re both levelling the exact same accusations at each other and it’s gone on for days on this thread alone, if it was me I’d have called it quits by now and just expended my energy on something else. I do think (and please don’t take offense, I’m just being honest) that your tone with gulker is generally confrontational from the outset, and that doesn’t leave much chance that he won’t get offended. I have to say that from my point of view he’s one of the few reasonable theists I’ve ever debated.
I disagree, I think that in general, people should be more concerned with the fact that what a guy is saying is a bunch of transparent bullshit, and less concerned with whether he says them in a pleasant tone or a confrontational one.
We got a lot of this during the beginning of the Iraq War, when it was suddenly perfectly acceptable to say all kinds of horrible, disgusting things like supporting genocide, and take all sorts of inhumane positions, like torture is OK, as long as you do so politely. But calling these polite people out on their positions became out of bounds because everyone is entitled to spout off a bunch of nonsense as long as they do so politely.
It’s just a stealth way of injecting irrational bullshit into a discussion to sidetrack it. I’m nice and polite to people who deserve it, it’s a meritocracy.
Now, he’s answered my point in a thoughtful way which has clarified the discussion for me – and on that point he’s quite right, there is a significant difference in the way we as a group have reacted to the two incidents, because the two incidents were very different and we were reacting to different elements of each story – a point gulker has already accepted.
So if he ‘accepted’ it, then what the hell was his point in the first place? His entire premise was that people were treating two *similar* situations differently, because one incident pro-atheist and one was anti-atheist, and they were being biased. Once you realize that the two situations weren’t similar at all, then his entire silly premise evaporates.
@3D
“Once you realize that the two situations weren’t similar at all, then his entire silly premise evaporates”
Jesse, the writer of one of those articles we are comparing, acknowledged that he may had, at any level, a point. I myself agreed that I was emphatysing differently with both actions, though I think they are different in degree. Maybe our definition of “silly premise” is not the same.
“I disagree, I think that in general, people should be more concerned with the fact that what a guy is saying is a bunch of transparent bullshit, and less concerned with whether he says them in a pleasant tone or a confrontational one”
I agree to some extent. People should be more concerned with the meaning that with the way to express a sentence. I also don’t think that your exemple applies in anyway to the confontation between brgulker and aor. And my opinion is that Aor has been unfair with brgulker.
I do really appreciate that a reasonable christian can express his opinions in this website, and accusing him repeteadly of lying or being hipocritical is not the way I would choose to react -unless he deserved it, and again, my humble opinion is that this was not the situation.
Brgulker, I hear what you’re saying, but I think you also have to remember that the events took place in different coutries
Good point. That’s something I didn’t consider. I wouldn’t have had you not pointed that out …
The other part of it, of course, is that the UK incident INVITED people to check the box.
Well, I do see how the entire campaign was designed to elicit a response. However, when I looked at the photos from the particular ad that was vandalized, I don’t see how any sensible person would think that that particular ad was literally requesting a response from the readers. IIRC, it was covered in glass, was several feet large, and was in a heavily trafficked place, correct?
To me, and I think to sensible person, that particular poster/ad was obviously asking a rhetorical question, one that was meant to be answered in the mind, not physically on the poster. Wouldn’t you agree with that?
That is NOT the same thing as threatening violence because a billboard says something you don’t like.
I am NOT saying that the two things are the same! Obviously they are not! Death threats or writing on a public advertisement, which is more serious? Hmmm… Give me a little credit, at least! :)
I think if you read my comments (and not Sunny Day’s misrepresentation of them), you’ll see that I’m not trying to conflate the seriousness of the two events. Rather, I’m simply comparing how UF readers/authors have reacted to the two events. Custador, people have attempted to justify a public act of vandalism against a Christian billboard (because it was “asking for it”), and in the same breath condemned vandalizing an atheist billboard.
Doesn’t that smell a little bit of ingroup/outgroup bias to you? Even a little bit?
I think I would answer that by saying that bias is human nature. Everything we see, do and interact with is subjective to us. Doubtless if you read the coverage on a Christian blog, the bias would be equal – but opposite.
I completely agree. We are all inevitably biased by a myriad of factors. But I don’t think we’re forced to succumb to them. As a Christian, I’m naturally going to sympathize with a Christian. Same is true for you as an atheist. And that list could go on.
I made my final comments below. I know you’re not a bunch of hypocrites around here. I like posting here because it’s generally a great place for conversation, and there are lots of great commenters.
But in this case, I really do think that ingroup bias is generating (and blinding some people from) hypocrisy. As someone who’s not part of the ingroup, and I don’t know how to put this without sounding like an arrogant jerk so please take this with a grain of salt, it seems obvious to me. And I’m kinda banging my head against my desk trying to figure out why it’s not as obvious to others as well.
I thought for the most part, people thought the guy who answered No on the questionnaire-style ad was out of line – it was amusing, but he was carted off and had to pay for his damages to the property, which is to be expected. It would be quite an outrage if instead, he was carted off as a heretic. For the other ad, the landowner was threatened – seriously a different crime altogether. Why are you confusing them? And where are all the hypocrites you claim?
3D:
I don’t, I think he raised a point that micromanages the details of the debate and ignores the important heart of the matter.
brgulker:
Then re-read my comments, 3D. I’ll even copy and paste them for you: Well, you’re absolutely right. Death threats are beyond ridiculous; they’re criminal and dangerous.
And? The thrust of your post was that we didn’t have the same outraged reaction to the way both boards were vandalized. That reduces your post to equivocating the two events, and detracts for any weight in your opening nominal sentences where you offhandedly concede that death threats are wrong.
3D
One message deserved to be vandalized because it is stupid, and the vandalism served a purpose in that case. In this case, the vandalism represented bigotry and hatred.
brgulker
So, vandalism is acceptable in one case and not in the other. You just proved my point, thanks.
No, vandalism is something I don’t give a shit about in both cases. I don’t care if Christians write on atheist billboards any more than I care if vegans write on a McDonald’s billboard. It’s a harmless form of expression.
Where we run into a problem is that empty rhetorical BS like that in your original post leads us down a road where vandalizing, say, a synagogue with a swastika is equivalent to drawing a penis on a Calvin Klein model.
I never said the acts themselves were equivalent. On the one hand, vandalism is vandalism in that both are criminal acts in the same way that speeding is speeding, whether you’re going 5 over or 50 over. But that’s not even the point I’m making. I’m comparing the reactions of the two posts by UF authors and the comments of UF readers. One act of vandalism seems to be generally accepted while the other is being vehemently rejected. That’s inconsistent, no matter how you might explain it away.
If you’re conceding that they’re not equivalent, Einstein, why should the reactions to the two things be equivalent?
I will rest my case with this final comment. I’ve copied and pasted the opening paragraph for context.
What is so threatening about our billboard ads?
I don’t understand why religious individuals get so offended by the words “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.” or “Millions are good without God.” They have an absolute right to be offended and an absolute right to speak out against our peaceful message. What they don’t have is the right to stifle our speech.
No matter how poorly thought-out the “check the box” ad campaign was, it is obvious that it was a rhetorical statement, not a literal invitation. Just as the question, “Don’t believe in God?” does not require nor invite a person to climb up and write on the billboard, the “check box” does not require or invite someone to literally check the box. We are intelligent people. That should be patently obvious to us.
With that said, if vandalizing an atheist billboard is a free speech issue, then vandalizing a Christian advertisement is also a free speech issue. Justifying the latter while complaining about the former is hypocritical and inconsistent.
To the issue of death threats: They are absolutely, undoubtedly a serious, criminal, and dangerous matter. I have no disagreement with any of you about that. To conflate a death threat with spray painting would be absurd — I’ve never attempted to do so. What I have done is point out the differences in tone and content of the two posts by UF authors and comments by UF readers that are specifically related to the issue of vandalism. I have never claimed that vandalism and death threats are equally serious matters. That’s an absurd position.
So here’s my point: the UF authorship chose to highlight that the vandalism of billboards is a free speech issue, only when it was their ingroup’s billboard that was vandalized. When the outgroup’s advertisement was vandalized, the police was presented as having stepped out of their bounds and the “humor” and “amusement” of the vandal was, frankly, celebrated. That is inconsistent and stinks of ingroup/outgroup bias.
So this is what I’m asking: take a step back from the emotive charge and try to evaluate it objectively — why would UF collectively chuckle when a Christian advertisement is vandalized and collectively claim free speech rights when an atheist billboard is vandalized?
For the record, I’m with you on the free speech point. You absolutely have the right to put your view on a billboard. But so do I, if I choose to. I’ll support your right to express your views without fear of hostility, and you should support mine.
You do make a very good point, but the check-box story wasn’t so much about justifying the man doing it, as I recall, as about pointing out the MASSIVE over-reaction from the police.
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/10/07/check-the-box-get-arrested/
The OP actually featured a satirical (yet mostly fabricated) letter from the guy who got arrested. I was not at all convinced by that conversation that there was an overreaction by the police. He vandalized a sign, and he got arrested.
I don’t see an overreaction there … unless there’s something else that happened which was never discussed?
You don’t think six police, including three undercover, is overreacting to a simple act of vandalism? Well, I guess we disagree on that one. Especially since the police here are empowered to issue on the spot fines and cautions for stuff like that, and usually do.
The undercover cops are complete news to me … I completely missed that part.
Especially since the police here are empowered to issue on the spot fines and cautions for stuff like that, and usually do.
Again, you’ve enlightened me as to the way your society works. If spot fines are the norm, then perhaps an arrest was overreaction; on this side of the pond, I wouldn’t consider an arrest an overreaction by default. I could see either a fine or an arrest being appropriate, depending on the circumstances. Undercover cops certainly seem to be an overreaction, though …
I guess I still recall the conversation in the previous thread differently. I remember going back and forth with people over the “did the check box ask for it” question and whether or not the vandalism was wrong or not. That’s probably because of my own bias, admittedly; I didn’t focus on the overreaction of the police (I had no idea undercover cops were involved!) as much as I did the question of whether or not the vandalism was wrong.
By mostly fabricated, I had in mind the whole bit about “I was presented with a questionairre.” It was obviously not a “questionairre,” which to me was well understood given the heavy dose of sarcasm with which the letter was composed.
Oh, I’m not debating that he vandalised the sign. I’m just saying that in London it was innevitable that somebody would.
“So here’s my point: the UF authorship chose to highlight that the vandalism of billboards is a free speech issue, only when it was their ingroup’s billboard that was vandalized. When the outgroup’s advertisement was vandalized, the police was presented as having stepped out of their bounds and the “humor” and “amusement” of the vandal was, frankly, celebrated. That is inconsistent and stinks of ingroup/outgroup bias.”
This is Bullshit. If your intent is to highlight that vandalism is a free speech issue and we’re unfairly treating the two issues differently, then its quick and easy and more importantly MORE HONEST of you to name those posts. But you haven’t because you’ve got Nothing.
This is just an emotional appeal and a smarmy attempt to hang yourself up as a Martyr and attempt to paint atheists as “biased “meanies”.
Lets look at what was said.
Claidheamh mor: “Way to go! Vandalism and crime, justified by the perpetrators.”
Mark D: Talks about god’s lazyness
Daniel Florien: Followers do gods work because hes not there.
Francesc: Resting
Custador: “threaten violence just because somebody”
Brian: Laid back Seattle.
SteveE: Hate against signs
Sivodd: Pagan
GeekGirl: Childish – used in Sivodd’s article
Custador: Cake
Sibera: Cake again
Yoav: Still more cake
Francesc: Cake
Yoav: Legal Cake
Jeff: “religious zealots threaten ”
James: Billboard offends cores premise
D’n: Integrety and billboard going back up
Nomad: New Idea Advertisement
Elflocko: Moved out of Ohio
3D: “people making threats. Seriously, what’s their problem? – They are religious.”
LibertyBelle: “Death threats against the owner of the land…”
LEO: Toasty! Meet you later
Cybrgnx: Likes Nomad’s Advertisement
I must have missed the parts where people were pooh pooing the perpetrators of the crime just because of the vandalism.
Bgrulker do you care to point any of them out, I mean you obviously have much improved powers of perception than us “Biased” athiests.
There was cake? Can I get cake? Hey, actually, can I have a cookie instead?
Seriously, Sunny Day?
Look no further than this. The opening paragraph from this blog post:
They have an absolute right to be offended and an absolute right to speak out against our peaceful message. What they don’t have is the right to stifle our speech.
Wherein it is (rightfully, IMO) argued that atheists have the right free speech, which entails the right to not have their paid advertisements vandalized (free speech and vandalism are directly linked in that paragraph and correctly so!).
And compare that to the blog post on the check box advertisement.
A man decided to check his answer (being “no”), which caused him to be arrested.
Do you see any mention of free speech in that post? Yes, there are those who make the “vandalism is vandalism” point. But there are more than enough, “Well, that sign was just asking to be vandalized” comments as well.
In sum, when you read this post, you hear an atheist defending his right to free speech, which includes freedom from having that speech vandalized. When you read the previous post, you read about an atheist who commits vandalism against a Christian expression of free speech, but there is no condemnation infringement on free speech.
To me, that’s obviously inconsistent. You can’t chuckle about an atheist who infringes on a Christian’s right to free speech by vandalizing a Christian billboard and then complain when a Christian infringes on your right to free speech by vandalizing yours. Well, you can, but that makes you inconsistent.
“Wherein it is (rightfully, IMO) argued that atheists have the right free speech, which entails the right to not have their paid advertisements vandalized (free speech and vandalism are directly linked in that paragraph and correctly so!).”
…. Waiting for Brgulker to show how threatening someone Does Not stifle free speech.
Which was the entire point. This wasn’t an article pooh-poohing christians for vandalism, it was an article deriding them for threatening someone. It’s very revealing that you take one small part of the overall article and then try to castigate the UF community for imagined bias.
“To me, that’s obviously inconsistent.”
Of course its inconsistent when you deliberately attempt to treat them as separate occurrences, vandalism vs vandalism and ignore the threatening instance altogether.
“You can’t chuckle about an atheist who infringes on a Christian’s right to free speech by vandalizing a Christian billboard and then complain when a Christian infringes on your right to free speech by vandalizing yours.”
We can chuckle at a christian that attempts to ignore the main thrust of the article and shuffle off the inconvenient threats that were made as some kind of unimportant side issue with a hand waive.
@brgulker
“So here’s my point: the UF authorship chose to highlight that the vandalism of billboards is a free speech issue, only when it was their ingroup’s billboard that was vandalized. When the outgroup’s advertisement was vandalized, the police was presented as having stepped out of their bounds and the “humor” and “amusement” of the vandal was, frankly, celebrated. That is inconsistent and stinks of ingroup/outgroup bias.”
That’s the problem with your whole perception of this issue. Firstly there where posters who believed the former incident was vandalism and therefore wrong and secondly (and more importantly to me) it’s seems fairly easy to understand that the issues of threats of violence and what changes were made indicate that one was related to free speech and the other was humorous – if you lived in the UK you’d realise that we don’t do protests very well. As a minor point there is also the interesting subject of some Christians claiming that only they have morals and then doing this.
The real question you have to ask yourself is if the intent against the former was the same i.e. threats of violence were made do you really believe that the posters to UF would have treated it in the same way?
Of course if people threat people the police will investigate this?
I’ve seen the goodness that is the billboard! …..before it was moved.
So right down the street from where the offensive billboard was posted, there is a Planned Parenthood. And in front of that Planned Parenthood stands a man with about 20 posters proclaiming that abortion is wrong complete with colourful, bloody pictures of aborted fetuses. So how is it that this asshole can sit outside and pray for me when I go in to receive my sliding-fee scale health care but I can’t enjoy a little secular philosophy?
I’m so angry about this and yet I have no idea what I, as an individual, can do about it.
Here is a picture of the American flag with Under God written above Indivisible.
You can copy it and pass it around.
http://totalentertainmentworld.com/flag.html
Thank you.
George Vreeland Hill
Thanks George, you sure know how to show atheists! An anti-communist addition to the pledge from the 50′s will do it every time!
A maxim from one particular country on Earth that was altered at the height of anti-communist hysteria certainly gives me pause for thought. I was almost convinced by the thoroughness of your argument. However, I counter it thus:
“God is dead.”
It’s missing a few stripes and stars. Are you sure you’re really American?
Bahahahaha!~ Love it! Detective Kodie I presume?