Christian censorship: Atheist billboard taken down

[Nazaroo]

 

[Nazaroo]

 

[Nazaroo]

 

[Nazaroo]

 

[Nazaroo]

 

[serpentdove]

The Bible foresaw the American military? Or just more evidence that you can make an ancient religious text say whatever you want it to say?

Too bad you don't know your bible (Eze 38:13).

"Too bad." :chz4brnz: ~ Seth Brundle, The Fly

See:

Inspired Scripture

 

[Town Heretic]

Tasteless?

It's innocuous. It's not even targeted at religion. It's like an atheist hallmark card.

Sure.

...It's not the billboard, but the timing and the above you note as well that makes it lamentable and, to my mind, in poor taste. It is, however, a great way to manage free press and when they missed the intended mark they settled for taking the secondary, if lesser legal/public issue instead of taking the money or other offers.

Holy month?

Sure.

...I'm sorry if my shorthand confused. December is the month within which Christians, comprising the dominant culture/larger part of the nation's populace commemorate/celebrate the birth of the central figure in the Christian religion, Jesus Christ. ...

:e4e:

 

[oatmeal]

Atheist Billboard in Alabama Gets Taken Down Two Weeks Early Following Complaints from Local Residents


Free speech!! Censorship!! Soon it'll be illegal to be an atheist!!! Aaaaaahhhhhhh!

:chuckle:

When the courts have the courage to let prayer back in schools and realize that separation of church and state is not found in the Constitution, then your problem can be dealt with

 

[Delmar]

Atheist Billboard in Alabama Gets Taken Down Two Weeks Early Following Complaints from Local Residents


Free speech!! Censorship!! Soon it'll be illegal to be an atheist!!! Aaaaaahhhhhhh!

:chuckle:

What ever.

 

[Town Heretic]

Is your objection is solely in the timing? Or do you object to the message itself?

It's an unusual question...I oppose the message as an idea, not as something people can and should be free to argue in the public square and on billboards. I haven't argued for its removal and wouldn't, not even on Christmas day or Easter. But I still find the timing tasteless, insensitive to the larger community and calculated to use the foreseeable sentiment in aiding a larger bid for public attention.

What insidious nonsense!

It's nothing of the sort. I've set out why.

Is there a specific time of year mentioning the mere fact that you are Christian should be regarded as 'confrontational' and 'tasteless'?

It's not that they're atheists or have an atheistic message, as I've noted above and prior. It's the when and what that when was calculated to accomplish.

 

[Town Heretic]

How so? Atheists and theists alike contemplate the existence of a god or gods. The defining difference is the conclusion.

The conclusion follows the aim by the time you're reading a book, paper or hearing a presentation.

I guess I just don't see the tastelessness, given what I take to be the aims. I'm hard-pressed to think of a more tasteful way to genuinely accomplish the same goal.

I think my wedding party objection answers this as concisely as I could. Else, I've answered broadly on the timing/calculation and more particularly on the point in this post (well, in a moment).

...On the one hand, you want to express solidarity with the alienated, so you speak to exactly what you anticipate alienates them.

Which could be done, including a reference to approaching holy days well in advance of the season. And an earlier airing would be the arguably better choice given it provides time to link and become familiar with the larger community of likened minds.

The week before Christmas? That's another statement and aim.

But you aren't trying to upset anyone else, so you use the most generic language available while still getting at the point, language that happens to be how atheists tend to frame the discussion themselves. Nothing contradictory about it.

Rather, you piggy back a message at a time when it's likely to amass a great deal of free press. It's needless, insensitive to the larger community or its a calculated bid for greater attention and it's ill timed to do the job of bringing those who might feel alientated (in the midst of a highly secularized parallel celebration) for whatever reason. Else an invitation in advance would not only do, but could arguably be more effective and better for those in agreement with the sentiment.

So, what would be a more innocuous message to atheists that wouldn't annoy Christians?

I never complained about the wording.

I didn't see a location for the billboard mentioned. Did I miss something?

In Mobile it was placed on the west side of the Interstate. About as exposed as you could ask for, one of the most heavily trafficked sections. It was set to run the week of Christmas. Here's an article on that particular.

It seems like that's entirely dependent on how you chose to construe their motives.

I'd say launching that the week of Christmas makes my point and their aim fairly clear.

I'm glad to hear it. I just wish we could do without Christmas carols in nearly every public place from Halloween until the end of the year.

I'm fond of much of the music that hasn't been modernized in to rift runs and overly ripe arrangements, replete with Kenny G sax. :mmph: But I like it concentrated. We tend to listen a week or two before the day.

I believe I've seen the debate on YouTube.

Hitchens enjoyed his time here and seemed a bit surprised. :chuckle: He was warmly received by all attending.

What I do know is what it can be like to live and work among religious people. And they can be open-minded, tolerant, wonderful people, but they also tend to assume that everyone is like them.

Grew up in the midst of them myself and the assumption is generally correct in our culture, where the overwhelming majority of people still declare themselves Christian and an even larger majority of one faith or another.

Sometimes that's no problem, and other times...it can be pretty uncomfortable. The more religious people there are around, the more of a problem it is, and the more isolating it can be.

I was an atheist in the heart of the Bible belt. I never felt particularly isolated for holding a different view. I don't really understand that sort of emotional response to your own context. No one was walking about taking a faithful head count or eyeing me suspiciously. And for a time I was a young Democrat in a state and area of he country turned almost rabidly right wing. You want to feel surrounded by a hostile crowd try that one on. And that they will ask you (or at least question the appalling lack of hard core bumper stickers on your vehicle). lain:

The one place in the South I've been is New Orleans, actually, excepting a layover in Atlanta.

You need to find a nice place in the Garden District, buy a day pass on the cable cars and look around. Bourbon Street is the least New Orleans has to offer. The zoo is lovely, the WWII museum a good get and you can enjoy a ride on a paddle wheel boat just a quick walk off one of the stops. And that's before you get to the food and a dozen other distractions the city has to offer...best bet, go on a quick excursion as part of a broader run, get a lay of the land and find lodging that interests well in advance of a return during Jazz Fest which is an amazing yearly event. The next one is in late April to the first few days of May. Here's a link. One of these years you should drop by.

Though, I may make it to Africa before Florida, the way things look at present. Or I could make time to travel on my own initiative.

You could go to Epcot and call it a twofer. lain: :nono:

 

[Jose Fly]

Sounds like the contract was time specific too. If it was a date to date then Llamar was in breach when they missed the first and the rest of the conversation is about mitigating damages.

It's hard to tell from the limited info from either the blog post or the news article, but it seems the contract was for a specific 4-week period, Llamar cut out two weeks of that period from the beginning, and rather than keep it up for an additional two weeks, they just took it down.

Actually, I believe the contract was time sensitive. Had they put it up and taken it down on time it would have been four weeks.

Here's what your article said:

They’re taking the billboard down now, as the contract originally stated, even though it hasn’t been up for a full four weeks.​

Yep.

Except that's not what the article said. According to the article Llamar said they were taking it down now as per the contract. Additionally, the atheist group said Llamar had communicated a number of complaints about the billboard and the atheist group "questioned" whether that motivated Llamar to go with the date certain instead of the four week implied.

That's a bit different.

It seems pretty clear to me. When Llamar told the atheist group they were taking it down, they also mentioned the "large amount of complaints". If this were merely a matter of the contract and scheduling, there wouldn't be any need to mention anything about complaints one way or another.

I assume you're being willfully obtuse. Entirely benign campaign meant to launch during the height of the dominant culture's religious holy month...right. Rather an immature stunt, but a very real legal issue.

I'm sure that's how certain Christians view it, but then the "dominant culture" in religion is rarely understanding of those outside of it.

The atheists were expressing "You're not alone" to each other. That's all the billboard said. Being a non-Christian, I can attest how annoying it is during that time of year to be constantly asked to go to church, and when I decline, I have to give an explanation for why I'm not a Christian, which usually leads to an attempt to convert me.

So yeah....it's somewhat comforting to see that I'm not the only one. And obviously Christians don't like that, which I think says a lot.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think I agree there. I kinda took the Fly's post to be in the style of Jefferson's "More liberal censorship" threads, and thus part self-parody. I don't know if that was the intention or not, but if it was meant completely in earnest, I think it's a bit silly.

OF COURSE my comments in the OP are parody/satire.

Sarchasm: The gulf between sarcasm and the person who doesn't get it. :chuckle:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

It's an unusual question...I oppose the message as an idea, not as something people can and should be free to argue in the public square and on billboards.

And why do you say that?

I haven't argued for its removal and wouldn't, not even on Christmas day or Easter. But I still find the timing tasteless, insensitive to the larger community and calculated to use the foreseeable sentiment in aiding a larger bid for public attention.

I fail to see how it is 'tasteless' at any time of year. The billboard says nothing more than 'if you're an atheist, meet with others like you' how is this in any way a slight against Christmas? Are you aware that many atheists do in fact celebrate Christmas?

OF COURSE it is a bid for public attention, it is a billboard. If you object to it on that basis, then you ought to object to it year-round and you ought to also object to Christian, and Jewish billboards for precisely the same reason. Having 'group gatherings' of like-minded people is difficult to do with gaining some level of public attention.

I suspect there is something you find objectionable, that you are not mentioning here.

It's not that they're atheists or have an atheistic message, as I've noted above and prior. It's the when and what that when was calculated to accomplish.

It is intended to increase the membership of 'said club, no?

 

[Town Heretic]

And why do you say that?

Because while I oppose the context of atheism I support its free expression.

I fail to see how it is 'tasteless' at any time of year.

Then you shouldn't call it that. I do and have a reason for it, which I've set out.

The billboard says nothing more than 'if you're an atheist, meet with others like you' how is this in any way a slight against Christmas? Are you aware that many atheists do in fact celebrate Christmas?

I actually mentioned the secular parallel in response to Rex's (and fool's too, if I recall it correctly) notion that the sign might be an attempt to comfort those distressed by the religious nature of the holiday. Else, I never argued over the wording of the thing, only noted the timing and calculation of it, etc.

OF COURSE it is a bid for public attention, it is a billboard.

And its timing would have been a very effective way of garnering a great deal more than they paid for, which was part of my examination/conclusion, to be sure.

If you object to it on that basis,

But that wasn't the nature of my objection.

I suspect there is something you find objectionable, that you are not mentioning here.

I can only tell you what I found objectionable, which I have, and why, which I also have. I can't control your suspicion only note the absence of any compelling reason for it or hint about its particulars.

It is intended to increase the membership of 'said club, no?

You're off my point on that a little. I was speaking to the attempt to use the holiday, not the ultimate aim, which doesn't seem so much an effort to convert as organize for whatever reason, from an altruistic concern to a desire to engage and profit by. Who knows at this point?

 

[Town Heretic]

It's hard to tell from the limited info from either the blog post or the news article, but it seems the contract was for a specific 4-week period, Llamar cut out two weeks of that period from the beginning, and rather than keep it up for an additional two weeks, they just took it down.

I think that's the right reading. It was for a period but one with a date certain.

It seems pretty clear to me. When Llamar told the atheist group they were taking it down, they also mentioned the "large amount of complaints". If this were merely a matter of the contract and scheduling, there wouldn't be any need to mention anything about complaints one way or another.

If Llamar had stated that as influencing or causing their unwillingness to extend over the date certain, to make up the time stipulated, the atheist organization wouldn't have suspicions, they would be relatively sure and that would be a clear way to attack Llamar's claim of attempting to mitigate damages should the matter find its way to court. That's an admission that doesn't jibe with Llamar's own best interests and as they have counsel, along with a not inconsiderable history in this field it would seem an unlikely sort of admission. Not impossible, but something in that seems amiss or at least questionable.

I'm sure that's how certain Christians view it,

I don't think there's any mistaking the attempt to trade on the season and I'd have found it offensive when I didn't share the faith. But then, my lack of that particular never desensitized me in relation to those who believed, even if I believed that faith a well intentioned sort of wishcraft.

The atheists were expressing "You're not alone" to each other.

Some in an org were and it was, again, a sentiment that could have been declared without the attempt to do so at the expense of others.

That's all the billboard said. Being a non-Christian, I can attest how annoying it is during that time of year to be constantly asked to go to church, and when I decline, I have to give an explanation for why I'm not a Christian, which usually leads to an attempt to convert me.

As someone who was brought up in the Bible Belt and remained an atheist for decades, I can sympathize, though along the panhandle and in southern Florida you don't get as much of that. I actually went to church as an atheist. I liked the community, a good bit of the music and the general spirit, to say nothing of the genuinely good people and work I saw and helped them do. But it's not for everyone.

So yeah....it's somewhat comforting to see that I'm not the only one. And obviously Christians don't like that, which I think says a lot.

Or maybe you're just reading in, as you do with me in your suspicion. A Christian shouldn't like seeing you separated from relation and the love of God that is the context and center of our lives. It's not envy or anger, at least not in mature hands. It's essentially a concern for our neighbors, whom Christ enjoined us to love as ourselves. As with anyone, being flawed vessels, we don't always do the best job of it.

OF COURSE my comments in the OP are parody/satire.

I'll grant you seemed to over reach and that might be viewed as a parallel or parody of sorts with, well, a great many threads and posts found here. But that's not really much to go on and even less obviously when you follow it by defending on every contested point, at least for a bit. And so Rex assumed but was uncertain and I wasn't sure why you were reaching against what seemed to me a more reasonable examination. So many people have pockets of passion that evade reason entirely that so slight a distortion seemed more likely to me to be the product of bias than an attempt at exercising a literary device.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Because while I oppose the context of atheism I support its free expression.

Only in submission to the "dominant culture", apparently.

Then you shouldn't call it that. I do and have a reason for it, which I've set out.

The quality of that reason pending.

I actually mentioned the secular parallel in response to Rex's (and fool's too, if I recall it correctly) notion that the sign might be an attempt to comfort those distressed by the religious nature of the holiday. Else, I never argued over the wording of the thing, only noted the timing and calculation of it, etc.

Not all atheists are "distressed" by Christmas, not even most by my estimation. This still doesn't properly address my question. How is atheism a slight against Christmas?

And its timing would have been a very effective way of garnering a great deal more than they paid for, which was part of my examination/conclusion, to be sure.

Under the assumption that garnering public attention requires nefarious motives? Or is there a specific threshold for how much public attention something acquires before it becomes tasteless?

But that wasn't the nature of my objection.

Then you should be more specific as to what your objection is, because your statement was:

"But I still find the timing tasteless, insensitive to the larger community and calculated to use the foreseeable sentiment in aiding a larger bid for public attention."

...which seems to imply that 'a larger bid for public attention' is bad. Or is it only bad when it utilizes 'foreseeable sentiment'? More clarity is needed.

You're off my point on that a little. I was speaking to the attempt to use the holiday, not the ultimate aim, which doesn't seem so much an effort to convert as organize for whatever reason, from an altruistic concern to a desire to engage and profit by. Who knows at this point?

The exact same billboard appeared in Austin, Texas during October. We know that these sorts of billboards and adverts appear year-round, so I disagree with your suggestion that it was using Christmas, nevertheless even if it was using Christmas for more attention -- so what? What difference does that make?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

It's not that they're atheists or have an atheistic message

Of course it is. If the billboard had said "Buy the new iPhone", and done so during Christmas season at that exact location, would anyone accuse the ad of being tasteless? What is the difference between that billboard and this one? There is only one difference: the message of the ad. The fact that the billboard contains an atheist message is central to the objection. It is untenable to argue otherwise.

 

[Town Heretic]

Only in submission to the "dominant culture", apparently.

Well, no. Find a single quote of me arguing for the suppression of this or any speech that doesn't promote criminal activity.

The quality of that reason pending.

Sounds terribly ominous. :think: You should set an organ to it.

Not all atheists are "distressed" by Christmas, not even most by my estimation.

Such was my thinking, the argument being advanced entirely by a couple of atheists. You'll have to take up why they feel that way with them, I suppose.

This still doesn't properly address my question. How is atheism a slight against Christmas?

Where did you ask that question and what has it to do with my objection? A slight? I don't believe I ever said it was. I've noted that the context of the atheist and the context of the Christian are in opposition, as they demonstrably and necessarily are.

Under the assumption that garnering public attention requires nefarious motives?

I've made no such assumption nor have I set out that charge.

Or is there a specific threshold for how much public attention something acquires before it becomes tasteless?

I've been clear on why and what I found in poor taste and it wasn't that.

Then you should be more specific as to what your objection is, because your statement was:

I've actually made a few direct remarks on that between you and fool and Rex. The quote you use is a fairly on point sum of a couple of points examined and noted prior.

"But I still find the timing tasteless, insensitive to the larger community and calculated to use the foreseeable sentiment in aiding a larger bid for public attention."

...which seems to imply that 'a larger bid for public attention' is bad.

Seems and imply? That's you again. I wasn't coy. It remains the timing and use of and not the speech or right to it that garnered my objection and characterization.

The exact same billboard appeared in Austin, Texas during October.

Then it wouldn't meet with the same objection.

We know that these sorts of billboards and adverts appear year-round, so I disagree with your suggestion that it was using Christmas,

That those sorts of billboards can be found somewhere year round, not a thing you've actually established and certainly not for the areas noted in the article, is of literally no impact on the point that the billboard in Mobile was specifically to be run the week of Christmas.

Now you can't on the one hand argue that billboards mean to reach the largest audience possible and then suggest the impact of this billboard in the Bible Belt the week of Christmas is an indifferent or coincidental action.

nevertheless even if it was using Christmas for more attention -- so what? What difference does that make?

I've told you and rex and fool. More than once. And absent a new point it seems sufficient. I took a position and set out my reason. That you have a different context and a different position is entirely your business. I had no notion of altering it by defending and making clear my own.

Of course it is. If the billboard had said "Buy the new iPhone",

I answered the point, but you truncated. It isn't the speech/context, that I find tasteless. It's the timing and use. I oppose atheism. I think it's an objectively inferior context for life and absent rational necessity a peculiarly needless one. That said, I oppose all sorts of things that seem to me a waste of energy and intellect without finding in them the objection I leveled at those responsible for the billboard in terms of its timing.

and done so during Christmas season at that exact location, would anyone accuse the ad of being tasteless?

That billboard wouldn't be attempting what this one was meant to attempt. And neither would the actual billboard in November.

What is the difference between that billboard and this one? There is only one difference: the message of the ad.

I wonder how many times I have to point you back to my very particular objection to the timing and what that timing trades on...because that remains the objection.

 

[OCTOBER23]

PERILOUS TIMES

2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts