According to HuffPo, the American Atheists erected this billboard in Times Square:
Well, that’s guaranteed rile up the faithful. Sure enough, New York State Senator Andrew Lanza has issued a statement on his website decrying the billboard and calling for, of all things, a boycott of Times Square. It’s a long, angry screed, but here are a few excerpts:
“Just as millions of Americans are preparing to celebrate Christmas, the American Atheists organization has ridiculed the solemn beliefs of millions of New Yorkers.”
“It is our solemn responsibility as Americans to defend each other’s right to believe in God or not, however, I denounce this organization’s lack of decency, civility and kindness to people of faith as expressed on these billboard messages. It seems to me that this is part of a continued “War on Christmas” and also upon the belief and value system of millions of Christian, Jewish and Muslim people who have faith in God. Religious persecution of the kind that similarly lead to the Holocaust began with small baby steps of ridicule and hatred of the religious beliefs of others. The same would be true of expressions of hatred levied upon others because they do not believe.
Yes, we can defend each other’s right to belief or nonbelief—so long as the nonbelievers keep their yaps shut. The faithful, of course, can plaster their superstitions all over the country—something just as offensive to atheists as this billboard is to Lanza—but we’re supposed to swallow it and keep quiet.
And it’s invidious for Lanza to argue that free speech against religion might bring on another Holocaust. Does he not realize that that sad episode came from religious people seeing other religions as wrong and filled with bad people? And what is Lanza’s statement except an expression of hatred toward those who do not belief?
. . . “I believe that when we see expressions of hatred, we should do something about it. It is why I have hoped that those who live in Manhattan and around Times Square and the community’s political leaders would have decried this hate speech as something not to be tolerated or allowed. I must say, I would like to report that I have since received scores of messages from Manhattan, from every other part of our City, and from across the Country, that religious differences aside, the sign is unkind.”
“I continue to call upon all decent people to send a message loud and clear that there is no room in our society for religious hatred or persecution toward people of faith. Nor should we tolerate religious hatred or persecution against those who do not believe. Hatred of others based upon their beliefs is contrary to what we are as Americans and to the very protections of our Constitution. We should instead celebrate the fact that we live in a country where our rights in this regard are protected.
This is doublespeak. It pretends to defend the Constitution while telling those who exercise their Constitutional rights to put a cork in it. Note above where he says that the billboard should “not be tolerated or allowed.” That kind of public censorship is an explicit violation of the Constitution.
Where is the “religious hatred of others” in that sign? Perhaps there’s dismissal of religious belief, but of believers? Nope. And if it’s “unkind” towards superstition, so what?
And persecution—really? Does Lanza think that a billboard representing the sentiments of perhaps 5% of Americans is persecuting the other 80-90% of believers?
Lanza, apparently besieged by comments from atheists, and realizing that there are VOTES there, has emended his statement, but he merely spouts more pablum. Here’s part of it (my emphasis):
“I have, for the second time, amended the content of this statement. I’ve done so based upon conversations which I have had with callers describing themselves as atheists. They have expressed concern, based upon misinterpretation, that my original statement can be taken as offensive to atheists based upon their beliefs.
. . . While our constitution protects such unkind statements, so does it protect my right to denounce them. I extend my apologies to those atheists who might have been offended, even if that is by virtue of misunderstanding.”
Misunderstanding? What is there to misunderstand about this?
“Religious persecution of the kind that similarly lead to the Holocaust began with small baby steps of ridicule and hatred of the religious beliefs of others.”
And this?
“It is why I have hoped that those who live in Manhattan and around Times Square and the community’s political leaders would have decried this hate speech as something not to be tolerated or allowed.”
This is one of those lame “apologies” that is like, “I’m sorry I upset you,” not only ignoring the substance of why he upset people but also claiming it was all a Big Misunderstanding. That means those who were upset, the atheists, got it wrong.
Lanza has in fact issued a notapology, saying that he never called for censorship and was misunderstood. He wasn’t. He was understood all too well. What he should have issued was an unqualified apology for equating an atheist billboard with Nazism, and for arguing that such billboards should “not be tolerated or allowed.” He is a dissimulator, a back-pedaler, a coward, and a self-serving ignoramus (he should be forced to write the First Amendment on the blackboard a hundred times). In other words, he’s a politician.
The good news is that atheists have won on this issue. People like Lanza have no argument against the billboard except to lie about the First Amendment and say that the sentiments are “unkind.” Sorry, senator, but this is the way we feel, and you can be as outraged as you want, but it’s our wish and our right to put up billboards like this one.
It’s Times Square, not some hickville in the deep south. I’m sure 90% of New Yorkers are atheist and will have no problem with this. Now try to stick that billboard in Arkansas and you’ll have blood on your hands.
Where did you come up with the claim that 90% of New York City are atheists??
I’m pretty disappointed that AA couldn’t come up with a better sign message than this one. It seems ONLY intended to piss people off, rather than making them think. I don’t see how that serves our purpose.
Well, among the atheists organizations I like AA the least. The good thing is that they show a visible face of atheism, the bad thing is that that is pretty much all they seem to do. (I have other reasons, but won’t go into them.) Give me the FFRF, with its extensive legal wing, any day. They actually manage to defend the First Amendment on a daily basis.
AA is also in serious need of competent graphic designers. I can’t recall a single one of their billboards that wasn’t hideous.
Now, don’t get me worng — I’m all for tweaking the noses of the faithful, and the responses they regularly get shows that AA is good in the nose-tweaking department. I just wish that they’d do a better job at it.
…and, yeah. They’re much more of a sideshow to the FFRF’s main event.
Cheers,
b&
They aren’t just hideous, they’re hard to read as well. Hideous could conceivably have a purpose but being difficult to read is contrary to their goals. They do generate a lot of publicity however.
“Prayers not working?” is the best sign that I’ve ever seen. It’s a question that believers struggle with every day.
That is a good one. “Where has prayer gotten you, compared to food and water, for starters.”
Also, the aesthetics of AA billboards are undesirable. Like badly written tech manuals for OEM scientific equipment…yuck. Is it any wonder most people cannot read manuals.
I agree with you. If the goal is to persuade, making people see red wouldn’t be the approach I would choose. Sure, there are many who will never listen, but those among them who are open to dialog would be put off by a provocative and dismissive message.
Then, by all means, go have a polite and respectful conversation with them.
I grow tired of hearing people complain that “confrontational” messages will put some people off. Perhaps it will. But ANY message will put some people off. There is value in quiet conversation. And there is also value in in-your-face activism. If one isn’t to your taste, go do the other.
Comments that civility suits some people better is not a complaint; it’s an observation. I don’t begrudge people being confrontational. I suppose it can be effective if not necessary, but not always.
When I become confrontational, it’s an expression of my impatience, frustration or anger. In my experience, these are not places from which open conversations spring, particularly with strangers and casual acquaintances. On the other hand, I have been blunt with people I know well. This is not the same as being confrontational.
I began my initial comment with “if the goal is to persuade….” If goal something else, the rest of my comment is irrelevant.
I use more forceful or direct means of influence depending on the style of the person I’m speaking with. It may not be because I’m fighting aggression with aggression either. I may choose to fight aggression with calm logic or calm logic with more logic or calm logic with bluntness. It depends on what I think will move the conversation forward and help reach resolution.
It is the ability to know your audience, have a repertoire to pull from and be agile enough to recognize one method isn’t working and change tact.
So, in this vein, I think a variety of approaches is appropriate and I don’t have an issue with this one as I think it forces the conversation about if people really need to be C&E Christians to enjoy Xmas.
The problem is that saying ““if the goal is to persuade” isn’t enough. Persuade who of what, exactly? Saying that a billboard like this one fails some “it isn’t persuasive” test is kind of meaningless without thinking about the many, many, many, types of people who will be exposed to it directly or in follow-on conversations around the country.
This may not be a persuasive message for someone in your situation. But not everyone is in your situation.
Often when people call for less confrontational messaging they are are really just wanting someone else to STFU.
I was expressing how such billboards would turn *me* off and that this approach would not work well for people like me. Nowhere did I say such billboards should not be used, or that they “fail” to communicate something about atheism.
We all agree the world is populated by diverse people. Employing different methods to raise awareness makes sense.
It would have been clearer for me to say that along with these confrontational ads, it would be good to have ads that raise awareness without being so heavy-handed.
Well at least the America Atheist step up and tell the truth that mant already know that Christmas has no historical connection to Christ. The Puritans knew it also and outlawed Christimas in their theocracy.
I have already sent 2 emails this week to Lanza taking him to task for his statements and asking him to resign.
Subtlety and humour never go astray on a billboard. Also lets you say that critics are humourless gits and not just gits.
Bravisimo! Well said.
Thanks.
As thought-provoking as a brick to the head. What a sad waste of a billboard opportunity.
I joined this discussion board to talk science. I feel faith or life after death, if real, exist beyond that barrier of existence we all call a singularity. The area of existence where all known laws of Physics, and Science break down. The area that is forever unknowable. I’ll talk life after death possibilities as it relates to theories of such but I don’t talk issues of faith. I believe in live and let live. I fail to understand why Atheist feel the need to turn their understanding of the universe into essentially a religion and even creating churches, a real oxymoron if you ask me, and preaching. If you feel the faithful are foolish mystics believing in a magic sky creature why the overwhelming need to mock and instigate them! I mean I’ve heard the old arguments, which have some truth, that religion creates wars and death but atheist are not arguing from a position of strength because Stalin and his Atheist brigades were equally horrible to their fellow man. Of course it is your right to mock, make fun of, belittle, and instigate but just because it’s your right does that mean you have to jump on the band wagon. Well this is way to long if a post. No one knows what happens to consciousness after death, it could all just end certainly but no one knows nor will ever know. Good day!
A much greater mystery… why do some people feel the need to capitalize the word “atheist” in the middle of a sentence?
Good day to you, too!
And when it’s plural, why the hell can’t they add the S?
You are welcome to not come here if you don’t like it. Especially when you spout nonsense.
Joe, you must be new here. All of your questions/concerns have been addressed, extensively, in other posts and comments. Do some homework and get back to us. Or not.
First of all that tired old tu quoque stuff referencing Stalin is well, tired. Stalin didn’t murder in the name of atheism and if you think he did, you need to go back to your Russian Revolution text books.
As for why atheists speak up against religion – it’s because it’s harmful. It’s harmful when children are left to die because of religious misconceptions and fear of things like blood transfusions and vaccines. It’s harmful when people are encouraged to rely on revelation instead of knowledge. It’s harmful when members of a technologically advanced society denounce science and hope for the end times. It’s harmful when people are psychologically abused into thinking they are sinners when they are normal human beings and it’s especially wrong when atheists who have the courage to say they do not believe and you are harassed and threatened by believers.
Those are just some of the reasons.
I posted your second para. on my tumblr. It now has 363 notes (likes and reblogs), far more than anything else I’ve tumbld. Thanks!
/@
Ha ha cool! I made you popular! 🙂
I wouldnt go /that/ far
/@
🙂
http://xkcd.com/774/
And, you’re totally right! If only Stalin had abandoned his atheism and embraced the one true religion of mighty Quetzalcoatl, Russia would have been spared the millions of human sacrifices.
…wait. What? You mean your problem isn’t with the fact that Stalin didn’t believe in any gods at all, but that he didn’t believe in the gods on your own personal list of approved gods? Figures.
b&
Well, Joe: if you “joined this discussion board to talk science”, why don’t you talk science, then? What you posted doesn’t sound like “science”- have you now changed?
If you joined to talk science, why do you spout inanities?
There are many kinds of singularities, from mathematical to putative physical. If we talk about physical singularities, it is an open question if they exist.
But even the simplest mathematical singularity obeys laws. For example, such a mathematical system 1) repeats values an infinite number of times, but 2) there is one value that isn’t repeated.
[The known example of a system which can be most generally modeled as a singularity is the center of a black hole. And that isn’t a barrier of existence, it is simply a locale where time temporarily ends. Evaporation of a black hole will eventually mend spacetime so time resumes everywhere.
In that sense a black hole isn’t a barrier of existence but simply the end of existence. That means you claim that realized faith, life after death, et cetera doesn’t exist. Which seems consistent with observation for a number of (real) reasons. =D]
The atheist understanding of science is the same as the skeptic acceptance of science. And magic ideas is nowadays tantamount to homeopathy due to science advancement.
As an example:
As I have now noted repeatedly on this site, the LHC completion of the standard model of physics means we now know beyond reasonable doubt that there is no magic “soul”/”lifedeath”/”rebirth” (or prayer) mechanism.
Because quantum mechanics doesn’t give out states before observation (or it wouldn’t work) and the quantum vacuum permits everything not forbidden (or it wouldn’t work), even magical agents that interacts, _and they would have to_, with standard particles to gain information of brain states would be seen. Magic could theoretically act on brains 1000 times smaller than ours (counting number of synapses) without we seeing it as of yet. But we can already exclude it for humans simply due to the high precision that quantum electrodynamics (responsible for chemistry) is understood and can be measured with, and the LHC closing the previous gap on the sector of quantum physics that predicts it.
So we do know, and while it was far from a trivial result (some 400 years after science started to be practiced) it was even further from “ever know”. I don’t think any scientist can ever say say “we will never know”* of anything pertaining revisable science.
* With the exception of no-go theorems like “no cloning” et cetera.
You’ve apparently failed to grasp the First Rule of Blogging, which is that the site exists for the host’s amusement, not for yours. You don’t get to tell him he’s Doing It Wrong. He can do it however he likes, and if that’s OK with you, you’re welcome to stay. If not, there are plenty of other sites to visit.
Joe Christians make many claims of fact which science has something to respond to such claims. It would tak a long essay to list just some of those. This is an alternate email you canuse safely FREE2DOUBTOK@gmail.com and I will senda very long list.
Apparently Lanza threatened to take action to have AA’s non profit status revoked as well.
On what possible grounds?
b&
The usual. mrflkebruvle del flkjafeepo. Or something.
Well, in that case, why not goegzx fihwghco tieuwl as well?
b&
Mutually reenforcing arguments, I suppose.
True. Good point.
b&
Thank you both. I love sitting in on these intellectual exchanges, even though they are often beyond me!
Oh that they are a “hate group” of course.
“…and calling for, of all things, a boycott of Times Square.”
—
I am sure the elebenty gazillions of tourists will put aside their burning desire to see that bit of internationally known urbanscape so as to support Lanza in his quest for kindness. Never mind all the planning that went into getting there, or the money, or the disappointment of the people who wanted so much to catch a glimpse of Times Square. Kindness, I say, is the order of the day! 🙂
It would be like the exhibition of “degenerate art” the Nazis had back in the 30s; everyone came to see what was so offensive!
Jerry, according to Hemant Mehta, the original draft of this was vastly worse. See:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/12/20/ny-state-senator-quietly-rewrites-press-release-denouncing-atheists-unaware-of-something-called-a-screenshot/
Yeah, apparently he quietly altered his press release but he still wants to go after their non profit status. I imagine he is realizing what a blunder he has made in his calculation of how many atheists he offended and he’ll back peddle on that too.
sub
I like the sign I saw the other day. It said, “Reason for the Season? Planetary tilt!”
I have about 8 of those buttons! From Center For Inquiry!
Purchasing advertising sign space to say that Christ is not necessary for Christmas is a dog-whistle. There are two other AA billboards (displayed on the link Coel provides @ 11 above) that would have induced less ire and I personally would advocate displaying instead of this one that fired up Sen. Lanza.
That said, the message on this sign contains no hate, regardless of the ridiculous spin placed on it by this particular political opportunist. Like any current GOP leader, he is only too eager to take advantage of the climate of seasonal hysteria generated over more than a decade of carefully orchestrated theater by the rightwing radio/Christian broadcast media/FOX Drama Club.
‘Religious persecution of the kind that lead to the Holocaust similarly began with small baby steps …’ [I placed “similarly” in a different location, there, to provide Lanza’s comment some much-needed editing]: Christian’s are not asking for advice from me, but I recommend y’all avoid any conversation that discusses responsibility for historic acts of genocide targeting Jews.
For any Christian religious apologist types reading here, lack of belief in a god or religion is not tantamount to baby steps that will produce a holocaust. The following is an example of baby steps that DID lead to THE Holocaust (copied from Wiki):
‘Blood libel (also blood accusation) is a false accusation or claim that Jews kidnapped and murdered the children of Christians to use their blood as part of their religious rituals during Jewish holidays. Historically, these claims—alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration—have been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.’
Lanza is absurd, but he has plenty of company for the week. I’m not sure where his actions rank on the following list:
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-ways-right-wingers-went-cuckoo-week-duck-dynasty-meltd0wn…
While I agree with Jerry and others that AA reeeeeeealy needs to get better designers to do their billboards, I think there is a case to be made for the just-over-the-top nature of this one. It provokes yo-yos like Lanza to over-react. There is some value in that since it looks so ridiculous when it happens.
On the other hand, he’d probably over-react with hyper-respectful pro-atheism messages, too.
See? I can argue with myself, too!
I actually agree with your main point. I think it’s a good thing that politicians react like Lanza so people can see how absurd their representatives really are.
It takes all approaches to reach everybody. We really don’t need to spend much time on in-house quibbling.
IIANM, gnus would even be OK with the accommodationists, if their approach didn’t automatically include criticizing ours.
+1
+1
The AA billboard is also incorrect. Clearly some Christians feel they need Christ during Christmas. Plus, any child can tell that “Christ”mas comes from Christ, so we look like a bunch of idiots. Frankly, atheists should stay away from Christmas and stop playing into paranoid, conservative narratives. I sometimes feel that just when atheists like Sam Harris and Steven Pinker make atheists look cool, along comes some group that makes us look like Jehovah’s witnesses or scientologists or something, only that scientologists are savvy enough to wish everyone “Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays” on their billboards.
There was more to the sign. It’s animated. Here is how a CBS News article describes it:
The 40-by-40 digital billboard uses motion graphics to display an animated message beginning with the words, “Who needs Christ during Christmas?” A hand crosses out the word “Christ,” and the word “nobody” then appears the group American Atheists explained.
The display goes on to read, “Celebrate the true meaning of Xmas,” followed by a series of what American Atheists called “cheery words” such as family, friends, charity, food, and snow.
Thank you for the info. That makes it a little better. Still, besides being needlessly combative or confrontational, the atheists are begging the question with their definition of the meaning of Christmas. For many Christians, Christmas is primarily about Christ and Christianity and God’s grace, and not just about food and gifts (as for snow being part of the meaning of Christmas, that’s just ridiculous). Even as an atheist, if asked by my child to explain Christmas, I would need Christ for the explanation, so the message seems either confusing or wrong. At any rate, I find the sign a bit counter-productive to the greater goal of a more secular society.
I think the atheist position is that there is no need for Christ so I don’t have a problem with the message just as many Christians believe you need Christ for Christmas and they are fine to go ahead and state that on their billboards as they do and have done.
As a life long atheist, I’ve always celebrated Xmas (I’m sure it would have irritated Christians if they had known I was an atheist back then as they felt Xmas belonged to them alone, despite the whole theft of it from pagans). Hindus and Sikhs also celebrate Xmas along with other non Christians so I think it’s good to see that inclusive message even if it does annoy Christians.
I think a more positive message works best. Maybe something more along the lines of, “Relax, O’Reilly. Atheists can love Christmas too. And now, please enjoy these traditional Christmas favorites written by Jewish composers.” 😉
Yeah, they do those too. I’m sure they are trying to appeal to different personalities.
Butm there are also many “nomial” christians who know that Christmas and Christ have no historical connections along with almost all atheist and other nonbelievers and those were the ones that American Atheists were aiming at not the fundies, who by the way may not now that there is no connection. Many would not be offended and it is not wrong to offend people just because the religious have lied to them.
“Plus, any child can tell that ‘Christ’mas comes from Christ, so we look like a bunch of idiots.”
But that doesn’t mean that anyone actually needs Christ at Christmas!
Do you need Þórr every Thursday?!
/@
Well not every Thursday. That would be greedy.
What about Frigg every Friday?
/@
Frigg is only for special occasions.
Something tells me I might not want to know too much about your special Frigg ‘n’ Thor….
b&
Ha ha! I was thinking of the Thor joke.
That’s what I was afraid of….
b&
Depends what you need Christ for. Yes, you don’t need Christ to love your family, but you do need Christ to celebrate Christianity and the origins of Christmas, which is what the holiday is about for many people, so to tell them Christ is unneeded just begs the question. Besides, many Christians feel that they really do need Christ. At the very least, those feelings of need are real and it does nothing to claim that those feelings are invalid. It’s a bit like telling a child desperately clinging to a beloved teddy bear that they don’t need the teddy bear.
Or an elephant, a feather …
/@
When you use words like need, you must explain what the need is for. Dumbo may not need the feather to fly, but he does need it for comfort. That is a real need, and you can’t say that it doesn’t exist. Now, you could explain to Dumbo that he will become comfortable once he gets used to flying without the feather, but at the moment when he is experiencing a need for something, you can’t say he doesn’t.
The billboard says you don’t need Christ to enjoy xmas in the next animated panel. That is the message of the billboard.
I know, but I think you’re reading this sign through the eyes of an atheist, and I’m trying to see it through the eyes of a believer. Of course, it’s obvious that everyone can enjoy the holidays, but that’s not the ultimate message of the sign. Yes, you and I can enjoy Christmas without Christ, but a religious person has or strives for a different experience. At any rate, in their thinking and feeling, they need Christ, and the sign does nothing to explain to believers why they don’t.
Also, while the sign is animated at Times Square, the rest of the country experiences it in photos which give a totally different, and negative, impression.
I suspect that billboard is aimed at in the closet atheists. The ones that go to church out of obligation. It’s there to tell them it’s okay to still enjoy Xmas and skip the religion.
You may be right about that. Still, I think we should be concerned about how we come across to others given how negatively we are perceived and presented.
I don’t see why we should be concerned about that any more than Christians are concerned about how they come across to others, with their avalanche of crosses, “keep Christ in Christmas” banners, nativity scenes, and a myriad of other Christian talismans. They seem to think others deserve having to endure such things and I think they deserve having to put up with one lousy billboard.
Guys, we are a dreaded and misunderstood minority with a PR battle on our hands. What the Christians do on their displays is their problem. There is a place for a more confrontational approach, but not on national posters which represent ALL atheists to the public. I don’t believe that AA’s goal is to put out posters telling everyone who’s not an atheist that they are full of shit. I agree with the sentiment, but not the tactic.
@secularjew: The argument you are making is not new. It has been thrown at gnu atheists for years. But the proof, such as it is at this stage, is in the pudding and since atheists have been coming out “loud and proud” and directly confronting the idiocy that is religion, the trends are all in the direction of progress. So I think you can put your fears off to the side and stop fretting that this or that believer is going to be offended.
Atheists are not uniform. We are united pretty much solely by non-belief. No one style reflects us all. Every message will be too harsh for some and too mild for others. Get used to it.
secularjew wrote:
Well, I don’t think the billboard is particularly confrontational, but, out of curiosity, just where do you think is the “place for a more confrontational approach”?
It is precisely because atheists differ in their approaches and opinions that I think that any public display seemingly on behalf of ALL atheists should err on the side of presenting atheists in a more favorable light.
I know a lot of religious people and if they saw Christ crossed out on a Christmas poster, it would not make them think, it would just annoy and insult them. Not that I care terribly, but it’s probably counter-productive. But I’m not storming the barricades here, just trying to argue for a different approach. Obviously individuals and groups can say whatever they want. Frankly, I’m not a big believer in the effectiveness of these billboards anyway.
As for when a more forceful approach is best, I don’t have any hard rules. It depends on what kind of a person you are, the time, the place, the people you’re communicating with, and what you are trying to communicate.
The pushback you’re getting is because you’re telling other people how they should express themselves to suit your own personal needs.
That’s not how these things work.
You’re not merely welcome, but encouraged to express yourself as you see fit.
But you telling us that we need to tone things down so as not to unduly upset the religious is as offensive to us as you would find it if we were to tell you that you needed to start dropping F-bombs in your conversations with theists in order to rattle their cages.
I can’t think of any examples of “Gnu” atheists telling accommodationists how accommodationists should frame accommodationist messages, but accommodationists are invariably devoting much of their energies to telling Gnus how to frame Gnu messages. This the Gnus find quite annoying, if not downright offensive.
Cheers,
b&
@secularjew:
What you call “just trying to argue for a different approach” I call “tone trolling”.
Just another example of variation between atheists.
You need to read my comment again. I’m not saying that you NEED to do anything. I was merely pointing out that as it stands, the sign is counter-productive to the atheist cause, unless, of course, your cause is just to piss people off on purpose. To disagree with that is not accommodationism, just smart marketing.
No, secularjew, I don’t need to reread. I (we) have read all of your comments. They are repetitive, redundant, and you made your point with the first one. You don’t like this kind of messaging. But you keep at it, which is why you’ve reduced yourself to being a tone troll.
Talk about the pot calling the cattle black, gbjames. I tried to give arguments, you just gave attitude. And what’s with the name calling? Your definition of a “troll” is so loose as to include almost everyone commenting on this site. Maybe debates are often pointless because parties rarely change each other’s mind, but I was honestly trying to communicate. In return, what I basically got from you was “Shut up, go away.” I think you are confusing being cogent with just being boorish.
No, secularjew. “Tone troll” is a rather specifically defined term, not over-broad. It is a familiar sort of commentary brought by accomodationist-minded folk who tend to go on about how being confrontational is counter productive, about how you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and so on. (No… we’re not trying to catch flies.)
It is the scolding and repetitive nature of tone trolling that wears thin. It is unreasonable to expect every atheist message to conform to your particular preferred framing.
Wrong. I did not disrupt any discussions, which is what trolls do, nor was I trying to get anyone’s goat. Besides, in this case, tone is absolutely germane to the very subject of the discussion. What, we can never discuss tone anymore? What are you, the comments police? If saying anything of substance on the subject of tone is considered being a “tone troll”, then I object to that label on the same basis that I object to the “Islamaphobia” smear. Anyway, we seem to be doing exactly what Jerry warned against. I’m done.
Once again, the difference is between stating what works for you and what you would do and telling others how worng they are and that they should do things your way. The former is good, and even better if you actually go do it. The latter is tone trolling — also known as cat herding, being a bossypants, etc.
Cheers,
b&
Yes, we do. Truce?
Well, in the spirit of Christmas without Christ, sure.
It matters not a whit to me if someone thinks that they can’t enjoy Christmas without Christ. There is ample evidence that lots of people do. They are simply wrong. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect any one sign to explain everything to all believers. Some will be offended, no doubt. But that’s true even if the sign says nothing more than “Atheists exist.”
I’m more concerned by the general design crudeness of AA billboards. They are visually cluttered and aesthetically crude. They aren’t classy. My guess is that if they were designed by people who knew something about design there would be less whining about tone.
I remember when the billboard campaigns started and many atheists were very cautious about the whole idea.Any kind of billboard was immediately opposed as “offensive”by christians across the country. With a “you atheist shut up”!attitude! Signs were removed, defaced! No respect for atheist right to speakup and be heard! It won us support! Not that we got much press coverage. But they have helped to inform a huge number of people that various atheist, freethinkers type groups exist and many have joined groups after seeing these billboards. They found they were not alone and they found others and the groups have grown by large numbers every year. The sign educate also! Hurrah for all the billboard!
Billboard defacing still goes on. Here is one from a year ago.
The thing these vandals don’t get is that when they do this it pretty much gives the lie to the religious claim that religion is our source of moral behavior.
But from their point of view, what they’re doing /is/ moral.
/@ >
To those spineless atheists who don’t want to rock the boat and risk “offending” religious people – having many *really* strong atheist messages out there like this is absolutely essential!
It widens the field of what messages are possible (a.k.a. the Overton window). It generates a lot of discussion that multiplies the message thousands of times (from Times Square to the entire planet!). It brings out the wackaloons like Lanza, who make public fools of themselves. And America’s youth sees that these atheist ideas are out there and are fully defended, which helps to spread the idea that atheism is a publicly acceptable concept, not some dirty little secret to be kept hidden.
The only religious people offended are those we will not persuade anyway. They are a lost cause. It is everyone else that we should care about.
Thomas Kuhn said “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Exactly the same thing applies with atheism, and that is why those strong messages are so vital.
Exactly right, in my opinion. I think it’s a fine message, along with as many others as possible, the stronger and more provoking the better.
Still could’ve been better executed …
/@
How?
Would you personally agree with the message if it was only aimed at you? If ‘yes’, then why are you ashamed to see your point of view publicly expressed?
Just a quick note: Kuhn is not right there. He is a rather anti-science philosopher who thinks science is just like religion: a paradigm is like a new religion scientists start believing in for many reasons apart from the scientific merits of the theory. I don’t think we should buy into that way of explaining science. In fact, Kuhn is the origin of a lot of misunderstandings about science in the Humanities. Science does not work in a Kuhnian way.
+ 1
Webmaster – I am not trying to explain science. I was making the more general point that some people are set in their ways and will never be persuaded, on a scientific matter, religious or any other. They are the people who are likely to act defensively toward any new idea that challenges their world-view, and they will cry “offence”.
New generations take a idea and incorporate it into their world-view if it makes sense.They are the people we most want to appeal to.
In short, appeasement will always fail, so forget trying that. There are many good reasons for a strong message. Toning the message down to suit our most implacable opponents is a losing strategy.
Exactly; Kuhn’s thesis has actually been tested and found wanting. (Most notably by David Hull.)
Other aspects of Kuhn’s work are *provably* wrong (e.g., incommeasurability, which can be shown to be mistaken with Bunge’s theory of reference). The nature of the Lavoisier/Priestley bit, which Kitcher shows to be an exaggeration at best is also mistaken.
With three big problems, why rely on such a source for what to do? That said, I think we should *study* how effective advertising would help with the matters we care about here. If I knew how to do it I would have begun to work on it already.
I suspect, however, that a *plurality* of approaches will be needed to “reach” different people.
The problem with senator Lanza
is that he beheld an annoying stanza,
it was in Times Square,
so he said “do not stare!”,
less the result be godless extravaganza.
Good, but try to work in “Tony Danza” 😀
Hmm: Lanza, Danza, …Panza? That’s going to get libellous. Better not go there :).
Well, it is just beliefs. I read an interesting article on the swedish Yule the other day, a synopsis from a history book by a science journalist. My suspicion that it was a toss up whether Yule was originally secular or folk belief came through.
Before Yule was taken over by the lutheran sect to become everyone else’s Christmas, it was of course the catholic sect’s celebration of the same, and before that the asa sect’s celebration of “midvinterblot”. “Blot” sounds bloody, but was originally a festivity for fertility (IIRC).
And before that it was a folk fertility festivity (so called “färing”, which etymology I have to trace down) which can still be seen in the straw decorations used. The straw was kept from the harvest and used for ornaments, but also to sleep on and “with”.
[And I didn’t know this, but the Yule dish of “lutfisk”, dried fish cooked until edible, was originally a european catholic sect import.]
This is true for all holidays attributed to today’s sects. I think I mentioned it the other day, but even Easter can be traced through the jewish Pesach [sp?] to persian Nouruz [sp?] (with hebrew from the persian empire administrative language arameic and their sun calender, an understandable influence) of the same time and same type of dishes.
Nouruz is another fertility festivity in the spring. But the persion calender derives from the babylonian and then it was their new year. Secular or religious traditions setting the date, who knows?
And I suppose it’s irrelevent (or irreverent) to mention that the season was adopted by a Roman convert to Christianity to compete with “pagan” celebrations, and no one has the foggiest idea when (or, probably if) the baby Jesus was born.
My issue with Lanza (and others) boils down to: Atheisim is NOT a belief system.
If the faith heads could grasp that concept then they wouldn’t feel so threatened.
Their leaders still would still hate though because the faithful, no matter how poor, keep the coffers full.
To those who think that the way for a minority group to influence the majority group is for the minority group to sit down and have a nice talk with the majority group, I will simply ask them to imagine how those tactics would have fared for the following groups:
Blacks.
Women.
Gays.
You are living in cuckoo land if you think change can be achieved without confrontation. Sure, in the end, diplomacy will be required, but nothing will happen unless and until the majority it’s forced to wake up and listen.
Well put! I am proud to be a member of American Atheists and I see nothing wrong with this billboard. AA’s billboards are supposed to provoke controversy — this tactic gives each one far more “reach” than it would if it were mild and conciliatory.
AA laid a trap for the likes of Rep. Lanza, and he walked right into it. Gentle words would never have persuaded him that a growing percentage of the population is fed up with the privileges bestowed upon religion in the U.S., but now he knows — as do millions of Americans who follow the news.
While atheism was mainly in the care of unusually bright, tasteful people, it had no chance of gaining wide exposure or acceptance. Now that it’s become trendy with the intellectually mediocre and the crass, I believe its influence and acceptance will continue to grow. Such is the way of change in our species.
Atheism is trendy? Who knew?
Well with the intellectually mediocre, so not us.
Speak for yourself 🙂
The point being that AA is not clever or tasteful, but it is a sign of the mainstreaming of atheism. You can be classy or popular, but probably not both.
I don’t know where the idea that atheism is “mainstreaming” comes from. The recent 2012 Pew survey shows that less than 6% of Americans identify as atheist or agnostic – how does that qualify as mainstream? With rare exceptions, atheism is the kiss of death in politics, anywhere in the country. The idea that atheism is anything resembling mainstream is an illusion, perhaps fed by a few best-selling books and a few blogs (and websites) that are followed by a tiny subset of that 6%.
Also, atheists are the least trusted of all groups so that doesn’t sound very trendy at all.
We have lots of different kinds of atheist and freethought groupsbecause people do not agree on tactics and what should be done, what should or should not be said. Therefore we will see a variety of statements on billboard before the public and that should be expected. Are we going to please everyone. Not by a long shot. I belong to a variety of local and national groups and at 71 and one who first rejected religion a 7 years of age at my mother Methodist sunday school class in Iowa I am still amazed at how much I still find to learn and “All My Days Are Good!”
Shoving religious [dis]belief into people’s faces. Looks painfully familiar.
Other than making a few people angry, what good does this board do? I understand, freedom of speech and such. We are free to say whatever we want. But should we?
Yes.
/@
So, to oppose angry religious people doing harm, we need to create more angry religious people? By this logic, killing violent and immoral people will minimize violence and improve morality, will it not? Isn’t this the exact logic which atheists seem to oppose? How “new” is this approach? 5000 years old? And then, we are upset that religion does not change and blame them for doublespeak.
Oh, please! That doesn’t follow at all!
Reason will not always dissuade people from a position that they didn’t reach through reason (e.g., religious belief). Ridicule is an appropriate tool in this case, as (iirc) Jefferson noted.
/@
In my experience, riducule and sarcasm tends to antagonize people. People are more likely to agree with you if you explain why they are irrational without insulting them. Correct me if I’m wrong. I think that ridicule and mockery are counter-productive and ineffective, at the very least. It’s better to laugh with people than laugh at people.
Consider yourself corrected.
Review some of the comments where we discuss this. The sign’s target audience is not Christians but those atheists who masquerade as Christian (some as C&E Christians)and it’s saying that it’s okay to celebrate Xmas without the religion part (ie: you don’t have to fake it in fear of being called a hypocrite for celebrating Xmas as an atheist).
Sure, some may not like the way the message is presented, some Christians may even be offended but making Christians feel welcome, is not the intent of the sign.
Then the board is very poorly designed. The intended audience is not clear at all. The word “nobody” seems to include Christians. Celebrating Christmas without Christ is like celebrating winter holidays without winter. Sounds silly.
If the message said “Do we need Christ to love our neighbor?” or something to this effect, it would sound a lot better. As is, the message appears to be intentionally provocative, not in the best sense. Which I, personally do not like.
Your concern is noted.
/@ >
The board may not appeal to you and that’s a valid argument. What isn’t a valid argument is it shouldn’t be designed that way because it may offend Christians.
You are right. There is no reason why people shouldn’t participate in a pissing contest if they choose to. Getting in the middle of it isn’t a smart idea.
Really? One can’t celebrate Christmas without Christ (whatever Christ means)? Guess I’ve been doing it wrong for sixty years.
What is the best sense to be intentionally provocative? Personally, I like the message.
@tomh re “Guess I’ve been doing it wrong for sixty years.”
Whatever you celebrated doesn’t seem to have been Christmas. Would you celebrate Independence Day without Independence? “Keep the fireworks, dump the myth.” How’s that for a 4th of July billboard?
Re: “What is the best sense to be intentionally provocative? Personally, I like the message.”
You can provoke people to show their best or provoke people to show their worst. This seems to be the latter variety.
You seem to be under the (sadly, all too common) mistraken impression that Christmas has something to do with Christ and Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth.
“Christmas” is merely the modern English name for a very, very ancient wintertime festival celebration. It’s much, much older than Christianity, and might even be older than written language. The Bible does make reference to it, but only to admonish YHWH’s worshippers that it is an abomination, something they must not do. It involves decoration with evergreens, exchanges of gifts, displays of light to lessen the darkness, feasting, and general revelry.
The Christ Mass that’s the Christian religious ritual to pay homage to the birth of the lamb-man whom they eat in a sacrificial offering. It has none of the elements of the ancient Christmas festival (known earlier as Yule or Saturnalia or by other names) and none of the elements of the Christ Mass are part of the Christmas festival. And a great many Christians are quite aware of this, and will insist that Christmas is strictly verboten and only the Christ Mass should be celebrated.
The naming is confusing, but language works like that. “Theology,” for example, is the study of Theos, which is another spelling of Zeus’s name. Yet nobody gets upset at the fact that Christian theologians are mistrakenly studying the head of the Olympian pantheon rather than the Christian one just because of the name.
So, yes, very truly: Christ is irrelevant to Christmas (in the same sense that Thor is irrelevant to Thursday), even if Christ is the central subject of the Christ Mass.
Cheers,
b&
I know all of that. The Bible makes no mention of Jesus’ birth date and it’s unlikely to be a fixed date in a solar calendar. The tree is from paganism. The holiday was introduced by the church to sway pagans from celebrating solstice.
The sign, however, does not seem to imply any of this. The language and the context seems to be deliberately chosen to piss off Christians. It may be not, but it can be perceived that way, and it is perceived that way. If it’s intentional, I don’t think it’s a good tactic. If it’s not — too bad that people care so little what effect their words and actions may have on others.
Once again, I’ve repeatedly condemned the graphic design of American Atheist ads and billboards; I’ll do so again now; and I’ll continue to do so.
That aside, the message of the entire animated billboard is clear: it lists all the ancient reasons for the season that people already celebrate, and makes clear that the upstart Christian hijacking of the holiday for their perverted death cult rituals aren’t at all needed. Only, of course, they use make-nice words to do so.
The only reason Christians take offense is because they take offense whenever anybody fails to drop to their knees and recite that particular Christian’s favored version of the Sinner’s Prayer right there on the spot. Anything less is offensive to the Christians taking offense at this billboard.
I hope you’ll forgive me for not giving a flying fuck about how offended such offensive people easily get.
Cheers,
b&
OK. I have to apologize. I have not seen the full animated version. I agree with the message “celebrate the true meaning of Christmas” and I agree with this guy http://youtu.be/Z92fPh_VXLg.
Yeah, he’s pretty much got it about right, with the caveat that the segment wasn’t enough time to thoroughly explore the matter and that I’d have emphasized different parts of it.
b&
That’s humorous.
Do you have an example handy of provoking people to show their best? I can’t seem to picture it.
Religion deserves no more respect than politics, architecture, or movie actor lifestyles. Asking people to not point out bad building design because an architect’s feelings might be hurt is probably not something you would demand. But you feel perfectly free to insist that non-believers politely ignore the incessant religious babbling that confronts us on a daily basis. And you’ve got the gall to suggest that religious thinking doesn’t change for millennia because atheists are’t polite enough?
Give me an effing break!
I work in quality assurance and I deal with bad design decisions and manufacturing defects on a daily basis. I know it from my professional experience of 15 years that I would achieve NOTHING in my job if I ridicule each design flaw and production error. In fact, I would be fired quite soon. The right approach is to point out the issue explain the cause of the problem and suggest a solution, without personal attacks. Why would people who value science and reason perpetrate ad-hominem attacks?
Did someone advocate ad hominem attacks? I missed it.
I’m glad you have a job. But we’re not talking about design flaws. We’re discussing whether religion deserves special respect relating to any other subject of public discourse. It doesn’t.
This is not really a good analogy to make. I work with QA folks and I help identify and fix bad process. I convince people that things are wrong based on empirical evidence (sometimes even using statistics).
Rational, empirical evidence works on some Christians but I dare say not most; this requires a different tact.
However, this is all moot. The billboard’s purpose is not to convert Christians to atheism.