Christian censorship: Atheist billboard taken down

[Daedalean's_Sun]

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

You're equivocating here. A lack of support, does not imply by necessity suppression.

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. 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.

Then the time of year would be immaterial. Atheism doesn't deal with Christmas in any direct fashion, thus the objection to "the timing" is entirely groundless.

I've made no such assumption nor have I set out that charge. I've been clear on why and what I found in poor taste and it wasn't that.

You've been everything but clear. Your statement, I remind you, was that the billboard was "...calculated to use the foreseeable sentiment in aiding a larger bid for public attention", I'm to assume this was just an irrelevant observation? Or was it included as a condition of a tasteless billboard? If the latter what specifically about it makes it such? If the former, then why include this observation at all, especially with the sneer with which it is presented?

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."

This quotation doesn't indicate the exclusion of "the foreseeable sentiment in aiding a larger bid for public attention" from "still find the timing tasteless". The way it is worded indicates that it is an extension of the other. If clarity is your goal, there is room for improvement.

Then it wouldn't meet with the same objection.

Of course, it will be met with another. See the video below.

That those sorts of billboards can be found somewhere year round, not a thing you've actually established

Then let me establish it:

Corpus Christi, Billboard in March

Here's one in June

Here's one in September

Here's one in November

etc...

is of literally no impact on the point that the billboard in Mobile was specifically to be run the week of Christmas.

People object to it regardless of the time of year. The "time of year" is merely a poor excuse.

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.

See the above. Moreover I don't really follow the logic here, are more atheists reading billboards in December?

That billboard wouldn't be attempting what this one was meant to attempt.

Which is?

{crosses fingers that you will actually address the issue head on}

Interesting though, that your contention here is one of motive.

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.

And what does that timing trade on, Town, because I have asked this precise question in various different ways and have yet to receive a direct answer before you circle back to "but the timing!". Atheism says zip, zero, zilch about Christmas specifically, so why is a billboard about atheism during this season "tasteless"? What relationship does atheism have with Christmas, that makes it so? I would absolutely love to hear your answer on this.

 

[Nazaroo]

 

[Town Heretic]

You're equivocating here.

No I'm not.

A lack of support, does not imply by necessity suppression.

You're actually equivocating then. I've said I oppose the message/context of atheism. I've said I support the right for that message to be heard. Where's your complaint then? That I don't actively support a message I oppose? lain:

Then the time of year would be immaterial.

Not to my objection, no.

Atheism doesn't deal with Christmas in any direct fashion, thus the objection to "the timing" is entirely groundless.

Again, the billboard was literally set to run beginning Christmas week. If you want to think that's coincidental it's a free (but apparently naive) country.

You've been everything but clear.

Yet you appear to be rather singularly confused about what my disagreement actually is...so maybe it's you. Maybe you're determined not to hear me, as when, in a moment, you determine that because some people of faith would object to the sign regardless I MUST also, even against my plain statement to the contrary.

Your statement, I remind you, was that the billboard was "...calculated to use the foreseeable sentiment in aiding a larger bid for public attention",

And I reminded you it was one of a series of statements, with this one summing a more involved examination. That said, yes, it was calculated (see: week of Christmas) and if you think the people responsible for it weren't aware of the likelihood of the coverage and response it would garner launching that in the Bible Belt during Christmas week, well, supra.

Here's your response to my plain statement on the impact of a different timing in relation to my objection.

Of course, it will be met with another.

Well, no. I've been clear on that, actually gave an example.

See the video below.

Well, no. I didn't make it and I'm not talking about someone else's argument or answer.

On proliferation:

Then let me establish it...

Great anecdotes, but they don't actually prove a rule. And, more importantly to this discussion, they don't begin to establish it within the areas noted in the OP. No, in this particular and my objection the group targeted a specific period.

People object to it regardless of the time of year.

Some will, I'm sure. I'm not one of them. I think only weak ideas need protection from the public square. I said as much recently to our new Islamic member.

The "time of year" is merely a poor excuse.

Rather it's the foundation of my reason in objection. How you read into it isn't my concern absent some proof that I'm being less than honest, instead of the weak sister assertion on the point.

See the above. Moreover I don't really follow the logic here, are more atheists reading billboards in December?

See: my earlier and repeated on the timing and it's likely reception, coverage and the bonus exposure that seems calculated to draw.

Which is?

A) reach its audience and B) appeal to as wide a potential audience as it can C) do so by timing its launch to trade on the season and sentiment, increasing exposure and generating free publicity, which is a smart move, but a crass one.

Interesting though, that your contention here is one of motive.

No, we've agreed on the motive. My objection is a bit else, supra.

And what does that timing trade on, Town

I've been clear on the point, repeatedly. It trades on the season and the likely response to its message placed within that context, the foreseeable impact and press that would generate.

Atheism says zip, zero, zilch about Christmas specifically

Stated and answered prior. Has nothing

, so why is a billboard about atheism during this season "tasteless"?

Asked and answered.

What relationship does atheism have with Christmas,

Ask the fellow who asked Llamar to be sure and launch it the week before Christmas.

that makes it so? I would absolutely love to hear your answer on this.

Given, repeatedly. So if there's a problem I'd suggest it's in how you're listening and what you're insisting on in my thinking, which is often contrary to what I'm both thinking and stating, supra.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

You need to consider the body of evidence. This isn't the first time Llamar and the CoR have had problems, and it's not the only issue with this particular billboard.

Back in 2009, Llamar removed a CoR billboard after the landowner received multiple threats. That's reasonable and the folks at the CoR said Llamar was "most apologetic". So while Llamar handled the incident well, it does seem to have set a tone.

With this particular billboard in Alabama, the reason for the 2 week delay in it going up was because Llamar wanted the CoR to put a disclaimer on it saying who paid for the billboard. According to the CoR, this surprised them since Llamar hadn't required anything like that before.

Add those things with the fact that Llamar, when they notified the CoR that the billboard was coming down, told the CoR that they had received a number of complaints about it, and IMO it paints a pretty clear picture of what happened. Because of the past history of threats over CoR billboards, the Llamar folks added a special requirement (a disclaimer) to the CoR billboard. They likely wanted to ensure locals understood that they didn't pay for or endorse the message. Then as the billboard goes up 2 weeks late (because of the special requirement) they start getting complaints about it. That sets the stage for Llamar to remove the billboard even though it had only been up 2 weeks, and in doing so they made sure the CoR understood that there had been complaints.

IOW, to me Llamar wasn't doing anything directly against the CoR, but they were obviously concerned about public perception and took advantage of the situation to only have it up for the 2 weeks. CYA all the way.

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.

"Trade in on the season"? Do you even understand the point of the message? As I said, it's specifically during Christmastime that non-believers feel extra societal pressure to go to church and such. That's the point of the message...to let us know that we're not alone and if we're interested in meeting like-minded people, the CoR exists for that purpose.

It would make a lot less sense to do that in August.

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.

???????? At whose expense was this billboard?

Or maybe you're just reading in, as you do with me in your suspicion.

No, I think it's pretty clear what's going on. Some people really, really don't like atheists and whenever they see any mention of atheism or atheists, they kinda go off about it. We see that here in this forum.

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.

Sure, that's what you believe. But some people seem to lack the capacity to appreciate that not everyone believes it, nor do they want to be pressured to believe it over and over and over and over and over.

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.

Like I said.....Sarachasm: The gulf between sarcasm and the person who doesn't get it.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Ask the fellow who asked Llamar to be sure and launch it the week before Christmas.

No, Town, I'm asking you.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

No I'm not.

A) reach its audience

So a billboard is tasteless if the motive of placing it up is to reach its audience?

B) appeal to as wide a potential audience as it can

This is all billboards.

C) do so by timing its launch to trade on the season and sentiment, increasing exposure and generating free publicity, which is a smart move, but a crass one.

This seems to be saying that because the atheist group expected that people would react negatively to their billboard that makes it tasteless? Is that accurate?

 

[Nazaroo]

 

[Granite]

What is with you guys and Darwin?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

What is with you guys and Darwin?

Naz, doesn't realize that no one is talking about Darwin here.


"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
-Winston Churchill

 

[Dialogos]

So... the atheist group is owed two weeks..

The billboard company needs to let their yes be yes.

Honestly, this billboard isn't going to de-convert anyone who is really a believer in the first place...

 

[Granite]

So... the atheist group is owed two weeks..

The billboard company needs to let their yes be yes.

Honestly, this billboard isn't going to de-convert anyone who is really a believer in the first place...

Awful lot of thin skin on the part of God's own here.

 

[Dialogos]

Awful lot of thin skin on the part of God's own here.

:idunno:

No idea what you mean here.

 

[Granite]

:idunno:

No idea what you mean here.

Whining about a billboard being in poor taste is frankly poor form. Pretty childish, if you ask me.

 

[Dialogos]

Whining about a billboard being in poor taste is frankly poor form. Pretty childish, if you ask me.

Compared to demanding the dismissal of a career firefighter with an exemplary record because he wrote something that offended others?

Yeah, I'd say the atheists have it pretty easy in this circumstance.

 

[aikido7]

Fear of atheism.
Fear of Jesus.
Fear of Meshak.
Fear of historical facts.

 

[Granite]

Compared to demanding the dismissal of a career firefighter with an exemplary record because he wrote something that offended others?

Yeah, I'd say the atheists have it pretty easy in this circumstance.

I'm not interested in changing the subject. And atheists remain the most misunderstood and feared minority in this country...as badly as you guys seem to want that title.

 

[Town Heretic]

So a billboard is tasteless if the motive of placing it up is to reach its audience?

Not my argument.

This seems to be saying that because the atheist group expected that people would react negatively to their billboard that makes it tasteless? Is that accurate?

I find it tasteless in its timing, as I'd find someone discussing their opposition to marriage in the midst of one, and beyond that I object to a calculated attempt to exploit the foreseeable reaction of the public to it in advancing their site. It's that simple.

The same sign in November is simply a thing promoting a context I differ with.

 

[Town Heretic]

You need to consider the body of evidence. This isn't the first time Llamar and the CoR have had problems, and it's not the only issue with this particular billboard.

Back in 2009, Llamar removed a CoR billboard after the landowner received multiple threats. That's reasonable and the folks at the CoR said Llamar was "most apologetic". So while Llamar handled the incident well, it does seem to have set a tone. With this particular billboard in Alabama, the reason for the 2 week delay in it going up was because Llamar wanted the CoR to put a disclaimer on it saying who paid for the billboard. According to the CoR, this surprised them since Llamar hadn't required anything like that before.

Curious to be sure.

Add those things with the fact that Llamar, when they notified the CoR that the billboard was coming down, told the CoR that they had received a number of complaints about it, and IMO it paints a pretty clear picture of what happened.

That's one read in. Another is that they had a prior commitment on the space and they were trying to make their move one the CoR might find more amenable, given the prior case you noted.

Because of the past history of threats over CoR billboards, the Llamar folks added a special requirement (a disclaimer) to the CoR billboard. They likely wanted to ensure locals understood that they didn't pay for or endorse the message.

I think that's a reasonable conclusion.

Then as the billboard goes up 2 weeks late (because of the special requirement) they start getting complaints about it. That sets the stage for Llamar to remove the billboard even though it had only been up 2 weeks, and in doing so they made sure the CoR understood that there had been complaints.

That's one way of looking at it. Might even be the case, but it isn't established by the facts and I've given you another reason. Who knows? That's between the parties and, possibly, their lawyers.

IOW, to me Llamar wasn't doing anything directly against the CoR, but they were obviously concerned about public perception and took advantage of the situation to only have it up for the 2 weeks. CYA all the way.

Again, not definitively established but certainly not outside of the realm of the possible or probable.

"Trade in on the season"? Do you even understand the point of the message?

Yes. I can add too. lain:

As I said, it's specifically during Christmastime that non-believers feel extra societal pressure to go to church and such.

Waiting until the week of Christmas seems ill suited to do much about the holiday for those people that couldn't be done better earlier.

That's the point of the message...to let us know that we're not alone and if we're interested in meeting like-minded people, the CoR exists for that purpose.

You're saying most atheists think they're essentially alone and make no effort to reach out unless reached out to by a group the week before Christmas? lain: Those are the laziest group of emotionally unstable people I've ever heard of...things have certainly gone down hill since I was a part of that mentality.

It would make a lot less sense to do that in August.

Which is why I suggested November. Get a running jump on the holidays.

???????? At whose expense was this billboard?

Given it's calculation I think that's not a question you need to ask or that I haven't already answered.

No, I think it's pretty clear what's going on. Some people really, really don't like atheists and whenever they see any mention of atheism or atheists, they kinda go off about it. We see that here in this forum.

My experience with the faithful is that you find a generally more strident and hard wired, combative version in this sort of environment, though there any number of exceptions, just as you tend to find more aggressively combative atheists here, but not entirely.

Sure, that's what you believe.

Well that's what I'm speaking to in difference with your perception. I'm offering another window on the motivation of the faithful than you might run into often in this sort of setting.

But some people seem to lack the capacity to appreciate that not everyone believes it, nor do they want to be pressured to believe it over and over and over and over and over.

A much more fragile crowd than in my day. I never had a problem with the faithful, only a difference. And I never had a problem enjoying the holidays. Such is life, I suppose.

Like I said.....Sarachasm: The gulf between sarcasm and the person who doesn't get it.

And I answered that sometimes the fault is in the writer. Rex wasn't certain and while I often use the droll, sarcastic and satirical I didn't see much of it in your advance beyond a parody of form that, within the sort of rhetoric you find here, is usually earnest. And, again, your defense on every point doesn't really advance your flag on point.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Not my argument.

Okay let us recap this discussion:


TOWN: It's not that they're atheists or have an atheistic message, I find the timing tasteless.

DS: Nonsense, If it were an iPhone advert, with the same timing, you wouldn't be calling it tasteless.

TOWN: That billboard wouldn't be attempting what this one was meant to attempt.

DS: Which is?

TOWN: A) reach its audience

DS: So a billboard is tasteless if it reaches its audience?

TOWN: Not my argument.

 

[shagster01]

You're actually equivocating then. I've said I oppose the message/context of atheism. I've said I support the right for that message to be heard. Where's your complaint then? That I don't actively support a message I oppose? lain:


Again, the billboard was literally set to run beginning Christmas week. If you want to think that's coincidental it's a free (but apparently naive) country.


Yet you appear to be rather singularly confused about what my disagreement actually is...so maybe it's you. Maybe you're determined not to hear me, as when, in a moment, you determine that because some people of faith would object to the sign regardless I MUST also, even against my plain statement to the contrary.


And I reminded you it was one of a series of statements, with this one summing a more involved examination. That said, yes, it was calculated (see: week of Christmas) and if you think the people responsible for it weren't aware of the likelihood of the coverage and response it would garner launching that in the Bible Belt during Christmas week, well, supra.

See: my earlier and repeated on the timing and it's likely reception, coverage and the bonus exposure that seems calculated to draw.


A) reach its audience and B) appeal to as wide a potential audience as it can C) do so by timing its launch to trade on the season and sentiment, increasing exposure and generating free publicity, which is a smart move, but a crass one.


I've been clear on the point, repeatedly. It trades on the season and the likely response to its message placed within that context, the foreseeable impact and press that would generate.

Ask the fellow who asked Llamar to be sure and launch it the week before Christmas.

So just to be clear, you think they should wait until a month with no religious holidays to post this?

In that case, Christians should wait until the pagan winter solstice celebrations (which were in place first) are over to celebrate Jesus' birthday, instead of plopping it down right on top of it and even steal their ideas such as the decorated Evergreen tree, etc . . .

I know how Christians hate when other people copy their ideas of theft.