Now on ScienceBlogs: Some reflections on my fifth blogiversary.
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes. (Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983; Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990). (emphasis in original)
["Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches", by Carolyn Holderread Heggen, Herald Press, Scotdale, PA, 1993 p. 73]
« Apostasy is a crime punishable by death in Islamic countries | Main | My insane weekend »
Category: Godlessness • Pointless polls
Posted on: November 9, 2009 9:35 PM, by PZ Myers
Atheists are putting up a billboard in Lakeland, Florida that says, "Don't believe in god? You aren't alone." This is, apparently, controversial, and the newspaper article has an accompanying poll.
Does an atheist group have a right to display their own billboard?
Yes 77.7%
No 22.3%
I'd say that's a really stupid poll question, except that it reveals that 22% of the respondents don't think a number of their fellow citizens don't have the same privileges they do.
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/124398
PZ Myers 02.08.2010
PZ Myers 02.09.2010
Greg Laden 02.08.2010
ERV 02.09.2010
Orac 02.10.2010
Comments
Posted by: Carlie | November 9, 2009 9:45 PM
Next up: Should atheists have the right to own property?
Posted by: Geral | November 9, 2009 9:47 PM
Should atheists have the right to publish? It's the same argument on freedom of speech. It's not even a stretch of 'freedom of speech', this is as basic as it gets.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 9, 2009 9:48 PM
Why do they ask if the Constitution gives rights without respect to religion?
To be sure, it's only as stupid as asking whether or not life evolved.
The facts answer both questions, which a newspaper should simply be reporting.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 9, 2009 9:51 PM
A fresh poll, delicious.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | November 9, 2009 9:52 PM
You think that's bad, try that same poll in the Panhandle. The percentages would be reversed.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 9, 2009 9:56 PM
I think you tossed in an extra negative while constructing that final sentence...
Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 9, 2009 9:57 PM
Unfortunately, this shows the ignorance of 22% of Americans. Though I am sorry to say if a poll said "Should the Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to post public ads" I would have to say no.
Posted by: Stardrake
|
November 9, 2009 9:58 PM
90.3 Yes, 9.7 No.
It's getting better....
Posted by: B.T. Murtagh | November 9, 2009 9:58 PM
Grrr... you just know the results would be way different if the word 'atheist' were replaced with 'Jewish' or 'Hindu' or whatever. 'Christian' goes without saying of course, but I bet even 'Scientologist' would get a fairer shake than us.
Posted by: Phil Ferguson | November 9, 2009 10:00 PM
There is also a nice video clip on the page. Rob Curry was interviewed and did a great job.
Posted by: Demonhype | November 9, 2009 10:01 PM
Gotta love the xian love in this one. Okay, dude, we all know about the drooling shadenfreude of Christan love--but it's a tiny bit off the point, isn't it? The question isn't "what do you think will happen to atheists when God gets a hold of them", but "do atheists have the right to express the fact that they exist".
He kind of answered the point, I guess. In a non-committal kind of way.
Weird, though. Lots of the posts are kind of non-committal--giving a vague impression that perhaps they might possibly be sort of accepting of the free speech rights of atheists, but not quite specifying it to the point where it's obvious they're talking about Christian censorship and not about the billboards.
Posted by: ForgotMyGingko | November 9, 2009 10:03 PM
Ah, obviously you folks haven't been to Lakeland.
Remember Banjo Boy from Deliverance? He's the Mayor.
It's a scary bass-ackwards place of tongue speaking preachers, people who think the Cross is a wonderful motif for home and garden décor and the best place to pick up a date is the family reunion.
In short, the best way to see Lakeland is from the safety of your home office, on the internet, in a different time zone.
Posted by: llewelly | November 9, 2009 10:03 PM
New poll:
This quote:
is from:
(a) Das Kapital
(b) The Magna Carta
(c) The Prince
(d) The constitution of the Third Reich.
(e) The constitution of Canada.
(f) The constitution of France.
(g) The constitution of the USA.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 9, 2009 10:06 PM
Maybe set up a poll that ask people if they think atheists should be forced to wear some kind of identifying mark when they go out-of doors as well.
Posted by: Dr Murray | November 9, 2009 10:07 PM
And presto! Pharyngulated!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 9, 2009 10:09 PM
llewelly #13
Oh! Oh! I know. Pick me. I know the answer.
That's from the old TV show Little House on the Prairie. I remember Michael Landon saying that. &;t;smug>
Posted by: Kagato
|
November 9, 2009 10:15 PM
I imagine it would sound much the same if the interviewer had instead said:
"So let me understand this totally correctly: you strangle puppies for entertainment."
Posted by: Nominal Egg | November 9, 2009 10:15 PM
I thought it was from Star Trek.Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 9, 2009 10:23 PM
Posted by: Nominal Egg | November 9, 2009 10:26 PM
It's extremely comforting to realize I'm not alone.Posted by: flyonthewall | November 9, 2009 10:38 PM
#18
I believe that star trek quoted "we the people....."
and then shatner did whatever shatner does to such fine pieces of literature. could be wrong.....
Posted by: Yubal
|
November 9, 2009 10:41 PM
96.9%
Phaaaaaaaaryngulated
Posted by: kopd | November 9, 2009 10:45 PM
Why not ask, "Should atheists be allowed to vote?"
Posted by: Demha | November 9, 2009 10:46 PM
It's one of those polls where you can vote repeatedly. Up to 97.1%
Posted by: lady80
|
November 9, 2009 10:52 PM
Ugh, to be honest I don't think ANYONE should have the right to display billboards. Such tacky eyesores.
Posted by: bastion of sass | November 9, 2009 10:57 PM
Of course, atheists don't have a right to free speech! They don't even have the right to be US citizens!
When we find 'em, we'll deport 'em!!!
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM
|
November 9, 2009 11:06 PM
22% of the respondents don't think a number of their fellow citizens don't have the same privileges they do.
Actually, I would say that 22 percent are confused as follows: they are confusing a privilege with a right. Atheists have an absolute right to publicly announce their non-belief. Theists who attempt to muzzle that right often labor under the conviction that they have a 'right' to do so, when what they really are doing is leveraging public opinion to privilege their own views.
Posted by: DemetriusOfPharos | November 9, 2009 11:20 PM
@Owlmirror
I'll be damned, I didn't see that at first (stupid Utah educational system) but now thats all I see.
@llewelly
Er, um, you seem to have forgotten to include the answer in your poll. Its in the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. Just sayin. </snark>
Posted by: cicely | November 9, 2009 11:26 PM
98%:2%.
Posted by: heironymous | November 9, 2009 11:27 PM
To be fair, 77.7% vs. 22.3% could be a total of two ijits. The poll says 98% to 2% now...
Posted by: kopd | November 9, 2009 11:28 PM
It's really more of a quiz than a poll, and too many people got the wrong answer.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | November 9, 2009 11:29 PM
Ummmm...an amendment to the Constitution is a part of the Constitution. llewelly's poll is correct.Just sayin'.
Posted by: george.w | November 9, 2009 11:32 PM
Religious groups write chalk messages on the sidewalks of our campus all the time. One was an ad for a free bible, and said "Find some Truth in this world".
Recently I started carrying my own piece of chalk. Usually I write "atheists.org" on the next sidewalk panel and leave it at that. Well maybe it was wrong but I wrote "Made-up" on their sidewalk panel above the word "Truth". I didn't cross out any of their words, just put my own alongside.
Any bets? You betcha. Next day the words "Made-up" were carefully washed out, it looked like by a cola beverage, without touching the word "Truth". But it was still slightly readable so I felt it said more that way.
Posted by: The Chemist | November 9, 2009 11:42 PM
PZ sez:
There. Fixed.
Posted by: The Chemist | November 9, 2009 11:46 PM
98.3%/1.7%
Within minutes. Come on guys, 99.9% is just a few more clicks away!
Posted by: ZenMonkey | November 9, 2009 11:52 PM
I have to say, I like the comment from the Christian who remarks that God doesn't need his or her defense, and that more Christians should focus on their own faith instead of forcing it on others. Good comment from a theist on this matter.
Posted by: Crewvy
|
November 9, 2009 11:53 PM
Fair enough, I don`t think the religious should be allowed to to vote ,let alone breed.
Posted by: Annie | November 9, 2009 11:58 PM
NICE. 98.4% now! Boo ya, FL.
Posted by: EricB | November 10, 2009 12:04 AM
How sad is it that people cannot see how OPRESSIVE they can be towards those who disagree with them. How differently would they react if the question were about posting Christian propaganda? Regardless of whether you do or don’t agree with another persons point of view, one must still - if you live in the US - give that person all the rights and privileges afford to you in this country (as long as it is hurting no one else). I just do not get how the GREATEST country in the world can be so backward thinking at times and so in the dark ages.
Posted by: Nick Gardner | November 10, 2009 12:05 AM
Heh, by the time I got around to voting, the % of voters disagreeing was only 1.6%!!
=)
-Nick
Posted by: sioux laris | November 10, 2009 12:08 AM
23% looks about right to me. We discovered, at great cost, that 23% of Americans are utterly insane/repulsive idiots willing to support Dubya like they surely would have supported Mussolini, had they been Italian in that era.
Further, as Papa Bu--sh-- famously declared, atheists - in the blind cave fish view of such homo sapiens - should not really BE citizens of the USA, and certainly should not have the right to upset the Bog-gothering "majority" of REAL citizens.
How odd that nearly one of four people in the nation are batshit insane, or else hold completely unDemocratic views. And yet they live, meet, work, reproduce, etc. in almost an entirely seperate 'Mer'kin space from me, no matter where I've worked or where I travel (I've rarely been anywhere that approaches 10% of such people. Do they gain sanity and intelligence by some shoggoth-like telepathic receptivity?)
Posted by: cag
|
November 10, 2009 12:16 AM
Is it really that surprising that a number of Americans would agree that atheists should not post anything on a billboard? After all, the PEW research survey "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, which draws primarily on a new nationwide survey conducted from May 8 to Aug. 13, 2007" indicates that less than 17% of the population is unable to out think a preacher/rabbi/imam/....
Posted by: weaponsofmassdeception | November 10, 2009 12:40 AM
Nice stats now!
Talkback Opinion Poll
Does an atheist group have a right to display their own billboard?
Yes 98.6%
No 1.4%
Posted by: Glenn Davey
|
November 10, 2009 12:52 AM
Welp! It's been Pharyngulated now!
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | November 10, 2009 1:12 AM
Okay, OT but it is a question that is bothering me a bit:
I am busy putting up a story about scientists in the US wanting a debate on animals with human genes - all very well and good, but my question is, is there really such a thing as a human gene?
I mean, wouldn't genes basically be genes? And only human when combined? Or do you get animal specific genes?
Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | November 10, 2009 1:22 AM
Will equivalence suffice?
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | November 10, 2009 1:59 AM
Thedepressingstatistician | November 10, 2009 1:22 AM
It just bothers me that I am not too sure if "human genes" is the right way to phrase it. Maybe human traits?
The article basically amounts to British scientists being worried about the ethics of developing a lab animal with a human-like intellect via the use of human genetic material.
The article is interesting to me, so it is going in, I would just prefer to be accurate.
Posted by: dnebdal | November 10, 2009 2:04 AM
@Bruce, 45:
That's a slightly philosophical question ...
Practically speaking, the specific variant of a gene you find in a human might well be some bases off what you'd find in a great ape. With that in mind, I guess "a human gene" is shorthand for "a gene identical to a variant found in a human", for what that's worth.
There might be genes that only exists in humans, but I have never heard of one. If anyone knows of one/more, do tell.
(Depending on the target animal they might have found a gene that animal doesn't usually have, though.)
Posted by: darkwin | November 10, 2009 2:10 AM
I've written it once here:
There is a poll of a local Austrian newspaper, that is going in the wrong direction:
http://u.nu/3n4s3
The question is:
Should the crucifix stay in the school-classrooms?
Answers:
- Ja, das Kruzifix soll bleiben. / Yes the crucifix should stay
- Nein, das Kruzifix soll weg. / No, the crucifix should be removed.
- Weiß, nihct, ist mir egal. / Don't know, I don't care.
Posted by: Greg du Pille | November 10, 2009 2:55 AM
98.9% Yes
1.1% No
Job almost done!
Posted by: polderjongen
|
November 10, 2009 3:04 AM
Here's an idea. Block out the G and D of "in god we trust" on the dollar so it will read "in 0 we trust". That would drive the fundamentalist and teabaggers crazy I guess.
Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com
|
November 10, 2009 3:06 AM
"I think that I will never see
a billboard beautiful as a tree,
but unless the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all"
Ogden Nash
Posted by: shemp333 | November 10, 2009 3:15 AM
I don't know why... But I've tried to vote 3 times and when I clicked on "vote" my internet explorer got shut down. I am in Iraq but never had this problemo before... Of course I was voting YES. Agreed. Incredibly stupid poll question.
Posted by: nejishiki | November 10, 2009 3:42 AM
Are we trying to get this poll to 100% ? if so, I've got some bad news for you...
Posted by: Ross | November 10, 2009 3:48 AM
Yes, of course atheists should be able to publically confirm their ignorance / denialism / misotheism / Christophobia / arrogance.
Posted by: nejishiki | November 10, 2009 4:04 AM
@ #55
Misotheism? I like miso soup, but not THAT much.
Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2009 4:04 AM
Thanks Ross. You to are apparently free to do so as well.
Posted by: Caine | November 10, 2009 4:11 AM
Biology Blogger @ #7:
As repugnant and despicable as I find Phelps and clan, they do have the right to post public ads. I wouldn't like it, but such things can be fought properly, rather than reducing certain people to beings who shouldn't have the basic rights we all share.
Posted by: Dale | November 10, 2009 4:12 AM
Well done Ross.
A sign that says "there is more than one atheist" does confirm arrogance!
Pat on the back for you. I hope you get high-fives from all at the congregation. I can just see you running up and down the aisle collecting hand slap encouragements for your amazing insightfulness and wittiness.
Once more, well done! You are a scholar of the highest calibre!
Posted by: Caine | November 10, 2009 4:30 AM
Ross @ #55:
Lovely display of tolerance you have there. What exactly is so terrible about asking a simple question and letting people know there is a resource available?
Churches and religions advertise constantly, utilizing every type of advertising going. I haven't noticed atheists at large saying religious people shouldn't have the right to do so.
Such a nasty reaction and response suggests very weak faith. In a very weak god.
Posted by: Walton | November 10, 2009 5:04 AM
sioux laris,
Actually, there is no solid evidence that he ever said that. The quote "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic" was attributed to Bush by a single journalist, Robert I. Sherman, from a conversation at O'Hare Airport. No one else witnessed the remark, nor was it recorded, and he has never admitted to having said it. We've only got one guy's word for it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not an H.W. fan (though he was certainly a much better president than his son), and if he did make the remark in question, I find it despicable. But let's not assume, without evidence, that he actually said it.
Posted by: McCthulhu
|
November 10, 2009 5:09 AM
Does it really accomplish anything other than some sort of personal satisfaction to actually go to the paper and skew the original poll results? It now hides the fact that 22% of the people in that district are so full of dogmatic piety that they think it should override a person's (or organization's) constitutional right to free speech. That is supposing that the 22% even think, or are aware of rights.
If you want to know where those 22% are coming from, may I suggest a graphic for you:
http://www.geniusdv.com/news_and_tutorials/2009/06/28/iq_bell_curve.gif
Eighteen percent of the people you meet every day couldn't even get into a battle of wits with Forrest Gump. The other four percent are borderline Gumps I guess...and answer polls at newspapers (their caregiver logged on for them).
Posted by: Tim_Danaher | November 10, 2009 5:10 AM
Walton --
I've actually seen the video of him saying this -- several times. Can't turn it up at the mo' though...
Posted by: Nebula99 | November 10, 2009 5:41 AM
Tim #63:
"Walton --
I've actually seen the video of him saying this -- several times. Can't turn it up at the mo' though..."
I've seen it too, but for all I know it could be fake. If you find it, we can all take a look. Hopefully someone here knows how to tell whether it's been edited. Also, I heard that he stood by that opinion later, but I don't know who said it so, again, it might not be true. I would like to know, though.
Posted by: la tricoteuse | November 10, 2009 5:50 AM
I think we're missing an important point here. It isn't just that those 22% think we SHOULDN'T have the right to put billboards up/breathe/etc, it's that, according to the language of the poll, they think we DON'T.
I find that somewhat more disturbing.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | November 10, 2009 6:08 AM
Posted by: Ross | November 10, 2009 3:48 AM
Wouldn't misotheism be agnosticism?
Posted by: Caine
|
November 10, 2009 6:28 AM
Bruce Gorton:
No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 10, 2009 7:03 AM
As it turns out, I do have to thank the protesters, etc.
I often pass very near the billboard in question... but *behind* it. (For those of you who know Lakeland: I usually take US 98 from Bartow to the mall. The billboard is on Memorial, a block west of 98, and facing west.) If it weren't for the people bitching about this billboard, I would probably never have known Atheists of Florida had a Lakeland chapter.
PS: Next time, could we get a *lighted* billboard?
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | November 10, 2009 7:19 AM
Posted by: Caine Author Profile Page | November 10, 2009 6:28 AM
Ahh, I was thinking of meso-. My bad.
Posted by: Cruithne
|
November 10, 2009 7:21 AM
Surprisingly positive comments from some believers in the comments section.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 10, 2009 7:24 AM
Bruce Gorton:
If I understand it correctly:
Agnosticism is "We [don't/can't] know whether God exists."
Misotheism is "Assuming God exists, he's a right arse."
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 10, 2009 7:28 AM
Another article: http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Billboard-supporting-Atheism-upsets-some-Lakeland/_mpBHsRgpE2-fpXHhZODYA.cspx (no poll, but video and decent comments).
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2009 7:29 AM
Yes 99.1%
No 0.9%
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 7:30 AM
That sound you just heard is the point of voting on the poll sailing far over your head.
Posted by: Mack
|
November 10, 2009 7:43 AM
@ 71
I think "assuming god exists, he's a right arse" (because of his low moral standards) is maltheism, and misotheism is actual hatred of the god/gods (mostly found in certain polytheistic religions, where ceasing to worship a god could lead to his or her demise).
Posted by: littlejohn | November 10, 2009 8:00 AM
Of course atheists shouldn't have billboards. The next thing you know, they'll be writing books!
"Yes" is up to a mere 99.1. If we can't drive this up to 99.9, we aren't really trying. Of course, they do have that anti-votebot type-the-characters thingy.
Posted by: Potluck Warhound | November 10, 2009 8:02 AM
Well, learned a new word today: misotheism.
Seems to mean expressing your displeasure with one of the gods, by refusing to worship him or her.
I wonder why Ross thought that might be relevant, either to him or to us?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
November 10, 2009 8:05 AM
@McCthulhu #62: You really think this internet poll was providing statistically useful data before we heard about it? To me, the point of swamping polls like this is to demonstrate how utterly useless they are as a gauge to public opinion.
Posted by: Valdyr | November 10, 2009 8:07 AM
"I wonder why Ross thought that might be relevant, either to him or to us?"
It's the common atheism-denialist screed (yay, I can call people "denialists" too!) about how supposedly atheists secretly believe in God, but are just mad at Him because their cat died, or something. Or they hate Him and don't want to think about what Baby Jesus would do because it interferes with their libertine lifestyle of snorting powdered fetus from the asscracks of homosexual prostitutes.
Posted by: gothicgyrl
|
November 10, 2009 8:16 AM
To my fellow people, I apologize for my fellow Floridians. Not all of us are this stupid and it appears the ones who are have sat out in the sun too long and let the salt air rot their brains.
I am very, very sorry for my fellow Floridians.
::hangs head in shame::
toni
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 10, 2009 8:20 AM
Tim Danaher #63 wrote:
Well, if either you or Nebula99 find it, I'd be interested in seeing it: otherwise, I think Walton at #61 is correct. Last I heard, Rob Sherman was trying to trace some letters from Bush Sr. flunkies about the incident. There was never any suggestion that anyone had made a video (and it would have happened before secret phone videos could turn up.) Personally, I'm agnostic on the issue.
Posted by: Dusty | November 10, 2009 8:42 AM
Up to 99.1% YES now. Good.
Posted by: jcaps | November 10, 2009 8:44 AM
from Ross @ #55:
"Yes, of course atheists should be able to publically confirm their ignorance / denialism / misotheism / Christophobia / arrogance."
Don't be too hard on Ross. He's clearly stating Atheists should have the exact same rights he has.
Posted by: Katharine | November 10, 2009 8:45 AM
Ross is another example of religiobot assholery.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 10, 2009 9:11 AM
We can do that?
I've been wasting all this time, thinking that wasn't allowed!
Posted by: Brent | November 10, 2009 9:15 AM
99.2:0.8
I think the losers have officially entered "margin of error" territory.
Posted by: Laurie | November 10, 2009 9:20 AM
This is off-topic but I thought people here would be interested in a story about an atheist who figured out how to monetize the Rapture, by charging money in exchange for a commitment to care for Christians' pets after the Rapture occurs:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=No+Rapture+for+Rover%3f&articleId=35bdc879-7bcb-45ca-9c03-a88589f705f4
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 10, 2009 9:26 AM
Yes was up to 99.8% as of a few minutes ago. I really enjoy the way this question is phrased. The choice of "display their own billboard" sounds obviously skewed in our favor.
Yeah, you go right ahead and wait for your chance to point and laugh at us. After all, we're pointing and laughing at you right now, in the world that actually exists.
(Besides, I'm neurotically sensitive to cold and I like hanging out with interesting people. Hell is a risk I'm willing to take.)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | November 10, 2009 9:30 AM
I must say you folks have done an admirable job of taking down the notion that atheists might not have a right to post billboards. (Vote on freedom of speech? Ridiculous! Why you might as well vote on basic civil rights, like racial equality or marria... er... oops!) So I'll just note that I've already seen my I-wonder-how-quickly-this-will-show-up-on-Pharyngula? news story for today. I wonder how long 'til it shows up here....
PS: Those of you who live in New England can breathe easier now, because I did not win election to my town's Town Council. The streets are again safe... but the downside is I'll now have more time for blog posting! ;^)
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | November 10, 2009 9:34 AM
This is not the only instance of people who can not even pay to be heard. Even during the Clinton administration Gannet (the owner of the largest number of billboards and the holding a monopoly on billboards in some places) refused billboards advertising "unpopular" messages. Likewise, newspapers refused to run ads (such as the New York Times refusing to run the 1998 "Public leash awards" by the group "Public Finance" and college newspapers (except for Brown) refusing to run an ad opposing reparations for slavery from conservative columnist David Horowitz). Usually the media outlet/corporation would state some non-existent policy, such as no political of "advocacy" allowed (huh? what about the politicians running for re-election?!).
For a more detailed opinionated rant on the topic, try here.
For more on this topic see Bill Moyers' Free speech for sale.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2009 9:36 AM
"Yes" is at 99.2 % now. The bar for "no" doesn't even appear anymore.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | November 10, 2009 9:45 AM
PZ, you good.
And we on the Left Coast are just waking up to contribute.
Does an atheist group have a right to display their own billboard?
Yes 99.2%
No 0.8%
------------------
So I have a suggestion for a poll of your readers:
Do you vote in your local elections? y/n
Because -- where _are_ all these Pollish people's votes?
Posted by: https://certifi.ca/eean
|
November 10, 2009 9:47 AM
Maybe the old 22% were against all billboards, as they are a plague on the skyline. I can't disagree.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 10, 2009 9:53 AM
Well, if you could vote in your local election multiple times just by clearing your cookies...
I imagine you'd find a very high percentage of Pharyngulites vote in their local elections. I could be wrong, but that is my guess.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 10, 2009 9:58 AM
I actually find this to be the one area in which religion is more fulfilling than atheism. Seriously! Theists get to (falsely) believe that there will be a moment when I say, "Oh shit, what a dumb-ass I have been." But I don't get to believe the same moment will ever come for them. Sucks... :(
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 10, 2009 10:28 AM
I saw a comment somewhere (here? Fark?) that was a better idea. Cross out god. Replace with Xenu.
Posted by: littlejohn | November 10, 2009 10:49 AM
Tech question from a geezer here:
Since voting in this poll requires me to fill in the numbers displayed, does that mean I can vote multiple times without clearing cookies? Anyone?
We appear to be stalled at 99.2%. I want to stomp this sucker.
Posted by: Cliff Hendroval | November 10, 2009 10:57 AM
Not only did I vote, I was one of those people putting in a 16-hour day as an election worker. I've also been a candidate in the past, but now I'm glad I didn't win - the idea of spending endless meetings having to listen to stupid people isn't my cup of tea.
Posted by: JBlilie | November 10, 2009 11:07 AM
Currently:
99.8% Yes
0.2% No
Posted by: otrame
|
November 10, 2009 11:13 AM
Slight miss quote of the Ogden Nash poem there. It should be:
I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree;
Perhaps, unless the billboards fall,
I'll never see a tree at all.
Love that man. My favorite of his poems starts:
Senator Smoot (Republican, Ut.)
Is planning a ban on smut.
Oh rooti-ti-toot for Smoot of Ut.
And his reverend occiput.
Smite, Smoot, smite for Ut.,
Grit your molars and do your dut.,
Gird up your l__ns,
Smite h_p and th_gh,
We'll all be Kansas
By and by.
Posted by: JBlilie | November 10, 2009 11:13 AM
Slipped my digits. Still at 99.2% / 0.8%
Posted by: Lisa Pampuch | November 10, 2009 11:21 AM
Small correction suggestion:
Posted by: Marcus B. | November 10, 2009 11:21 AM
certifi.ca/eean said
You may potentially be right that there were some who voted no for that reason. If so, it's a part of a kind of thinking I really hate.
I mean, I don't care if you think, like lady80, that
That's a reasonable opinion to have. But I usually abhor when it is brought up as an argument in a debate like this, since I've seen the same kind of thing way too much in the gay marriage debate.
Whenever there is a large discussion about gay marriage, there will come in non-homophobes who say "No, gays shouldn't have the right to marry, because marriage shouldn't exist like it does today!"
Sure, I can understand their opinions on marriage as an outdated institution. But they must also understand that marriage will continue to exist for a long time, and people voting on the poll in question here should understand that billboards are going to continue existing too.
So given the rather irrefutable fact that billboards do exist and that people will continue to have to right to put them up, the obvious answer to the poll should be yes. And given the fact that marriage does in fact exist, it should be obvious to clear thinking people that it should be gender-neutral.
No one should think that it is reasonable to vote no on the silly poll in question because they don't like billboards - the debate is about freedom of speech, not whether billboards are a good thing or not. Similarly, most gay marriage debates are about equal rights, not about the institution of marriage in general.
Apologies for the rant, I realize that people here aren't the people I should argue this point with, but I just felt the need to mention it since I've just seen too many who argue against equal rights with that kind of thinking.
Posted by: Cogito | November 10, 2009 11:37 AM
I can't decide which makes me sadder: the bigotry against atheists or the appalling ignorance of civics. Really, this is not an opinion poll. It has a correct, factual answer: yes. Do I like seeing Jesus billboards? Not really. Do I understand that people have the right to display them? Absolutely.
It's much like Christians remarking on SOCAS cases, saying that atheists are demanding a right "not to be offended." Go look at the Constitution, people!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2009 11:38 AM
From Star Trek is "What does God want with a starship?".
<headdesk>
Each Amendment is a change to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is therefore part of the Constitution. The Constitution is not a sacred text that cannot change.
Why isn't that obvious? Why?
John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval [link removed]. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is --
Tyrone: 27%.
John: ... you said that immmediately, and with some authority.
Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes [link removed]. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.
[…]
John: You realize this leads to there being over 30 million crazy people in the US?
Tyrone: Does that seem wrong?
John: ... a bit low, actually.
Tyrone: (shrugs) Probably right, then.
– From here.
This is not a local newspaper. This is the newspaper that half of the fucking country reads every day – and it's a xenophobic conservative tabloid. More pharyngulation, please.
You can vote once per day on this one!
Posted by: ScottKnick | November 10, 2009 11:38 AM
From the Wiki on Misotheism:
"In some varieties of polytheism, it was considered possible to inflict punishment on gods by ceasing to worship them."
You mean, I can actually _do_ that? That's fantastic, because I've always thought that genocidal bipolar homophobe Yahweh has had it coming for some time now. Sign me up as a Misotheist.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | November 10, 2009 12:06 PM
ScottKnick (@106):
But wait, there's a catch: It seems to me that in order to punish Yahweh by denying your worship, you logically must first believe in Yahweh. Too high a price, IMHO.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 10, 2009 12:15 PM
How come those who claim atheists are 'Christophobic' leave one comment and then run away?
Hey Ross: come out to pla-ay!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2009 12:17 PM
Careful what you wish for, because you might get it. If you weaken Yahwe God of Israel, other people like Chemosh God of Moab might become too powerful (and the pesky Moabites with him). "Nothing better comes afterwards" (Austrian proverb). ;-)
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 10, 2009 12:22 PM
At this rate, the no votes will be so diluted amongst the sea of yes votes, those voting no will have to consult with their homeopathist. Homeoptimist may be a more appropos spelling, seeing how positive results to therapy rely so much on the placebo effect.
Posted by: Teh Merkin | November 10, 2009 12:33 PM
Markus B. (@ 103):
Thank you. That has helped me clarify my own thinking on this.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | November 10, 2009 12:46 PM
Laurie @#87--thanks for the tip!
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/11/come-rapture-who-feeds-dog.html
Posted by: middlekk | November 10, 2009 1:50 PM
99.3% yes.
Made me laugh out loud - and very slightly repairs a pretty rotten day.
Posted by: nic nicholson | November 10, 2009 2:39 PM
Capitalizing the word "god"? Isn't that buying into the subtle psychology of Christianity? --there's only one god, so we're going to commandeer the noun god, and name our god, God, just so you remember it.
I think the billboard should have read "Don't believe in gods? You're not alone."
Now THAT would have really pissed them off. Instead AOF paid homage to 'em.
Posted by: Gene | November 10, 2009 3:01 PM
re: #61 "But let's not assume, without evidence, that he actually said it."
You mean an eyewitness account from a professional journalist doesn't count as evidence? It may not be strong evidence as it's not corroborated. But it is evidence.
Posted by: Malkara | November 10, 2009 3:57 PM
Wow, my town gets mentioned on Pharyngula and I miss it for an entire day?
Teaches me not to be hitting refresh constantly.
But yeah, this is also the same county that was mentioned a year or two ago for the board of education saying they wanted creationism taught. Sigh.
Posted by: MarkEE | November 10, 2009 4:15 PM
Regarding Bruce Gorton's question in #45 re is there such a thing as a 'human gene'. In a similar question, a rabbinical council took up the issue of whether there is such a thing as a 'pig gene', in the context of, if you make a transgenic carrot with pig genes is the carrot still kosher? The council decided that there was no such thing as a pig gene, because DNA is a chemical, and numerous horizontal transfer mechanisms imply that genes are not immutably associated with a species. They decided that if you took a gene from a pig and put it into a carrot, that gene became a carrot gene. Seems like similar reasoning could be applied to your question.
Also, re raising the intelligence levels of animals with near human intelligence - David Brin wrote some interesting sci-fi on this topic in the 80s...the Uplift and Stardiver trilogies, I think they are called.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | November 10, 2009 5:52 PM
99.4% / 0.6% now.
Posted by: McCthulhu | November 10, 2009 10:19 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 7:30 AM
Me - "Does it really accomplish anything other than some sort of personal satisfaction to actually go to the paper and skew the original poll results?"
BDC - "That sound you just heard is the point of voting on the poll sailing far over your head."
Me -
Hardly,
The scientific statistical integrity of the poll at the beginning assumed the response of the locals in seeing the billboard. Now that a politicized response has moved the yes vote to 99.8% based on people not even having seen the billboard or living in the vicinity, I would say the concept behind this poll is no longer valid. All it indicates now is the response time of people visiting PZ's website. I still find the original poll results far more informative than the current ones.
Posted by: Anon | November 10, 2009 10:24 PM
McC--
Why do you think the poll originally "assumed the response of the locals in seeing the billboard"? Do cars in this area have internet access? I know mine does not, but perhaps I am the odd one out, here.
Was there any statement by the newspaper as to their distribution demographics?
Might the assumption that you spoke of be... wrong?
Might that be the point of pharyngulating?
Posted by: Lorence
|
November 10, 2009 11:22 PM
OMFSM!
I just saw onthe local news - WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE SIGNS IN DOWNTOWN COLUMBUS, OHHIO!!!!!
Yay for us!
And ColumbusCor.org!
Posted by: the human michael | November 11, 2009 12:10 AM
zomg! even though i live in florida, i have not seen the billboard. thanks to this blog post, i've joined the atheists of florida. woohoo
Posted by: Jockaira | November 11, 2009 7:13 AM
Re: comment about skewed poll results per pharyngulation
The poll has definitely been pharyngulated and perhaps the pharyngulators have also pharyngulated themselves and their objectives.
Since there is no citing of absolute numbers of the poll, it leaves the results otherwise open to the interpretation that the citizens of Lakeland Florida may be more splendid representatives of America than we (pharyngulators) know them to be.
If you had really wanted to perform asymetrical guerrilla actions on them, the right choice would have been "no", indicating that a majority of the locals were opposed to American Ideals of Freedom. This would have been "dirty pool", but 22% deserve it for being bigoted idiots, and the balance (good people according to their comments there) may have taken a closer look at attitudes in their area.
The website itself (wtsb.com) being a community representative and anxious to project a good image of the area for commercial reasons may realize the above and publish the results exactly as they appear on the website without even mentioning that they have been pharyngulated. This would serve them well to maintain that their community is not full (22%) of bigots opposed to free expression.
Sober reflection tells me that we have pharyngulated ourselves.
Myers, this is all your fault for tampering with the truth.
And mine too. Without thinking, I voted "yes" about 50 times.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 12:11 PM
Suppose we polled only self-described atheists and asked, "Should Christians be allowed to put up a 'Jesus died for you' billboard in your community?" I expect a substantial minority would answer "no".
Posted by: Anon | November 14, 2009 12:17 PM
And yet you have not yet been kicked out of here.