Atheist ad goes up on Billy Graham Parkway

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


quote]

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

 

[Tez3]

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


quote]

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

I think one would be very useful!

 

[mook jong man]

I think one would be very useful!

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

 

[Tez3]

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

True but it would keep him at home! I'd train him to keep the fundies away!!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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.