Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Chrissy Saterfield, a Worldnutdaily columnist clearly preparing herself for a career as one of Fox News' Barbie doll talking heads, cheers on those who vandalized a billboard put up by an atheist group in North Carolina:
Just when I start believing there is no hope for our country I get a little reminder from my God that all is not lost. It was reported June 29 that a billboard sign sponsored by a North Carolina atheist organization had been vandalized. The ad reads, "One Nation Indivisible." It seems someone didn't think the sign was an accurate depiction of our Pledge of Allegiance, so the vandals inserted "Under God" with spray paint - and I couldn't be more relieved. It's nice to know that I am not alone in my beliefs and that some people are still willing to stand on the right side of truth.
And then she shows both her irrationality and dishonesty in a single sentence:
Never would I encourage vandalism, but in this case I think I'll let it slide.
Talk about an oxymoronic sentence. If you're willing to let it slide because you agree with the message, you are in fact encouraging vandalism. Because it makes you feel "so relieved." And then she immediately changes the subject from vandalism to criticism:
Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years, so it's about time the shoe was on the other foot. When asked about the vandalism, William Warren, the spokesman for Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics, said, "It was done by one or two people off on their own who decided their only recourse was vandalism rather than having a conversation." Hmmm. That's interesting, because the CAA felt its only recourse was to deliberately insult those who understand the importance of "Under God." They probably figured that because the Bible teaches Christians to turn the other cheek, we'll just take their abuse forever. We will only take so much before we stand up against our oppressors. Besides, I can't count how many times an atheist and I have had a "conversation." They're not as calm and passive as Warren suggests.
No one can vandalize your beliefs, you can only vandalize property. Atheists may have been criticizing your beliefs, of course, and you have every right to criticize theirs. That does not mean you get to vandalize their property or the billboards they paid for.
More cheerleading:
The best part of this whole situation, though, is that these secular billboards were part of a Fourth of July project that placed similar ads in Greensboro, Raleigh and a handful of other cities - and it totally backfired. They underestimated their demographic, and because the vandalism occurred days before the Fourth, no one could service the billboard until after the holiday. It's the small victories in life that make it all worthwhile.
Yay! Life is worthwhile now that we've managed to destroy someone else's right to speak their mind! That speaks volumes, doesn't it?
Incidentally, when was the last you heard about a Christian billboard that was vandalized? It happens all the time, yet it's never "newsworthy." But when an atheist's right to put his beliefs on blast is vandalized it's "Poor atheists. They have a right to ad space." Atheists are always saying how offended they are by, well ... everything. How is this billboard not offensive to me? I've said it before and I'll say it again: Where's my PC? And who's protecting my right not to be offended?
You don't have a right not to be offended, you ignorant bubblehead. Neither does anyone else. I've heard of Christian property being vandalized; what I have never heard is an atheist leader or thinker cheer on that vandalism (and if anyone knows of such an example, I'll gladly call them an idiot and an asshole too).
I would like to extend my deepest thanks to the man or woman responsible for this vandalism. I appreciate the action you took. Thank you for reminding me that I'm not alone. It took a lot of guts to do what you did - and the fact that you haven't stepped forward to take credit makes you a hero. It shows everyone that you are more devoted to the message than you are to the spotlight. I encourage you to keep your cover. Don't give the secular world a reason to call your name; instead, let them call for our God.I also need to extend a thank you to some people in Sacramento and Detroit. In February, 10 atheist billboards were defaced in the Golden State and a slew of atheist bus ads were vandalized in Detroit. My dose of honesty this week: I am not happy that vandalism seems to be the only way to get an atheist's attention. I'm happy that I can count on other Christians to stand up for themselves and for Christians everywhere. It gives me hope.
I don't think it's possible for me to despise someone more than I do at this very moment. You get hope from your fellow theocrats vandalizing billboards? What a vapid, amoral, cowardly little pimple of a human being you are. She's ready for her close up, Mr. Murdoch.
Politics
Comments
There's even a word for this sort of silent lack of disapproval: condonement.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 8, 2010 9:37 AM
You wrote: "you don't have a right not to be offended."
Ed, the number of students who come fresh out of Utah high schools into my American History classes who believe they have a right, an enforceable right, not to be offended is... well, scary. Such students think that the university or if not the U, then somebody, should prevent things being said that offend them. At a university, for gawd's sake.
Posted by: flatlander100 | July 8, 2010 9:48 AM
what I have never heard is an atheist leader or thinker cheer on that vandalism (and if anyone knows of such an example, I'll gladly call them an idiot and an asshole too).
On the contrary, I pretty much always hear them saying "don't do it, you stupid prats."
Posted by: Joe Fatzen | July 8, 2010 9:49 AM
That was so full of stupid that I couldn't read it all. I'll go back later and just try to read it in small increments. I can only handle so much stupid at once.
Posted by: Deepsix | July 8, 2010 9:51 AM
Aw hell, they defaced the Pledge of Allegiance back in the early 50's so I guess she's just supporting a long and proud history of defacement. You go girl! *eye-roll*
There's plenty of Christian billboards around here. I don't think I've ever seen one defaced unless you count drunk teenagers spray painting "Slayer!" on them. (Off topic side note - do kids still listen to Slayer? Seriously?)
Posted by: Maria | July 8, 2010 9:54 AM
And by the last paragraph, she actually seems to be explicitly encouraging vandalism.
And seriously:
Anonymously graffiting a billboard takes courage? And makes you a hero? WTF?
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | July 8, 2010 9:56 AM
No, it show cowardice, an unwillingness to face the legal consequences of defacement of private property. Some lofty principles there.
Had someone substituted "under Allah", how fast do you think Ms. Saterfield would have been to express support for the defacer demonstrating his outrage?
Posted by: momkat | July 8, 2010 10:05 AM
@Maria - Not to my knowledge. But there are still 20 and 30 somethings who shout "Slayer!" at metal concerts, even when Slayer is not performing that night.
@Gravity - Wow. The definition of hero has really gone downhill recently.
Posted by: Imrryr | July 8, 2010 10:06 AM
That was one awesome piece of satire...I hope. This sentence is classic:
They probably figured that because the Bible teaches Christians to turn the other cheek, we'll just take their abuse forever.
Yeah, like we'd actually listen to our God.
Posted by: Odie | July 8, 2010 10:09 AM
I'm sure she thinks all those whose vandalised Christian billboards are 'heroes'* too, or do I smell the stench of "special pleading" here. - Dingo
----
* her words, not mine.
But, having said that, see here for the legitimate use of vandalism to affect change.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 8, 2010 10:10 AM
Herod,
This pustule of a commentator is anything but silent.
She does condone illegal and immoral actions though so the oppressed
moronschristians can cheer. Nice appreciation for her own religion and our constitution.Posted by: MikeMa | July 8, 2010 10:18 AM
I think the most telling part of what she wrote was when she said "it's nice to know that I'm not alone in my beliefs"... another insecure believer who needs others to feel secure.
Posted by: JLS RN | July 8, 2010 10:20 AM
This logic seem to indicate that if he finds anything offensive then he is morally just in destroying it. Don't like the synagogue, mosque or the church of a different faith get out the spray paint, or matches.
Posted by: Mr Ed | July 8, 2010 10:22 AM
I'd say it was vandalized by congress in 1954 in the exact same way.
Posted by: DougH | July 8, 2010 10:22 AM
No kidding. This reads as if she imagines she's part of a desperately persecuted minority in thrall to those evil and oppressive atheists who run everything and dominate the population and all culture. Calling the vandal a "hero" makes sense only if you imagine the Romans or Vs will execute him if he's caught making his brave stand.
Posted by: Morgan | July 8, 2010 10:23 AM
Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years....
Heh heh. Worthy of Dumbass Quote of the Day.
-
So I suppose that it would be fair to go to a billboard put up by True Patriotstm and spray paint out the "under God" part? Because I lose count how many times around here the Jesus cultists "vandalize" my beliefs during a typical day!
-
You don't have a right not to be offended, you ignorant bubblehead.
Sure she does. As long as she stays inside her own home. And doesn't subscribe to magazines or newspapers and doesn't turn on the TV or radio.
But once she ventures to the outside, where there might be other people....
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 8, 2010 10:25 AM
On the bright side, the graffiti has generated more interest for the Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics, the group involved in erecting the original billboard. Spokesperson William Warren said: "We have 58 new members." (http://tinyurl.com/2f775hn)
So now Saterfield is bringing even more attention to a group dedicated to free speech and free thought. Thanks, Chrissy!
Also, Mr. Brayton, could you include a link to the original article, please?
Posted by: Tommy Holland | July 8, 2010 10:28 AM
Ah, the American Christian. Has there ever been a more persecuted majority in the history of this planet?
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 8, 2010 10:31 AM
In the middle of this disgusting cheerleading for the violation of others rights to free speech, she drops a perfect example of the Modern Christian Martyr Complex.
She says, "We will only take so much before we stand up against our oppressors."
Against your oppressors? Seriously? W.....T......F!
Jews in Nazi Germany, blacks in segragation era America, women under the patriarchy, and.....Christians in modern day America?
I do not think that word means what you think it means. You make up roughly 75% of the american population, your more conservative/fundamenalist element controls one of the two major political parties, the other party is terrified of offending your more moderate element, public displays of your religion are unescapable, you have a church on every corner, literally in some cities, expressing disbelief or even doubt in your god is a political death sentence in the vast majority of this country with no religious test for office, your beliefs are considered above question by most citizens, and even some atheists choose to attack those who question your beliefs in the interest of bridge building, yet you are oppressed?
I've been threatened because of my atheism. My car has been vandalized. After one letter to the editor, my mother received threatening phone calls in the middle of the night. (My father and I have the same name, and my parents number is listed in the phone book.)
And here you are, cheering on vandalism and claiming oppression. "It's only a billboard," I can almost hear you protesting. And I know I am opening myself up for accusations of the slippery slope fallacy, but I contend that for anyone who will spray paint a billboard they disagree with, it is a very small step to defacing a bumper sticker or removing a darwin fish they disagree with. And then what?
"We will only take so much before we stand up against our oppressors."
Get over yourself.
Posted by: Foster Disbelief | July 8, 2010 10:34 AM
Ms. Saterfield:
I'd argue this goes directly to the fact that most Christians can not intellectually justify their beliefs but instead are emotionally tied to the movement. A big and legitimate benefit of being a church member is being in a community of like-minded believers, similar or even equivalent to the benefit anyone gains by joining a group.
Ms. Saterfield is incapable of cogently rationalizing her cheering on vandalism, a result I think even she realizes. So she emotionally celebrates the fact that she's got a tribe of like-minded people who share in her incompetency while still accepting - nay celebrating her defense of the tribe; however incoherent such a defense is.
Chris Rodda's book title, Liars for Jesus, increasingly resonates with me, especially since the rise of Sarah Palin whose willingness to lie and benefit from her false claims of persecution has seemed to have increased the volume of conservative Christians willing to also demonstrate or promote such behavior. They seem to view such diatribes like we see from Ms. Saterfield as a feature rather than a bug, a feature worth perpetuating.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 8, 2010 10:39 AM
Herod, you should have read to the end:
Not all that silent, seems to me.
--
To this "child of the 60s" this is hilarious: the heirs of Nixon, Meese, et al have come 180 from the era of "law and order Republicanism." And would anyone care to bet that any above-the-radar Republicans will condemn this little endorsement?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 8, 2010 10:43 AM
Isn't it amazing how quick the "law and order" and "property rights" crowd are to throw over their beliefs depending on whose ox is being gored?
Posted by: John Pieret | July 8, 2010 10:43 AM
Posted by: WScott | July 8, 2010 10:46 AM
[Article] They probably figured that because the Bible teaches Christians to turn the other cheek, we'll just take their abuse forever.
[Odie @9]: Yeah, like we'd actually listen to our God.
Exactly, and worth repeating.
Posted by: eric | July 8, 2010 10:51 AM
I've heard of Christian property being vandalized; what I have never heard is an atheist leader or thinker cheer on that vandalism
You'll also never hear an atheist leader or thinker "always saying how offended they are by, well ... everything" as Ms. Making Shit Up asserts. That's just more projection from the Church of the Easily Offended she attends.
The only thing about her that offends us is her ignorance, stupidity, and hypocrisy.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 8, 2010 10:51 AM
D. C. Sessions, #21: To this "child of the 60s" this is hilarious: the heirs of Nixon, Meese, et al have come 180 from the era of "law and order Republicanism."
Not as contradictory as it sounds. Law and order types have usually relied on vandalism, beatings, and other harassment by common thugs as unofficial auxiliaries to help maintain their version of "order," which is the silence of people with a different view of what "law and order" should stand for.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 8, 2010 10:55 AM
Atheists are always saying how offended they are by, well ... everything.
In stark contrast to the happy go lucky manner in which Christians are renowned for shrugging off all manner of offenses, both real and imagined.
She's clearly oblivious to the irony of going off on atheists for being hypersensitive in this particular column, of all places...
Posted by: Gern Blanston | July 8, 2010 11:16 AM
I would like to extend my deepest thanks to the man or woman responsible for this vandalism.
But I would never encourage vandalism.
I also need to extend a thank you to some people in Sacramento and Detroit. In February, 10 atheist billboards were defaced in the Golden State and a slew of atheist bus ads were vandalized in Detroit.
But I would never encourage vandalism.
Posted by: Gern Blanston | July 8, 2010 11:19 AM
There are no words.
Yes. Black South Africans under apartheid.
Posted by: Captain Mike | July 8, 2010 11:32 AM
It's about time! Those Atheists have had it too GOOD for too long! "Ooo, look at us! We're in rebellion against the LORD! We have signs!" The FIRST Amendment says NOTHING about protecting Atheism! I mean, imagine! They thought they could get away with SIGNS!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 8, 2010 11:38 AM
One prominent feature of a backfire is that it immediately grabs everyone's attention!
I very strongly suspect the backfire that was actually heard to good effect came not from the original billboards, but from the vandalism.
I can't imagine that the sponsors of the billboards had any delusions about converting the theist crowd. On the contrary, I'd wager they fully expected hissy fits. And of course, hissy fits also attract attention - if they didn't, natural selection would have seen to their extinction a very long time ago. Media coverage of the vandalism would only widen the dissemination of the message of the billboards.
The vandalism to the billboards likely helped convince some fence-sitters and "solitary" atheists to "join the cause". It isn't as if atheists don't already know that there are lots of foaming at the mouth Christians out there. The religious will huff and puff and snort and bluster for a few days. The atheists who get involved will persist vastly longer.
Posted by: evilDoug | July 8, 2010 12:05 PM
Citation needed!
Posted by: FastLane | July 8, 2010 12:06 PM
Captain Mike @29 - True, but that was actual persecution conducted with force. Perhaps I should have asked if there was ever a more persecuted politically powerful majority.
The point is that it was sarcasm, damn it.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 8, 2010 12:16 PM
Still leaves the question, how did our "greatest generation" (in my case, both parents served, still have mom's ETO ribbon with combat star) manage to win WWII without "under God" in their pledge, while my generation, after years of daily deistic reinforcement, was the disgrace of Republicans, then and now.
Posted by: Bahrfeldt | July 8, 2010 1:05 PM
@ Tabby: I know. I was just being a jackass.
Posted by: Captain Mike | July 8, 2010 1:08 PM
I have a theory on why conservatard christianists love the Constitution so much. Apparently it makes the softest, most absorbent toilet paper of any substance in the universe. I mean, it's obvious they don't love it because they agree with its principles or respect the document. And they sure as fuck don't understand it (or, well, anything, ever).
"Thank you for reminding me that I'm not alone. It took a lot of guts to do what you did ..."
Jesus, why stop there? You could also have thanked Timothy McVeigh for standing up for his -- and your -- True Christian™ values and taking action against that evil federal government (and the innocent children who died in the building). Oh, and you also could have thanked those swell guys whose uniform belt buckles said "God with us"* during World War II.
* In German
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 8, 2010 1:32 PM
What a nasty c*nt.
Speaking of metal, she should be glad she doesn't live in Norway. Does anyone remember those creeps from the Norwegian black metal band that burned down a bunch of churches (well, and murdered some guy but that's a different story)? According to the wiki, they and/or their fans claimed responsibility for burning down some 50 churches across Norway. They're into old Germanic paganism (or something) and blame its decline on Christianity. They see the destruction of churches as payback for historical injustices.
In any case, when I heard about this I remember being distinctly horrified that anyone would do something so cruel, evil and stupid. As much as I dislike religion, and as much as I can empathize with being angry about historical injustice, there still wasn't one iota of me that could condone such an act. I can't even sympathize with anyone wanting to do it, much less actually doing it. Makes me wonder what this bitch would say if someone had burned down a building instead of vandalizing billboards. Would they still be heroes fighting for the rights of the poor, oppressed American Christian?
Re Slayer, I know at least one 24 year old fan of Slayer. Quite a few of his friends are as well. And Metal archives, which is the definitive authority on all things metal, lists them as the "the most covered metal band in the world aside from Metallica." I'd say they are still fairly popular.
Posted by: Leni | July 8, 2010 1:56 PM
Idiocy is bad, but idiocy combined with self-righteous arrogance is vomit-inducing.
Posted by: Taz | July 8, 2010 2:40 PM
I don't suppose it occurred to the vandals that the word "indivisible" could be taken to mean that the athiests want to stand together with the Christians. That's the sort of thing that can pass you by when you're too busy maintaining all your little great divides.
Posted by: ambulocetacean | July 8, 2010 2:51 PM
I always love how people find criminal activity is acceptable as long as it's against people they don't like.
Posted by: Silent Service | July 8, 2010 2:55 PM
ambulocetacean @ 39:
I'm not sure - I think the vandalism might have been their answer to specifically that idea.
Posted by: Phillip IV | July 8, 2010 5:20 PM
It looks as if the seeds of American Fascism are sprouting quite nicely.
Posted by: Observer | July 8, 2010 6:19 PM
Ugh--Could we please not refer to women as B**** or C***? Saterfeld's stupidity has nothing to do with her gender.
Anyway, I'd ask her who she thought desecrated the (then) newly renovated San Fernando Cathedral in San Antonio, shattering antique statues and terrorizing parishioners and cleaning crews?
Hint: It starts with a C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N and ends in "nut".
B
Posted by: Aquaria | July 8, 2010 6:27 PM
Sorry Aquaria.
Oh wait, no I'm not.
And it wasn't her stupidity or her gender that I was criticizing. It was her nastiness. Which is why she gets the "c word". Because that's one of the words for a nasty person who happens to have girl parts.
Posted by: Leni | July 8, 2010 6:43 PM
I think we dilute the power of our own argument when we use words considered prejudicial. I support winning and oppose handing my opponent ammunition that either helps them or allows them to divert attention from my argument. I strive to meet this standard though I'm sure I fall short.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 8, 2010 6:49 PM
I wasn't making an argument. It was more of an observation, really.
Posted by: Leni | July 8, 2010 6:57 PM
Phillip IV @41. True. That could be the case.
Posted by: ambulocetacean | July 8, 2010 7:33 PM
I'll cheer when someone breaks into Prissy Crissy's house and sets it on fire. Preferably with her still inside. Never would I encourage arson, but in this case I'll let it slide.
Posted by: Bite Me | July 8, 2010 7:58 PM
flatlander100 | July 8, 2010 9:48 AM:
Having been a student at a number of Utah high schools, and a resident of the state for about 34 years, I feel safe in saying nearly half of those entering your classes know almost nothing about the nation you will be covering. But worse is that they often know a great many false things, which help them feel good about themselves and their people. And you get out your cruel hooks and claw those comforting beliefs away from them.
Posted by: llewelly | July 8, 2010 8:38 PM
There's a word for the type of person she is: racist. Does she honestly believe "under God" was part of the original Pledge as written by the Founding Fathers? The pledge wasn't even written by the Founding Fathers, it was written in 1892 by a man named Francis Bellamy who, even though he was a Baptist Minister, didn't include the words "under God" in the pledge. He didn't even include the name of the country for which the pledge was written! The original pledge didn't include the name "United States of America". Wanna know something else, Bellamy was a Socialist!
Posted by: Chris | July 8, 2010 9:37 PM
...
...
...
...At this point, I hate America...
Posted by: TheSuperbloop | July 8, 2010 11:07 PM
TheSuperbloop "...At this point, I hate America..."
"At this point"? As a liberal, I've heard that I've always hated America. Apparently my egalitarian bent of including all citizens of the country (instead of just the ones in my "tribe") as citizens of the country, protected by the Constitution instead of ignored by it, is unAmerican.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 8, 2010 11:26 PM
I don't think she understands what the point of these billboards is. It's more devious than she realizes (and than the people putting them up will cop to).
When atheist orgs in the US started putting signs up, a lot of them were, well, kind of inflammatory. I remember one had a picture of the World Trade towers still standing with the words "imagine no religion". Now I think that sign made a legitimate point, but obviously the people who put it up got flak and concerned tut-tutings for it from even non-fundamentalists, which just confused the issue.
What the atheist orgs quickly figured out was that by putting up billboards whose messages were as innocuous and inoffensive as possible -- comically inoffensive messages like "More Than One Atheist Exists In The Area" and "Atheists Are Capable Of Being Good People" (not those exact words, of course, but that's what the signs meant and to disagree with messages like that is clearly nutso) -- those signs would still get religious extremists to come out and make asses of themselves, by defacing them, demanding they be taken down, threatening boycotts, or acting all offended or "disturbed" (wasn't it a state governor who said that? I can't remember).
The real point of the signs is to show how much bigotry against atheists there is in American society by eliciting theocratic overreactions with the least offensive messages possible. As such, this vandalism and WND support of it plays right into the atheists' hands. Who exactly has backfired here?
I think in the future atheist orgs should start putting up billboards with just the word "ATHEIST" and a bunch of rope tied to the support structure and wait to see how long it would take for a religious nut to hang himself from it.
Posted by: jpf | July 8, 2010 11:29 PM
#50
How does that work? It doesn't even relate to anything else in your post, which actually made a somewhat useful point that I'm surprised to not have already been made (though I might have missed it when skimming).
I am amused by the idea that it is "vandelizing [her] beliefs" (whatever that means) to put up a billboard with the original phrasing from the pledge.
Posted by: mcmillan | July 8, 2010 11:35 PM
So apparently I messed up the blockquote that I tried to put in my post at #54, which in case it's not clear was calling out Chris' accusation of racism
Posted by: mcmillan | July 8, 2010 11:38 PM
I love how conservative individuals want to protect private property and freedom of religion, but only when it involves their property or their religion. Saterfield will let the is vandalism slide, however, if a Christian Billboard was vandalized she would likely consider it a scandal. It is almost humorous that people would vandalize a Billboard just because they do not agree with the message. Then I remember the probable reaction that would occur if the situation was reversed and the humor is gone. Yet, it is difficult to imagine the situation being reversed. People like Saterfield are hypocrites pure and simple, especially since she concludes by encouraging more vandalism. Basically Saterfield concludes that if you do not like a message, eliminate its source or damage it. Unless it is Christian, then it is sacred and holy. What an idiot.
Posted by: MVW | July 9, 2010 12:52 AM
Sorry Aquaria.
Oh wait, no I'm not.
And it wasn't her stupidity or her gender that I was criticizing. It was her nastiness. Which is why she gets the "c word". Because that's one of the words for a nasty person who happens to have girl parts.
Really?
I highly doubt that you would refer to or call an ethnic minority or homosexual the various slurs used to disparage them, because they have no control over being gay or a minority. Am I wrong in believing you probably think it's wrong to say bigoted things about them, however unintentionally, and feel angry with yourself if you slip up?
If you are that kind of person who endeavors to be fair and tolerant to minorities, then why is it perfectly fine in your book to use slurs for women that are the equivalent of every despicable racist term you can think of?
Posted by: Aquaria | July 9, 2010 4:29 AM
I see that the sciblogs mojo isn't quite working in the commenting system
Everything before, 'Really'? is what I was responding to in 57.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 9, 2010 4:32 AM
Aquaria - are you seriously suggesting that Chrissy Saterfield's nasty-minded condoning of vandalism (a crime) is congenital? How does that work? - Dingo
----
BTW - I guess I shouldn't use the V-word either. Vandals can't help the Germanic tribe they were born into. :(
Posted by: DingoJack | July 9, 2010 4:41 AM
There really isn't much of anything to atheism is there? They are basically parasitic in nature. Their only issues are the issues of others. They totally ignore the fact that what they are is because of what they are against. They refuse to acknowledge that what they are against is not against them! Perhaps pity might be conceived as a negative notion but it is not an action.
The 'word' atheism itself could not exist without what they are claiming to not exist. An understanding of basic Formal Logic will tell them that they hold an irrational standing but as Ive experienced in FB for months are individuals who do not care at all for logic on this matter or they are illiterate. I'm afraid that once they all realize what it is they are attempting to do they may harm themselves; jump off of bridges as the antagonist did in Les Miserables (V. Hugo) when reality found it's way into his thick skull.
Comparing sciences to religions is like comparing sawdust to the Eifel Tower in Paris. I for one protect their right to not believe in anything but I'll cut their ears off if they try to mess with my right to express my beliefs. Here I am trying to rise out of the dung that is a nasty world and they want me to slide back in with them again. again.
Posted by: James Moskola | July 9, 2010 5:19 PM
James Moskola, #60:
You don't know much about atheism or formal logic, do you James? As an atheist with some formal mathematical training, I might be able to help you with either. What would you like to know?
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 9, 2010 5:22 PM
James Moskola "There really isn't much of anything to atheism is there?"
I don't know. It all depends on how big a non-belief in the imaginary is. How big is your non-belief in Hinduism, anyway?
"They are basically parasitic in nature."
Call me when my lack of a collar gets me a line to the president. Call me when my lack of a holy text gets me tax-exempt status.
"Their only issues are the issues of others."
Yes, the issues of others.
The issues of others…in my bedroom.
The issues of others…in our public school science classes.
The issues of others…in our public school sex-ed classes.
The issues of others…in our Law.
The issues of others…in our foreign policy.
"They totally ignore the fact that what they are is because of what they are against."
As usual, I speak for all atheists when I say that we'd happily go back to being apatheists if theists didn't insist that their "other ways of knowing" superceded reality.
"They refuse to acknowledge that what they are against is not against them!"
Obviously. My (and your) gay friends can't get married because theists are not against them and their right to enjoy the same rights as the rest of us.
"Perhaps pity might be conceived as a negative notion but it is not an action."
I don't pity theists. I think they're misinformed. I'm for all the rights of the Popular Majority applying to those in the out-group. That's all.
You can imagination your way through life if you want. Just don't expect "us" to let you imagination your way through ours.
"The 'word' atheism itself could not exist without what they are claiming to not exist. An understanding of basic Formal Logic will tell them that they hold an irrational standing but as Ive experienced in FB for months are individuals who do not care at all for logic on this matter or they are illiterate."
Call me when you can "basic Formal Logic" your way out of being a brain in a jar.
"I'm afraid that once they all realize what it is they are attempting to do they may harm themselves; jump off of bridges as the antagonist did in Les Miserables (V. Hugo) when reality found it's way into his thick skull."
I'm content, if not happy, after coming to the conclusion that I will die and it will, most likely, be permanent.
"Comparing sciences to religions is like comparing sawdust to the Eifel Tower in Paris."
No. Science works. Science is a bunch of lines that converge in about the same place. Religion ("religions"!) diverge. That, alone, should be a clue that the map they're using doesn't have any roads on it.
"I for one protect their right to not believe in anything but I'll cut their ears off if they try to mess with my right to express my beliefs."
Here too, but with "believe" in place of "not believe". Oh, and I'm not for the ear cutting. Uncivilized, really.
And you do realize that you're on a page about about an atheist sign getting vandalized, right? If you consider a sign messing with your right to express your beliefs, then I don't see how we can ever hope to have a genuine conversation. It's Free Speech for all or it isn't Free Speech.
"Here I am trying to rise out of the dung that is a nasty world and they want me to slide back in with them again. again."
You do realize that the climb out of the nasty world coincided with religion losing its absolute grip, right?
You do realize that "we" aren't trying to slide you back, right? Your path is your own business. You can baste yourself in Jesus or Krishna or Allah or any of the many other gods, remembered and forgotten. Just don't expect us to follow. Don't expect us to see "It states in Scripture…" as a basic for secular law (any more than you'd go for someone else saying "The Koran commands…" as a basis for same).
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 9, 2010 6:28 PM
If there is a god, he is a mass murderer who drowned his one own children in a great flood simply because he didn't like the way they turned out. Supposedly, he already knew how they would turn out, so he must have created them simply for the pleasure of killing them. Why should I expect the sheep who follow his teachings to act differently.
The prescription for religious cure is to actually read scripture and understand its capricious and unjust laws. How could anyone live by the gross immoralities it condones, no encourages, nay, demands of its followers! I stand proud to be counted amongst logical Atheists.
Posted by: Kenny Duit | July 9, 2010 8:30 PM
"...but I'll cut their ears off if they try to mess with my right to express my beliefs."
Is there some conspiracy against you, James, by atheists to prevent you from expressing your beliefs, or are you just some unstable, pararanoid egocentric?
Posted by: daniel rotter | July 9, 2010 9:17 PM
correction: "paranoid."
Posted by: daniel rotter | July 9, 2010 9:28 PM
Kenny Duit, #63: How could anyone live by the gross immoralities it condones, no encourages, nay, demands of its followers!
Well, I guess if their god exists the way they claim, then one wouldn't have a choice. Or there would be a choice, but making the wrong selection will have eternally bad consequences.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 9, 2010 9:34 PM
James Moskola - It always cracks me up when people like you accuse others of being illiterate. Your writing is lousy. Hell, mine's pedestrian at best, but it's not nearly as bad as yours. Are we supposed to believe you know anything about formal logic? Quit pretending.
Posted by: Taz | July 9, 2010 9:42 PM
Thank you all for your support of this issue. Be aware that any resulting hysteresis may not harm you at all as even small doses of cognitive disonance has been known to cause.
Who will Google "Formal Logic" with me (hand holding permitted, actually encouraged) as I elect myself volunteer guide into the real. Who are you; who, who?
PS when I went to post my very first message here I was presented with a notice that I had exceeded some alotment of posts over ?time? Puzzle me this as I dont recall ever being here before yet after a good long Windows "sleep" I return to find that I'm not in Kansas anymore!!!
PiSS Hysteresis is not at all similar to hysteria but has to do with changes.
NEXT!
Posted by: James Moskola | July 9, 2010 11:52 PM
Insanity laughs....
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 10, 2010 12:00 AM
Tearing down the Berlin Wall; painting messages on the Berlin Wall; Now that was vandalism!
To the owner of the sign company that rented their property to these creeps: I'll make a contribution to a fund allowing the sign material as modified for accuracy to remain standing beyond the original contracted period. Actually, allow me some time to gather information and resources and hopefully pay off the original renters in escheat.
I love it when your nostrils flare like that, really do.
Posted by: James Moskola | July 10, 2010 12:06 AM
James Moskola "...painting messages on the Berlin Wall; Now that was vandalism!"
Are you equating defacing a symbol (and literal) of oppression with vandalizing an example of private property free speech?
"To the owner of the sign company that rented their property to these creeps:"
Atheists aren't creeps. We're mean. Or so I'm told. Apparently "I don't believe what you believe" is mean. Who knew?
"I'll make a contribution to a fund allowing the sign material as modified for accuracy to remain standing beyond the original contracted period."
"As modified for accuracy"? What about "historical accuracy"? What about the history behind the distinctly Lemon test failing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_God.22 change]?
"...escheat."
Gesundheit!
"I love it when your nostrils flare like that, really do."
There's just the one, actually. And it's puckering. And it's not a nostril.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 10, 2010 12:23 AM
To the 'article responder' who expressed regret that vandalism is required to get anti-theist's attention have heart dear Christian. Recall that our Lord Jesus is on record having busted up an entire "flea market" single handedly in the temple. The night of His betrayal to the mob of losers, one of Jesus' followers abruptly whipped out a sword and caught an ear. He had a sword. Bet they all had swords including Jesus. Could there be a correlation between the effeminization of Western European churches and the ridiculous eruption of a handful of these anti-theist's. The church, a human construct/institution like governments and sodomy circles has undergone really severe changes in the last 400 years or so. King James injected alot of politics into His translation version and a queen impossed one heavy weight crapola on darn near everything. Give me that old time religion...
Posted by: James Moskola | July 10, 2010 12:25 AM
Hah! I did wiki format instead of the so-called "correct" format. Try this.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 10, 2010 12:25 AM
Wow! exactly what is the posting limits here??? Prigs and not in any thieving sense either is what this article seems to want promoted; priggishness.
Bats do not have very good reading comprehension and are about as ASSuming a prig as I've read on FB. They eat insects; that's interesting.
Posted by: James Moskola | July 10, 2010 12:41 AM
Not as interesting as observing our new guest's mind at work.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 10, 2010 12:51 AM
James Moskola "Recall that our Lord Jesus is on record having busted up an entire "flea market" single handedly in the temple."
Oh, so people vandalizing a sign is the same as JC cracking down on Temple profiteering?
That explains why book burnings are a good thing (when it's you doing the burning). When someone in your outgroup hurts you, that's evil. When you hurt someone in your outgroup, that's being on fire for the Lord!
"The night of His betrayal to the mob of losers, one of Jesus' followers abruptly whipped out a sword and caught an ear. He had a sword."
Does not follow. You're a mess. Are the atheists Jesus' sword, or his ear?
"Bet they all had swords including Jesus."
I know, right?! All through the Gospels, in things like The Parable of the Can of Whoop-Ass, Jesus is, like, roamin' around, goin' slashy-slashy with His sword and totally kicking ass! Just like America!
"Could there be a correlation between the effeminization of Western European churches and the ridiculous eruption of a handful of these anti-theist's."
Obviously. What we need is manlier, more authoritarian, less tolerant religion.
You've learned little from the centuries of inter-religion, inter-sect and inter-denominational violence and suffering, and most of what you've learned is wrong. They, as you appear to, each thought that they would be the ones on top, and on top permanently. The Puritans didn't flee to the New World just because they were being oppressed. They fled because they were no longer the oppressors.
"King James injected alot of politics into His translation version and a queen impossed one heavy weight crapola on darn near everything."
You're not going back far enough. Try Paul. Or the conflicting sources/editors of the Tanakh.
"Give me that old time religion…"
Hell no. I like not getting burned at the stake. You do to. This is because everybody is someone's heretic. Heretic.
"Wow! exactly what is the posting limits here???"
There isn't one, with limits:
1. No more than two links per post (sometimes less. It's magic or something)
2. No more than one post every few (five?) minutes
"Prigs and not in any thieving sense either is what this article seems to want promoted; priggishness."
I don't see how an article condoning vandalism is "priggish". It's irresponsible.
Sadie Morrison "Not as interesting as observing our new guest's mind at work."
Really? You should see my mind at work. It sits at a little desk, in front of a little typewriter and beside a little filing cabinet for forty hours a week, feeling its own soul being slowly crushed by the need to support its family (Mrs Brain and the young-un, Brian).
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 10, 2010 1:02 AM
I can't believe that the phrase "one nation indivisible" would offend anyone but Confederate sympathizers.
Posted by: barry | July 10, 2010 9:17 AM
I'm wondering if this type of vandalism isn't a form of civil disobedience? It's against the law, yes, but the perpetrators are willing to face the penalty (if they get caught) in order to express their opposition to the message. I only ask this because I've considered taking this type of subversive action against theist messages, usually when I've been so inundated that I feel I just can't take it anymore. Of course, I haven't done anything illegal... yet. Who else is willing to admit that they have had such thoughts?
Posted by: Ted N. | July 10, 2010 12:40 PM
RE: James Moskola
IMHO (for educational purposes only)
Hypergraphia perhaps.
Hypergraphia in temporal lobe epilepsy
The phenomenon of hypergraphia, or the tendency toward extensive and, in some cases, compulsive writing, in temporal lobe epilepsy is described in seven patients...
...Unusually detailed and strikingly copious writing was evidenced in each patient. ...which often was concerned with religious or moral issues. ...Aggressiveness, religiosity, and changes in sexual behavior in temporal lobe disorders have been described previously.
Stephen G. Waxman, Norman Geschwind, Hypergraphia in temporal lobe epilepsy, , Epilepsy & Behavior, Volume 6, Issue 2, March 2005, Pages 282-291, ISSN 1525-5050, DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2004.11.022.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WDT-4FC8V0W-4/2/a6bb48adedc23f707613771be669f773)
Posted by: Rpare616 | July 10, 2010 1:21 PM
I heard it elsewhere (sorry, I don't remember where) and I'll repeat it here.
I think that we should let the billboard stand as it is ... defaced by "Under God". It accurately reflects what really happened, whereby the christians defaced the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's. Frankly, their vandalism seems to complete the billboard.
Imagine an inquisitive mind reading that sign for the first time and seeing the vandalism. When they look the history of the Pledge, they will find a startling parallel with the billboard.
We should leave the billboards as they are and get the word out that these billboards are history repeating itself. It may become a great method of breaking the ice of the discussion of the various incursions of religion into government that occurred during the Cold War and spur on a revival of our great secular past. (I hope!)
Posted by: Mike | July 10, 2010 1:54 PM
Tangentially related to the topic, does anyone know where I can get a bumper sticker with "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"? I've seen plenty sites with "one nation indivisible", and some with the whole original pledge, but none with that specific snippet, and that's really the part that's important to me.
James Moskola, you're a moron, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and your god is an imaginary asshole. Your cult has vandalized my country, so it's no surprise you celebrate this act of vandalism. I'm guessing it won't be long before you're caught spray-painting swastikas on a jew's house for failing to bow down to your sick death cult.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 10, 2010 2:41 PM
Mike has the message. I wonder if any Christians will listen. While we are at it, somebody might like to explore the meaning of "We the People" when it was first written. It certainly didn't mean what US Americans would have us believe now.
Posted by: Anton | July 10, 2010 5:15 PM
Ummmmm. I guess by not making referrence to you at all? Sorry, I guess I'm just not seeing it. Where does it say something offensive? I mean it doesn't mention you or your god or your faith at all! It's just a message about national unity - well timed for Independence Day! With an implied request for inclusion from some Americans who don't happen to share the majority opinion about religion and seem to take their right to religious freedom literally. Is that the offensive part? The idea of sharing your country with folks who's view ar not yours?
Really, I don't get it! You seem to feel the offensive nature of the sign is self-evident, but ummmm. Gosh, I must be thick! I mean it's a dirtect quote from the original pledge of allegiance - one of the most flag waving bits of Americana there is! Is it the unabashed nationalism you find offensive? The implied indoctrination of children with uncritical views of the state? Well, perhaps I can see your point there, I don't know. Or is it just the concept of an indivisible America which so rankles you? An avowed secessionist are we? Do you refuse to recite the pledge? Do you just prefer instead to invision a divided, exclusive nation?
You approve of this vandal's ignorant message and apparently want to reserve America for those who think like you. Strange patriotism that. Guess you don't consider Jefferson or Franklin part of your 'one nation'? Wierd!
Shit! I misunderstood that one too! I confess, that really is what I thought, that Christians would take Christ's words at face value. Jesus didn't really MEAN 'turn the other cheek.' Or he was MISQUOTED when he went on to say, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"
Here I was taking all this at face value! Must be why I left Christianity behind. I was too darn dim to follow it! "Turn the other cheek" must be a really subtle teaching which somehow means "Verily I say unto you, deface the property of and break the laws protecting those who mildy annoy you. Rejoice in the suppressing of minority views for such heroism is pleasing unto the LORD."
Posted by: meisnerman | July 10, 2010 5:29 PM
Ted N. #78:
Sorry, I have to disagree here. This would be some kind of noble 'civil disobedience' if the person responsible had the guts to publicly admit what he did, and that his actions highlighted some kind of valid point, or gross injustice being perpetrated against him. Instead, this is an anonymous coward who doesn't even have the guts to proclaim what the message he was giving by this vandalism was - that he believes, completely contrary to the whole principle of freedom and inclusiveness that America was built upon, the only real Americans are Christian Americans. Even then, this person has the right to have these beliefs, wrong as they might be, and even has the right to proclaim them, so it's not even as if they're combatting censorship of their views. If anything, by altering the message of another, they're practising censorship.
Well, I have seen small signs inside buses proclaiming how peaceloving God supposedly is using quotes from the Bible, and the thought has jumped into my mind to get duplicate ones printed with passages that aren't as peaceful, and just sticking them over the top. However, me doing that would be just as pointless and wrong as the vandalism of this billboard was, for much the same reasons, so I have refrained from doing so.
Posted by: Zmidponk | July 10, 2010 6:47 PM
idk about this. of course this chic is a two-faced lying hypocritical tard, but as for the act itself, it's complicated. i do admit that deep down what i really believe is that this sort of defacement--especially of advertising--is a legitimate (morally, not legally) form of protest against a message or entity that you consider objectionable. not that i would do it myself or directly advocate it, but the little 'fuck yeah!' moments i get whenever i see that someone has written "he takes half damage" under "Jesus saves", or the anti-cigarette graffiti that someone linked earlier kinda prevent me from condemning the act without becoming a hypocrite myself.
Posted by: andrew | July 10, 2010 7:24 PM
Haha. And the Christians complain when they read about Muslims getting upset about cartoons of Muhammad. Bloody Hypocrites. A pox on ALL religions.
Posted by: sheldon archer | July 10, 2010 8:50 PM
Strange that God feels the need to send a bolt of lightning to destroy 'Touchdown Jesus' but leaves the defacing of an atheist poster to his 'followers'. Historically, the destruction of churches by lightning was embarrassingly commonplace until the religious turned to science and installed lighting conductors to their steeples.
Just how clear do God's 'signs' that he loves atheists and science have to be before Christians start listening. ;-)
Posted by: Mike Roberts | July 15, 2010 12:06 AM
The billboard story will be covered on ABC Evening News with Diane Sawyer, Tuesday, July 20, or Wednesday, July 21.
The news team flew into Asheville to interview Rev.Ralph Sexton (founder of "We Still Pray" which is running "Under God" electronic billboards around the state), and me.
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20100717/NEWS/307170029/1007
Posted by: cecil bothwell | July 18, 2010 6:37 AM
Mike Roberts (#87) -
maybe this is what's pissing god off. (He just had a 'senior moment'). :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 18, 2010 7:43 AM
Enough all of you knuckleheads on both sides!
#1 - There is a God. Deal with that Fact
#2 - If you don't agree with fact #1, then keep it to yourself and go on with your empty existence.
The End
Posted by: Silence Dogood | July 24, 2010 12:56 AM
Silence -
#1 - Evidence please.
#2 - Nah, christianists seem to have 'empty existence' all sewn up. I'll continue to enjoy my life, rather that kowtow fearfully to an imaginary sky daddy, thanks anyway.
:) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 24, 2010 1:05 AM
the Atheists should have gone back, painted an arrow pointing towards the vandalism words, and in the same type they used originally said: SEE THE CHRISTIANS ARE ADDING WORDS AGAIN
Posted by: bamaboy | August 12, 2010 4:55 AM