# Atheist ad goes up on Billy Graham Parkway



## Big Don (Jun 26, 2010)

*Atheist ad goes up on Billy Graham Parkway*

 Published: June 24, 2010 at 4:09 PM

CHARLOTTE, N.C., June 24 (UPI EXCERPT) -- An atheists organization says it rented a billboard on a Charlotte, N.C., street named after the most famous U.S. evangelist strictly for economic reasons.

The Charlotte Atheists & Agnostics ad appeared over Billy Graham Parkway Monday and will be up for four weeks, The Charlotte Observer said. William Warren, a spokesman for the group, said the location was chosen because two other possibilities near the interstate were too expensive and a third billboard would have been seen by fewer people in the heart of the Bible Belt.

"We got more bang for our buck there," Warren said of the parkway.

The billboard and others going up around the state are part of a July 4 campaign by the N.C. Secular Association
END EXCERPT
Have your opinion. Just don't be an *** about it.


----------



## girlbug2 (Jun 26, 2010)

Eh. Is this supposed to be controversial?


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 26, 2010)

Yeah, I don't see the problem.  What does the street name have to do with anything?  Does Billy Graham get approval of all the buildings too?


----------



## Omar B (Jun 26, 2010)

I'm sure someone will complain.  I don't see a problem.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 26, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Have your opinion. Just don't be an *** about it.


So they'd have to act better than Billy Graham?


----------



## geezer (Jun 26, 2010)

Marginal said:


> So they'd have to act better than Billy Graham?



Wait a minute, Marginal... of all the tele-evangelists, ol' Billy was about as respectable as it gets. He even apologized for his  hawkish position on the Vietnam War. Agree or disagree, that indicates integrity, que no? Anyway, other than being mildly ironic, I see no issue in the location of the billboard.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 26, 2010)

geezer said:


> Wait a minute, Marginal... of all the tele-evangelists, ol' Billy was about as respectable as it gets. He even apologized for his  hawkish position on the Vietnam War. Agree or disagree, that indicates integrity, que no? Anyway, other than being mildly ironic, I see no issue in the location of the billboard.



I dunno... His Nixon tape comments don't paint him in the best light.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 27, 2010)

It's still just a road name....are they going to complain about EVERYTHING that they don't agree with on that road?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 27, 2010)

Placement is everything, this got them a lot of additional free coverage by news agencies.  Smart marketing.


----------



## David43515 (Jun 27, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> It's still just a road name....are they going to complain about EVERYTHING that they don't agree with on that road?


 
As far as I can tell, nobody has complained about anything. I think a local news agency just noted the irony of it and the UPI picked it up. Unfortunately, we "religious nuts" aren`t nearly as thin-skinned and intolerant as people often assume. Must have been a slow news day.

Of course having looked at a photo of the billboard in the article, I would never have thought that the message was any kind of pro-athiest theme. It`s a large American flag with the words "One Nation, Indevisable" on it. (The pledge of allegance w/o the words "under God"). Isn`t that the way everyone says it now?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 28, 2010)

Much ado about nothing.  Don't really see how the spokesman was being an ***, either.  "Bang for our buck" is, by now, a pretty standard phrase for most worth it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Much ado about nothing. Don't really see how the spokesman was being an ***, either. "Bang for our buck" is, by now, a pretty standard phrase for most worth it.


 
We've even heard of that expression though it causes laughs as 'bang' has a different connotation here for example a gangbang is an orgy, gangbangers isn't a phrase used here for gang members either  

If anyone was expecting an aethiest v religious types argument here, I'm thinking it's not going to happen


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 28, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> We've even heard of that expression though it causes laughs as 'bang' has a different connotation here for example a gangbang is an orgy, gangbangers isn't a phrase used here for gang members either
> 
> If anyone was expecting an aethiest v religious types argument here, I'm thinking it's not going to happen


 
Well yeah, the literal meaning of "bang" in the phrase is obvious.  I just meant that the phrase itself has become so commonly used as to lose all disrespect or shock value.  

And I agree, I've always been a bit confused about our using the term "gang banger" for gang members.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 28, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Well yeah, the literal meaning of "bang" in the phrase is obvious.  I just meant that the phrase itself has become so commonly used as to lose all disrespect or shock value.
> 
> And I agree, I've always been a bit confused about our using the term "gang banger" for gang members.



It may be 'obvious' but according to the late William Safire, it was not what many people think it is:

http://micurl.com/DGmzzt

He said Defense Secretary Charles Wilson used it first in the 1950's with reference to the Defense budget as producing literally a bigger 'bang' for the buck, meaning value for money spent.

If it was based on a historical reference to something less polite, it might be phrased 'more bangs for the buck', as that would make more sense grammatically.


----------



## crushing (Jun 28, 2010)

I think more bangs v. more bang is the different between quantity and quality.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 28, 2010)

crushing said:


> I think more bangs v. more bang is the different between quantity and quality.



Then it would be 'better bang for the buck', not 'more bang'.  More is quantitative, better is qualitative.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2010)

Well, exactly what I was thinking nudge nudge wink wink.

Continuing the double entendres we don't have 'bucks' in the same manner as you so the phrase more bang for your buck doesn't mean much here, doesn't stop the City types using the expression though it sounds silly when they say it. We just say 'you get more for your money'.


----------



## Nomad (Jun 28, 2010)

Big Don said:


> *Atheist ad goes up on Billy Graham Parkway*
> 
> Published: June 24, 2010 at 4:09 PM
> 
> ...



I'm all in favor of irony, and think this is a nice example of it (atheist ad on Billy Graham parkway).  Controversy?  Not so much here.  Being an *** about it? Don't really see that either.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 28, 2010)

Now why can't we hear this....

Baptist/Luthern/Catholic congreation goes up to the American Athiest organization and puts giant ad right beside their building!

Now that would be something.

Hey, and ... Muslim congreation goes up to the American Athiest organization and puts giant ad right beside their building!

Now THAT would really scare them!

Deaf


----------



## David43515 (Jun 29, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Now why can't we hear this....
> 
> Baptist/Luthern/Catholic congreation goes up to the American Athiest organization and puts giant ad right beside their building!
> 
> ...


 
It WOULD be funny, but people already see anyone with a religious point of view as being pushy and overbearing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 29, 2010)

David43515 said:


> It WOULD be funny, but people already see anyone with a religious point of view as being pushy and overbearing.



I'm sure that the billboard is meant to offend.  Protestations to the contrary are summarily disregarded.

I am also sure that the _'Right to Life'_ placards waved by abortion protesters at passing cars with gory photos of aborted fetuses is meant to offend too - and I'm anti-abortion myself (but I completely disagree with those methods).

And the 'Gay Pride' parades that involve not just gay pride, but gay public exhibition of sex, not really making me sympathetic to the cause.

They don't do much for me; don't really offend or infuriate me either.  I just stop being interested at all.  It's like _"yawn.  great.  fascinating.  go away now please."_

That whole _'in your face'_ thing is a bit mystifying to me; are they really trying to persuade anyone with that shtick?


----------



## Stac3y (Jun 29, 2010)

David43515 said:


> Of course having looked at a photo of the billboard in the article, I would never have thought that the message was any kind of pro-athiest theme. It`s a large American flag with the words "One Nation, Indevisable" on it. (The pledge of allegance w/o the words "under God"). Isn`t that the way everyone says it now?


 
No; "under God" is still in use, at least in Texas and Louisiana. But the pledge didn't have "under God" in it until the mid-1960's; the original wording was "One nation, indivisible."


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sure that the billboard is meant to offend. Protestations to the contrary are summarily disregarded.
> 
> I am also sure that the _'Right to Life'_ placards waved by abortion protesters at passing cars with gory photos of aborted fetuses is meant to offend too - and I'm anti-abortion myself (but I completely disagree with those methods).
> 
> ...


 
With the anti-abortion protests (and I've seen the same groups, outside of Planned Parenthood with Rob Zombie-level pictures of fetuses), the idea of the in-your-face approach is to shock the viewer with how brutal and inhumane abortion is.  Nevermind what the actual abortion process entails.  It's a scare tactic.

As for the gay pride groups, I agree with you about those types of parades, but would caution that they're probably in the minority among the gay community.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 29, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> With the anti-abortion protests (and I've seen the same groups, outside of Planned Parenthood with Rob Zombie-level pictures of fetuses), the idea of the in-your-face approach is to shock the viewer with how brutal and inhumane abortion is.  Nevermind what the actual abortion process entails.  It's a scare tactic.
> 
> As for the gay pride groups, I agree with you about those types of parades, but would caution that they're probably in the minority among the gay community.



I realize the gay pride thing that involves public displays of sex is not that common - I've been to gay pride parades in Canada and the US where that didn't happen; OK, some odd floats and dress-up that didn't exactly strike me as mainstream, but whatever.  Gay people don't bother me; one of my close family members (that I know of) is gay and I love him to death, he's an incredibly wonderful guy.  Gay is not a problem.  Gay sexual acts in public for the sake of proving to me that they can do what they want isn't having the effect that I suppose they hope it will have, though.  Boring, stupid, asinine.


----------



## Stac3y (Jun 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Gay is not a problem. Gay sexual acts in public for the sake of proving to me that they can do what they want isn't having the effect that I suppose they hope it will have, though. Boring, stupid, asinine.


 
I agree, Bill. I would extend that, though, to heterosexual PDA--take it to the bedroom, puh-lease! I wouldn't make a law against it, but I think it's very rude.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 29, 2010)

Stac3y said:


> I agree, Bill. I would extend that, though, to heterosexual PDA--take it to the bedroom, puh-lease! I wouldn't make a law against it, but I think it's very rude.



I don't have a problem with PDA.  It doesn't squick me when I see a guy walking hand-in-hand with another guy, or even kissing.  Hell, I've seen a man leading another man on a dog leash in San Francisco; didn't really bother me.

I'm talking about things like the Folsom Street Fair, an annual San Francisco event where public nudity and open sexual behavior is common, if illegal.  I've heard the argument that _"This is a gay neighborhood, these are our streets"_ about the nudity, but let's face it, there are no 'hetero' neighborhoods where sex is performed in the streets, so that's bogus.  And frankly, I'm not aware of any streets where gay people are not allowed, but apparently there are streets where straight people are not allowed?  Anyway, no huge deal - I don't live in San Francisco and I wouldn't, but if I did I would not go to the Folsom Street Fair.  No problem.

Just saying - that whole _"look, I'm doing something that I know offends you just to show you that I can and because it makes you mad"_ doesn't have that effect on me, nor does it convert me to be sympathetic to their cause.  It's just boring and stupid.


----------



## Stac3y (Jun 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't have a problem with PDA.


 
I meant PDA of an overtly sexual nature. I'm totally cool with hand holding, etc. Just clarifying.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 29, 2010)

And the latest development....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2936

Turns out some disgruntled residents decided to spraypaint "under god" with an arrow pointing between the words "one nation/indivisible".  Guess they couldn't put up with reading opposing viewpoints, like every pro-choice advocate does passing "life begins at conception" billboards. Ah well, work of God and all.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 29, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> And the latest development....
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2936
> 
> Turns out some disgruntled residents decided to spraypaint "under god" with an arrow pointing between the words "one nation/indivisible".  Guess they couldn't put up with reading opposing viewpoints, like every pro-choice advocate does passing "life begins at conception" billboards. Ah well, work of God and all.



I've seen it done both ways.  The world is full of people who feel entitled to break the law in order to express their displeasure at having to read or see or hear something with which they disagree.

I've also seen some groups do the 'vandalism' themselves, when their attempt at baiting the other side into law-breaking didn't work out as well as they had hoped.

There are a lot of angry, frightened, pathetic little penii walking around in human suits out there, espousing all possible viewpoints.


----------



## Blindside (Jun 29, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Now why can't we hear this....
> 
> Baptist/Luthern/Catholic congreation goes up to the American Athiest organization and puts giant ad right beside their building!
> 
> ...


 
Isn't this on a public Parkway?  Not the entrance to one of those mondo-payed-for-by-suckers televangelist megachurches?  

A large religious denomination responding to the American Athiest organization in such a manner would be a dream come true for such a small organization.  A PR boon of silly proportions, big dogs ignore yappy puppies otherwise it makes them look like a puppy themselves.

As a non-believer myself, I really can't understand how people work themselves up into such a lather about what other people think of their imaginary friend.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 29, 2010)

Blindside said:


> As a non-believer myself, I really can't understand how people work themselves up into such a lather about what other people think of their imaginary friend.


 
Because it's quite more than their imaginary friend. To a fundamentalist, God is the core of their very belief structure. A MT poster from long ago put it really well (I only recall it because I'd thanked him at the time):



> Yet if you look at what these people are saying and feeling and you compare it to what people have got to say regarding transformational education experiences, you inevitablely come to the conclusion that the protection of these inane principles is more then just pride. It is more then arrogence. they are defending their very _being_.
> ---Post #175 at http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=308300#post308300


 
They don't view it as just a contrary opinion, they view it as an attack. Thus why I view a civil discussion about religion with a fundamentalist to be an exercise in futility.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 29, 2010)

Let me get this right...there's a place where naked men are walking around in public? And nobody thought to email me when and where?

Okay so they are gay but do you think I can afford to be that fussy at my age!

Actually there plenty of public nudity around, we have beaches etc just for naturists, our problem of course is the weather as far as outdoor nudity is concerned. 

I have no problem with what people think of my religion until someone starts making physical attacks on us or they accuse us of killing children (they mean the ritual sacrifice of children), then I get miffed but really thats nothing to do with belief thats just hatred of someone different. As far as I'm concerned belief in anything or anyone or nothing is down to the individual not me.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 29, 2010)

Blindside said:


> Isn't this on a public Parkway? Not the entrance to one of those mondo-payed-for-by-suckers televangelist megachurches?
> 
> A large religious denomination responding to the American Athiest organization in such a manner would be a dream come true for such a small organization. A PR boon of silly proportions, big dogs ignore yappy puppies otherwise it makes them look like a puppy themselves.
> 
> As a non-believer myself, I really can't understand how people work themselves up into such a lather about what other people think of their imaginary friend.


 
Not if it's the Muslims! That would be a nightmare come true for them.

Deaf


----------



## Blindside (Jun 30, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Not if it's the Muslims! That would be a nightmare come true for them.
> 
> Deaf



Because "Muslim" equals extremist whacko suicide bombers?  I hope I am misinterpreting your post.


----------



## mook jong man (Jun 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Hell, I've seen a man leading another man on a dog leash in San Francisco; didn't really bother me.
> 
> 
> quote]
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 30, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> Bill Mattocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, I've seen a man leading another man on a dog leash in San Francisco; didn't really bother me.
> ...


----------



## mook jong man (Jun 30, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> mook jong man said:
> 
> 
> > I think one would be very useful!
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 30, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > As long as he was house trained , and knowing your luck you'd get one that was de-sexed. :lol:
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 30, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> You should have said  "Did you get him from a breeder or a pet shop" ?



He was actually cursing me out -  I  was smoking a cigarette in public (gasp) at the time.  I could not get a word in edgewise.  He actually called me a 'freak'.  I guess for San Francisco, I was.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> He was actually cursing me out - I was smoking a cigarette in public (gasp) at the time. I could not get a word in edgewise. He actually called me a 'freak'. I guess for San Francisco, I was.


 
I suppose the argument is that while what he was doing may be odd or offensive whatever (depending on your mindset) it does _you_ no physical harm whilst your smoking a cigarette is the cause of passive smoking which does harm people.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 30, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> They don't view it as just a contrary opinion, they view it as an attack. Thus why I view a civil discussion about religion with a fundamentalist to be an exercise in futility.


 
And thus, with the defacement, we clearly see that the Pledge is a lie-we are, clearly, one nation, completely _divisible_-whether we're "under God," or *not.* :lfao:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 30, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I suppose the argument is that while what he was doing may be odd or offensive whatever (depending on your mindset) it does _you_ no physical harm whilst your smoking a cigarette is the cause of passive smoking which does harm people.



I suppose.  I did finally quit smoking, but it wasn't because self-righteous people felt justified in getting in my grill about it.  Last I heard, it was still legal to smoke in public in most parts of the country.  There is no _'right to breathe clean air'_ or I could have people arrested for farting or wearing too much perfume.  However, I am still glad I quit smoking.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I suppose. I did finally quit smoking, but it wasn't because self-righteous people felt justified in getting in my grill about it. Last I heard, it was still legal to smoke in public in most parts of the country. There is no _'right to breathe clean air'_ or* I could have people* *arrested for farting* or wearing too much perfume. However, I am still glad I quit smoking.


 
I'd go for that! the smoking in public argument is a difficult one because while I don't care whether people smoke or not, their choice, I don't like breathing in second hand smoke. Unlike religious and political arguments which can remain cerebral, the smoking one with potential harm to one side from the other is going to be contentious anytime. Obnoxious or overpowering smells may be unplaesant but don't kill you! Roy Castle  Brit entertainer) died from cancer cause by passive smoking.
http://193.63.93.177/rclcrp/research/epidemiology/index.htm

People get passionate about all sorts of things but it doesn't always make them self righteous. I would be unhappy not self righteous if someone was smoking over my children, I'd be upset not self righteous if someone tried to force their religious views on me. If you do no harm to any one else there is no reason for people to complain, do harm and they have a right to, if you're lucky, if not they may just deck you lol!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 30, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> People get passionate about all sorts of things but it doesn't always make them self righteous. I would be unhappy not self righteous if someone was smoking over my children, I'd be upset not self righteous if someone tried to force their religious views on me. If you do no harm to any one else there is no reason for people to complain, do harm and they have a right to, if you're lucky, if not they may just deck you lol!



I heard a comedian once who noted that an incensed person had approached him and said _"You know, second-hand smoke kills people."_  The comedian replied, _"Yeah, but not reliably enough to be used as a weapon, damn it."_


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I heard a comedian once who noted that an incensed person had approached him and said _"You know, second-hand smoke kills people."_ The comedian replied, _"Yeah, but not reliably enough to be used as a weapon, damn it."_


 

Incense is just as bad as fags.


----------



## mook jong man (Jun 30, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Incense is just as bad as fags.


 
Incense is just as bad as cigarettes.

Fixed that one up for you ( be careful when talking to Yanks about fags , it has a different meaning to them.)


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 30, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> Incense is just as bad as cigarettes.
> 
> Fixed that one up for you ( be careful when talking to Yanks about fags , it has a different meaning to them.)


 
Oooo.... I know


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 30, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Incense is just as bad as fags.



How about those nasty clove cigarettes?  And here in Michigan, we've got hookah bars.  Nasty, but at least I don't have to go in them.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> How about those nasty clove cigarettes? And here in Michigan, we've_ got hookah bars_. Nasty, but at least I don't have to go in them.


 

My daughter lived in Dubai for a while and said the hookah is popular there, supposed to making smoking literally cooler. I've never smoked so am not up with types of cigarettes, my other half is a pipe man which smells pleasant and sends little smoke up especially as he smokes in in the garden lol, his choice I add, never asked him to!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 30, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> My daughter lived in Dubai for a while and said the hookah is popular there, supposed to making smoking literally cooler. I've never smoked so am not up with types of cigarettes, my other half is a pipe man which smells pleasant and sends little smoke up especially as he smokes in in the garden lol, his choice I add, never asked him to!



Detroit/Dearborn metro area has a huge Middle-Eastern population, so many things like hookahs are popular here.  It's not a cigarette, it's a big ol' water pipe with a bunch of hoses coming from it.  People sit around and toke; they use tobacco in the legal ones.

I tried a pipe years ago when I smoked; problem was that I didn't get my nicotine as much and I learned one has to have a rack of pipes due to the bowls getting wet and needing to be dried out.  Too much of a PITA for me.  Pipe smoke smells nice, though.


----------



## Nomad (Jun 30, 2010)

Blindside said:


> As a non-believer myself, I really can't understand how people work themselves up into such a lather about what other people think of their imaginary friend.



Oh yeah?  Well, my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend!  So there! :wakko:


----------



## Blindside (Jun 30, 2010)

Nomad said:


> Oh yeah? Well, my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend! So there! :wakko:


 
No!  There is only one imaginary friend, and his name is Fred! 

My imaginary friend is omnipotent and omniscient, so even if there was another imaginary friend (which there isn't), it couldn't beat up Fred.  I'm just sooo happy that Fred likes to talk to me and tell me what to do.


----------

