Jump to content

American Atheists Put Up Anti-Mormon Billboard In North Carolina


CQUIRK

Recommended Posts

Here.

People headed to the Democratic National Convention will be greeted by billboards condemning religion, thanks to American Atheists. The group is specifically targeting Mormonism and Christianity with the ads, which will be up starting today for a month in Charlotte, CNN reports. They read:

  • Christianity: "Sadistic God; Useless Savior, 30,000+ Versions of 'Truth,' Promotes Hate, Calls it 'Love.'" Accompanied by a picture of Jesus' image on toast.
  • Mormonism: "God is a Space Alien, Baptizes Dead People, Big Money, Big Bigotry." Accompanied by a picture of a guy in, presumably, special Mormon underwear.

"Our political system is rife with religion and it depends too much on religion and not enough on substance," the group's sponsor explains. "Religion is silly and religion has components that are inherently divisive. … There is no place for any of that in the political system." Both billboards urge readers to join American Atheists with the line, "Atheism: Simply Reasonable." The group originally planned the anti-Mormonism billboard for Tampa, host city of the Republican National Convention, but no billboard company there would lease to them.

IMO, these people are no better then the Westboro Baptist Church; both are vile, slanderous, and will go to the extreme to "further" their agenda.

Link to comment

I don't suppose for a moment they would have featured Mormonism if it weren't for the mileage they hope to get from Romney's Presidential run.

On the other hand where can I get a set of those glow in the dark garments? It sure would help prevent stubbed toes during my late night toilet run.

Link to comment

  • Mormonism: "God is a Space Alien, Baptizes Dead People, Big Money, Big Bigotry." Accompanied by a picture of a guy in, presumably, special Mormon underwear."

And it will probably have the opposite effect they want.

Does that mean that bigots, businessmen, those who see dead people, Trekkies and the UFO crowd will be more likely to invite the elders in?

Link to comment

Are they too dumb to realize that putting up that kind of a billboard makes atheism look 'inherently divisive' and not at all 'reasonable'? How blind to their own self importance can a group be?

Not their fault. It wouldn't be divisive if everyone would just agree with them.

IMO, these people are no better then the Westboro Baptist Church; both are vile, slanderous, and will go to the extreme to "further" their agenda.

I do not consider a billboard extreme. When they start protesting at LDS funerals I will agree with you.

Does that mean that bigots, businessmen, those who see dead people, Trekkies and the UFO crowd will be more likely to invite the elders in?

As an ex-missionary I can say this is already true. Thank God for it. Some days I really needed the entertainment.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Behold, if they shall produce idiotic fruits then you shall know they are morons. At least that is what I thought when I looked at the billboard.

Link to comment

The billboards will be taken down by the company citing "hate speech" towards their employees.

I hope no LDS were involved in threats but I find it humorous that the billboards themselves are considered appropriate to erect by the company yet they decry "hate speech" on the part of those protesting the billboards.

My personal opinion was that they were in bad taste but protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

Link to comment

At best, these billboards are comical attempts at oversimplistic attempts of defamation.

Hardly worth taking seriously.

Unless you are North Carolina billboard company who can get revenue for a month from any kook with a few bucks and a graphic artist.

Link to comment
Godwin's Law violation.

Honestly, I wouldn't consider it all that bad of a comparison. They're just about as representative of atheists in general as well (IOW, I think they do a disservice to athiests). Though the signs were in one place, I almost feel bad for atheists living in that area because it could be attributed to them. Slandering large groups of people, including a religious minority, isn't exactly the greatest way to bring around one's message.

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

Honestly, I wouldn't consider it all that bad of a comparison. They're just about as representative of atheists in general as well (IOW, I think they do a disservice to athiests). Though the signs were in one place, I almost feel bad for atheists living in that area because it could be attributed to them. Slandering large groups of people, including a religious minority, isn't exactly the greatest way to bring around one's message.

With luv,

BD

I don't disagree with you. However, choosing when it is right or wrong to implement Godwin's Law violation is rather telling. There is a reason why it is a violation. Just ask Selek.

Link to comment

I don't disagree with your either. Godwin's law is usually a no-no in my book.... Except the shoe kinda fits on this. They're not as vocal and nauseating as westboro, but pretty close. They present their case in a way that's really just offensive to almost anybody, including people who could care less otherwise. And insisting on some moral high ground (in their case, seperation of church and state) they do so often while degrading/condemning others and at points leaning towards promoting censorship. In other words, justifying an extreme on the grounds that they are morally correct in their cause. It also leads to the same results. Just as some more secular or athiest/agnostic people may shake their heads and say "look, see, this is why it's just better not to have religion," religious folk may also be inclined to think "Look, see, this is what's truly wrong with atheism."

So two groups, prone to extreme stances(though neither litterally goes out of their way to harm people physically), more likely to alienate and insult people, lead only to further misunderstanding and distrust between differing world/religious views, and have a tendency to anger folks....they've got a lot of ground to work with.

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

I don't disagree with your either. Godwin's law is usually a no-no in my book.... Except the shoe kinda fits on this. They're not as vocal and nauseating as westboro, but pretty close. They present their case in a way that's really just offensive to almost anybody, including people who could care less otherwise. And insisting on some moral high ground (in their case, seperation of church and state) they do so often while degrading/condemning others and at points leaning towards promoting censorship. In other words, justifying an extreme on the grounds that they are morally correct in their cause. It also leads to the same results. Just as some more secular or athiest/agnostic people may shake their heads and say "look, see, this is why it's just better not to have religion," religious folk may also be inclined to think "Look, see, this is what's truly wrong with atheism."

So two groups, prone to extreme stances(though neither litterally goes out of their way to harm people physically), more likely to alienate and insult people, lead only to further misunderstanding and distrust between differing world/religious views, and have a tendency to anger folks....they've got a lot of ground to work with.

With luv,

BD

Good post especially when we consider the fact that atheists are not the first nor the last to commit such actions and to be found guilty of these wrongs.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By Anijen
      In reading some of the posts involving crimes [sexual assault], allegations, [Kavanaugh, President Russel Topic], or even controversial subjects such as Climate Change, Book of Mormon Geography, etc.. I have thought to myself there are a lot of faith based concepts juxtaposed up to scientific method and actual evidence. I'd like to discuss both and how it might affect our concept of that topic and what we take away.
      Personal belief systems can take root at a very early age, sometimes as a part of our cultural or ethnic identity. As a result, they are almost impossible to remove without eroding the soil of substance that gives one both a sense of identity and purpose. However, also true, as a consequence, most will not surrender a deeply held personal belief for fear it could lead to their spiritual loss or death. There is nothing wrong with personal beliefs. I, for one, am deeply faithful and active in church. Each person finds meaning and purpose in their own way and that is how it should be. There is a difference between faith and scientific method and reason. Personal faith is not a problem unless it gets in the way of objective forensic investigation and examination.
      For example; using faith based reasoning (let's say using the Bible to prove a point), the premise of an argument and the conclusion are a matter of personal belief and subsequently often considered above criticism. Those who question the premises of such beliefs, religious and otherwise dogmatic, are labeled heretics or worse. I have been called an apostate for not subscribing to a heartland theory, a racist for objecting to a safe-place policy, a climate denier for even questioning global warming (which I know there is climate change, my interests is, is it really all just man made?), a racist and a bigot for disagreeing about kneeling as a protest, a chauvinist pig for thinking men and woman are different and we should use the appropriate public bathrooms.  
      In faith and personal belief, there is little room for critical thinking and no place for doubt. As a consequence, the nature of faith runs contrary to knowledge building. My faith tells me men and women are both children of God and are different from each other, science also tells me there is a biological difference too. We still have debates to how we should act and even appropriate ways to speak. For example is refusing to bake a cake with a message one does not believe in compelling speech?
      Questions, questions, questions... When is testify via faith and testify via science appropriate and acceptable and when is it not?
    • By bcuzbcuz
      This evening, the returns are in. The "Sweden Democrats", Sweden's neo-nazi party, have won 13% of the federal election vote. Roughly 85% of the population have voted. The nine major parties have collected only enough votes to, almost exactly down the middle, split power between the right coalition and the left coalition.. And guess who gets to sit in the middle of the balance, the neo-nazis.
      All of you who said that socialism would lead to ruin, were right.
      Both left and right coalitions have said they'll have nothing to do with the SD's but time will tell. Me, I'm a pessimist. It can only get worse. The end of times is upon us.
    • By volgadon
      http://mormonliberals.org/marriner-eccles/
      A very good friend of mine wrote a fascinating piece on Mariner Eccles, one of the more influential Mormons in the 20th century, and sadly much-neglected now.
      The bit about Mariner and Reed Smoot during the depression is particularly revealing of the political and economic dynamics at play in the church.
    • By CQUIRK
      Don't know if this should be moved to the General Discussions board, but I saw this today-
      The whole survey can be read here. (PDF required)
×
×
  • Create New...