Comments on: Getting Our Message Out

By: Virginia

Virginia — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:33:22 +0000

I ran an advertisement in a local paper on 18-Dec-2008. Basically saying the god, Jesus etc are just some "supposed" origin of the holiday celebration, and that holidays are just for us to gather with our loved ones and take a break, and there's no need of a religion.
That paper is relatively small, a readership of around 30,000 but hope I can make an impact.
The ad:

About the reaction of the Christians to the Ads my friend has a keen observation:
The problem for some self-proclaimed Christian is that once you think your God is the only one while all the others are of lesser kind or even devils, there is NO limit for you to show discrimination/hatred/bigotry towards another who has another religiion different from yours.
I just receive an enlightening remark from a friend:

By: Virginia

Virginia — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:28:32 +0000

Eshu,
Not attempting to appease religious bigots and extremist or theist is not the same as deliberately insult or to resort to ad hominem attacks. All it means is not to avoid straightforward talks that will inevitably insult, such as displaying the sign at Olympia beside the Nativity scene, or running ads by AHA near Christmas, and certainly includes say "religion is superstition that enslave and harden minds".

Religiosity makes people hates the most harmless remarks for no reason.

By: Virginia

Virginia — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:09:01 +0000

In Hong Kong at the middle of the metropolitan areas, you can see Christian signs (one about 200 feet high and 40 feet across in downtown, one at a roof top declaring Jesus in Lord with a cross etc) and numerous across town -- I really envy at what the American Humanist and others did in USA -- I have to break the Asian taboo (quite a big one) to say something "not appropriate" at such festive season -- am checking a local paper try to run an AD around 24-Dec-2008..... and make a cheap poster of my own...

By: 2-D Man

2-D Man — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:34:11 +0000

We are all more than capable of celebrating the holidays on our own, without government help.

Ha! Well said!

By: Ebonmuse

Ebonmuse — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:18:26 +0000

I've updated the post with some further developments, plus an image of the FFRF's billboard.

By: Ebonmuse

Ebonmuse — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:10:33 +0000

When threads are closed, it's for a reason. Please don't restart dead-end debates in other threads.

By: Leum

Leum — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 02:05:15 +0000

Look, I got your hint on the other thread and I realize DA is your blog, your domain, your home, your castle. As a taxpaying, Constitution-believing American, I respect your right to do as you wish at DA for whatever reasons you wish. However,
I would prefer that every viewpoint be heard, even the incorrect ones. I'm confident that the truth will win out if all sides are given a fair hearing... I don't believe in censorship.
Interesting considering this morning's decision to close dialog on The Age of Wonder for no other reason than that you deemed such unfruitful. So do you mean that you don't believe in censorship except when it serves your purposes?

cl, there is a difference between the right to publish and the right to be publish. If I'm a publisher I have every right to run ads denying the Holocaust, calling for the criminalization of sodomy, and the return of slavery. However, I also have every right, and should have every right, to refuse to publish such advertisements. The point here is that we think publishing those ads should be legal, not that we think publishing them ought to be mandatory. Freedom of speech is not an easy thing to believe in. It means that you have to support Fred Phelps, the Ku Klux Klan, and neo-Nazis. So why support them? Because to the government, the things we say may be just as subversive and immoral. I support Phelps' right to say "Thank God for dead miners" because I want to retain my right to say "God does not exist," and I recognize that there are people want to shut me up. There is no way to ban speech we find immoral without putting our own at risk, too.

Fair enough. I personally don't think it should be legal for advertisers to deceive the public in order to procure capital gains.

To an extent, I agree with you, provided that there is a clear link within the ad to the product being sold (otherwise it could be argued that an anti-gay ad is just a ploy to increase donations).

By: Chet

Chet — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:49:15 +0000

The Holocaust Never Happened!

Doesn't the Holocaust denier crowd (Duke et al) regularly buy ads in the NYT to this effect?

By: Ebonmuse

Ebonmuse — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:44:06 +0000

Yes, those are all legal.

By: cl

cl — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:49:10 +0000

Ebonmuse,

I wouldn't. If we establish a policy that it's acceptable to disallow any and all ads which contain factual errors, atheists and other minority groups would be the first targets ("We reject this ad because atheists are wrong to say that God doesn't exist"). I think YECism is ludicrously false, but that doesn't justify viewpoint discrimination. I would prefer that every viewpoint be heard, even the incorrect ones. I'm confident that the truth will win out if all sides are given a fair hearing.

Very well then. The following is a list of hypothetical bus slogans Ebonmuse has pre-cleared as acceptable in his efforts to avoid viewpoint discrimination by allowing any and all ads which contain factual errors, but do not advocate violence or criminality outright: The Holocaust Never Happened! Earth Really Is Flat! John F. Kennedy Is Alive And Well At LaGuardia! Detroit Lions - 2008 Super Bowl Champions! Fool, Don't Wrap It - You Can't Catch HIV From Unprotected Sex! Eating Any Food Will Kill You! Bayer - From The Makers Of Heroin! (this one's actually correct) Gays And Atheists Deserve No Rights! Omaha, Nebraska Beachfront Property! "When I Grow Up, I Wanna Be A Porn Star!" (accompanied by picture of young girl) I'm not jesting. These are all acceptable bus slogans, because viewpoint discrimination is the real evil, and the truth will win out in the end, right?

By: Erika

Erika — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:21:51 +0000

I will admit that the Olympia sign is not my favorite, but even so I have had to deal with an excessively vehement reaction to it. I suppose it is better than the sign not being noticed at all.

By: 2-D Man

2-D Man — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:02:05 +0000

Ebonmuse,

If the billboard company was clever in drawing up the contract, they may have left themselves a legal out.

I don't think it's clever. This kind of thing seems like standard procedure to me. I'm not sure what any billboard company does to approve messages before they go up, but it's possible that a message they put up is subtly inappropriate for a billboard and they didn't notice it at first. They need to be able to take it down in that case. But I agree that it seems distinctly possible that the city council decided they didn't like the message and used governmental pressure to suppress a message they disagreed with. At the very least, until it's shown otherwise, that council cannot be trusted.