Pharyngula

Posted by: dbmorrisalum | July 10, 2010 9:42 AM

Outside of St. Peter, MN there are a bunch of huge yellow billboards with the word "Jesus" written on them. Now, I've never wanted to vandalized these but I always thought it would be funny to buy an adjacent billboard and create identical huge yellow billboard. Except that instead of "Jesus" I would put my name.

Posted by: Zeno | July 10, 2010 9:45 AM

It's a hopeful sign to Satterfield when ostensible Christians blithely break human law because it shows they regard themselves as bound to a higher law. When you're bound to a higher law, you can flout the lower ones with impunity. That's the great thing about religion: it empowers you to trample over others!

Satterfield's irrational contortions come to a climax with her happy chattering about how no one is taking "credit" for the vandalism: "the fact that you haven't stepped forward to take credit makes you a hero." In what universe does she live? That's not evidence of heroism. That's evidence of trying to hide out and beat the rap. This is no noble flouting of an unjust law in an act of civil disobedience (in which taking the punishment would be part of the self-sacrificing act). This is just skulking and hiding like a common criminal and coward, despite Satterfield's fulsome and idiotic praise.

Amen.

Posted by: Crommunist | July 10, 2010 9:51 AM

Atheists are not faceless cowards who skulk along and deface public property, and we're not going to call people who do such things "heroes".

Second part probably true, first part not necessarily true. Atheism doesn't make you a better person, it just means you don't believe in a deity. There are all sorts of reasons that people don't believe, and none of them guarantee that you wouldn't deface a billboard and slink off into the night. Being a humanist should guarantee that, as should just generally being a decent person, but atheism grants no special moral rectitude.

Posted by: vanharris | July 10, 2010 9:51 AM

PZ, go easy on the poor lady. She's probably off her meds.

Although, I guess such mind-numbing irrationality could be her natural condition, which would account for her belief in crazy superstitions derived from Bronze Age, Mesopotamian, goat-herding nomads.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | July 10, 2010 9:54 AM

They "vandalized his beliefs"? How can you "vandalize" something that is not a physical object? The jackass is offended by our very existence, and his solution is incitement to lawlessness.

Posted by: Freidenker | July 10, 2010 9:56 AM

I'm sorry, but atheists can be just as cowardly and just as obtuse. Less likely, but possible - I don't think there's a "we" to speak of, here. You said it yourself, herding cats.

I don't think any company of atheists are going to start vandalizing a lot of Christian billboards now (mainly because it's real stupid, which explains why Christians waste time on it)

but owing to how I don't find myself part of a "group" called "atheists" although I am one, I can't really say what other atheists will do.

Anyhow, I find it most telling that this guy thinks God wastes time on graffiti - I guess it's okay to blaspheme when you got a mob of idiots cheering for you.

Posted by: James R. Palmer II | July 10, 2010 9:58 AM

I wish I could find the sign in NJ, but no I have to contend with idiots and nimrods all day.

Posted by: Dibs | July 10, 2010 10:00 AM

So, PZ, defacing a Christian billboard is something that you would find deplorable, but stealing a communion wafer, sticking a nail through it, throwing it in the trash, and then taking pictures of it and putting it on the internet is perfectly acceptable?

This is rank hypocrisy. I'm no fan of the god-botherers, but you are trying to paint a picture that atheists (by implication all atheists) "simply stand up, quietly speak the truth, and be good citizens", when you have gone out of your way to absolutely insult at least one religious group.

If you want civil discourse then you need to start being civil.

Posted by: Bill Gascoyne | July 10, 2010 10:03 AM

In addition to noting that "under God" was added in the 50s as part of the Cold War's "Red Scare", the original was written by a Baptist minister. How times have changed...

Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | July 10, 2010 10:04 AM

The hypocrisy of some Christians is more what drove me away from the organized Christianity than freethinking. And, sadly, this is the kind of stuff that gets North Carolina, and the South, painted as some sort of backwater.

Posted by: Snikkers | July 10, 2010 10:07 AM

We'll let the Christians take the low road.

I don't know. I get tired of always taking the high road. Can't we be the poor, hard-done-by, persecuted minorities for once? After all, we really are a minority.

C.

Posted by: Mr Ed | July 10, 2010 10:08 AM

This is a fine first step Chrissy. Now we need to do something about those Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Unitarians, Buddhist, Hindus and Mormons whose very existence is an attack on faith in the ONE TRUE GOD ™. Not that I would advocate violence but if someone did I would understand.

Posted by: MarkL | July 10, 2010 10:09 AM

How about buying a billboard next to "Jesus" and writing "..Is not gay. Don't believe the rumors"

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 10, 2010 10:09 AM

The morality of Christianity is aware of very few no-go depths of depraved and ostentatious pompousness of behaviour.

Belief that is so skin deep is indeed a fragile thing.
A thin veneer of shit to cover their cowering fear.
Maybe some really are aware that it is all fucking codswollop!
And others use and abuse its vague but pernicious affect for self gratification.
All are guilty of mental masturbation...and all require a damned good cold shower.
Maybe get some reality back into their world.

Such a powerful god they boast yet such weak and wicked humanity they preach.

Posted by: Q.E.D | July 10, 2010 10:13 AM

So, PZ, defacing a Christian billboard is something that you would find deplorable, but stealing a communion wafer, sticking a nail through it, throwing it in the trash, and then taking pictures of it and putting it on the internet is perfectly acceptable? [snip] If you want civil discourse then you need to start being civil.

You're right Dibs. Let the vandal reimburse the atheist group for the cost of the bilboard and PZ, you should reimburse the catholic church for the wafer.

Bilboard advertising cost hundreds to thousands of dollars.

Crackers cost $12 per 1000 communion wafers

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 10, 2010 10:14 AM

"They "vandalized his beliefs"? How can you "vandalize" something that is not a physical object? The jackass is offended by our very existence, and his solution is incitement to lawlessness."

*insert Godwin here*

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmKoZZW1bfPWwVICBRt8fSLiYWHHSiKVGk | July 10, 2010 10:16 AM

The wafer idiots are similar to the anti flag-burning people. they don't understand the difference between causing offense by destroying your own property, and causing offense by destroying someone else's.

Trying to ban the former is a form of fascism, and the latter being against the law is something everyone basically agrees with.

They think the hurt feelings are what matters, and therefore should be addressed by the law. Dopes.

Posted by: circleh | July 10, 2010 10:17 AM

This diatribe was published by World Net Daily, a right-wing extremist site/rag.

They make the Weekly World News tabloid look respectable.

Next, the KKK claims to be victims of the NAACP.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 10, 2010 10:19 AM

"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."

Yeah Jesus, our lord and God who we must give absolute obedience, told us to turn the other cheek and not fight back...BUT FUCK THAT PUSSY YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!!!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 10, 2010 10:23 AM

More anti-Christian persecution:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=323363&id=122256581133741&ref=mf

Posted by: James II | July 10, 2010 10:27 AM

Help! We're being oppressed!

Posted by: Q.E.D | July 10, 2010 10:32 AM

This is rank hypocrisy. [snip] when you have gone out of your way to absolutely insult at least one religious group.

some people are insulted by burning the American flag. It is still speech and it's still civil. No one's property is damaged. It harms no one.

In a free country that values speech as one of its fundamental freedoms there is no right not to feel insulted.

Civil speech may have content that is highly insulting to a listener. For example: "People who oppose gay marriage are bigots".

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 10, 2010 10:36 AM

They recently wrote something. Asking such questions as, " If we're not under God, who or what are we under? "

Is that the set up to a "yo' mama" joke?

Posted by: Alexander the Good Enough | July 10, 2010 10:43 AM

The late Don Addis summed it up perfectly with this cartoon:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4710

Posted by: mmelliott01 | July 10, 2010 10:46 AM

I always thought it would be funny to buy an adjacent billboard and create identical huge yellow billboard. Except that instead of "Jesus" I would put my name.

A few years back I actually tried to get some friends of mine to kick in money to create bumper stickers that said "WWJD" with a picture of Jesse Ventura's big fat head. That's when Jesse was governor and his name was in the news a lot. (I like and respect Ventura even though some of his ideas are definitely a bit kooky.)

Re the billboard: To the Christianists, the Pledge sounds like "blahblahblahGodblahblahblah".

Posted by: MarkL | July 10, 2010 10:51 AM

Is there any doubt that in a community of 99,999 christians and 1 skeptic, the skeptic would be beaten to a pulp if he ever decided to oppress the believers? Muslims are the worst, today, but Christians or Hindus could easily overtake them.
Too bad PZ doesn't know enough to discuss Hinduism, which is perhaps the most vile religion/social system of them all.

Posted by: raven | July 10, 2010 10:56 AM

It is routine for atheist billboards to be vandalized.

Three were vandalized in Sacramento, one in Ohio, and now this one in NC.

It doubles or triples the publicity value. Xians never, ever waste an opportunity to demonstrate their moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

Which is a key reason why No Religions are one of the fastest growing religious categories in the USA.

The billboard providers should have a surveillance camera to record the inevitable vandalism. But then, that might inhibit the xians from displaying their lack of morals. Maybe they could record them, get their identities, put it on Youtube, and send them a thank you card.

Posted by: blf | July 10, 2010 10:56 AM

Ms. Satterfield, why do you hate America?

Because it's not a theology where she and her Council of High Priests^† rule by decree.

 †  And Grand Vicar. Never forget the Grand Vicar.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 10, 2010 10:59 AM

Atheists are not faceless cowards who skulk along

I don't skulk, I creep. Other than that, it's a good description of me.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 10, 2010 11:02 AM

The point is that many people believe it is, and many people were deeply, hurt and upset, and you knew that this would be the case. Your posts constantly ridicule and insult believers, you clearly set out to offend and antagonise. You are not speaking quiet truths.

Your concern is noted.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | July 10, 2010 11:08 AM

@'tis himself:

Me, I backstab. Master thief.

As for the pansies... sheesh, people. Grow a spine. PZ is rude, yes, we know. So?

The godbots are gonna keep up with this shit unless we're rude. You want to give up everything people like PZ have gained for you? You want to go back to the times when we couldn't say "Yeah, not a believer" without getting blacklisted? You want to go back to being a second-class citizen?

Of course not. You want your rights, the rights that require being rude, but you also want to deplore the very people being rude. You want your cake, AND you want to eat it while sneering at the very people who insure you can have cake and while publiclly blowing the very people who would happily take that cake away.

People like you fatheist accomdationists are the reason why the cake is a lie. You're the sort Martin Luther King was slamming when he wrote Letters From a Birmingham Jail. When we have to go to a fucking preacher to teach us how to be good active atheists, well, there's a pooch been screwn somewhere.

Posted by: xhakhal | July 10, 2010 11:14 AM

Another thing that bugs me (skipping right over the religion issue with this case, since it always bugs me and others have articulated why perfectly) is the lack of STYLE with which this billboard (and others) have been defaced.

I am very interested in graffiti and street art, to the point where I've done some myself (not vandalism of course - either with permission, or on my own property!), and seeing this sort of lazy writing just makes me disappointed. Whomever defaced that billboard should be ashamed of themselves - if they really wanted to get the message across, they could've spent some time doing it nicely and neatly, rather than just seeming cheap and boring.

Seriously. Where's your artistic integrity, faith-head?

Posted by: essentialsaltes | July 10, 2010 11:19 AM

I'll cop to thinking that this is hilarious, but I would never stoop so low as to consider vandalism a praiseworthy activity.

Stupid moral compass, what have you ever done for me?

Posted by: katherinelkraemer | July 10, 2010 11:22 AM

I personally don't care if someone puts up a billboard that excludes 'under God,' because I know most of us prefer to keep the phrase in the pledge, and officially it is still there. I also want to add that our country is better served under Christianity's God than it is under atheism and, subsequently, the government. In other words, I like that our founders believed we as individuals owe our allegiance to God and therefore our government and country were set up to reflect that belief. And for those of you who wish to say our founder Jefferson believed vehemently in separation of church and state which he did not include in the Constitution but because of a letter he wrote, how do you explain his other quotes and actions: http://www.boldhearts.com/thomas_jefferson.htm

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 10, 2010 11:23 AM

This is rank hypocrisy. I'm no fan of the god-botherers, but you are trying to paint a picture that atheists (by implication all atheists) "simply stand up, quietly speak the truth, and be good citizens", when you have gone out of your way to absolutely insult at least one religious group.

If you want civil discourse then you need to start being civil.

Um... this has nothing whatsoever to do with "civil discourse". It has to do with not vandalising others' property. Two different issues.

In a free society, no one has the right not to be offended. If conservative Christians want to buy their own billboards and write "ATHEISTS ARE ALL TOOLS OF SATAN AND ARE GOING TO HELL" in ten-foot-high letters, they are perfectly free to do so. Conversely, Professor Myers is free to stick rusty nails through communion wafers if he so wishes. There is no obligation to be polite, and you won't find anyone here whining about "civil discourse". The whole point of a free society is that all ideas are open to challenge, criticism and ridicule: and people can express their views however they see fit, whether politely or rudely.

The problem here was that the religionist in question vandalised someone else's property in order to make his or her point. The right to express your views doesn't extend to violating others' property rights. An atheist who went around smashing church windows or defacing church signs would, quite rightly, be arrested. The same condemnation should apply to a believer who defaces an atheist billboard. It has nothing to do with "civil discourse"; it's about the fact that people are entitled to security of property.

Posted by: Ed S | July 10, 2010 11:24 AM

As long as the billboard was already vandalized, perhaps someone should just add an "s" to "God". That would put a twist in Chrissy's knickers.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | July 10, 2010 11:26 AM

I just think that such a conscious provocateur acting so offended is risible.

Crackergate was conducted to show support for a young man who received death threats for not immediately eating a communion wafer and exiting a service when the fellow attendees completely freaked out.

The vandal defaced a billboard expressing patriotism because was sponsored by a non-religious organization; not because of the message displayed (I hardly think the billboard would have been vandalized had it been sponsored by the local Rotary Club.)

The people threatening the young man and the vandal were expressing offense. If you're going to get a rise out of provocative behavior, direct it to where it will do the most good. As PZ rightfully does.

Posted by: SlantedScience | July 10, 2010 11:27 AM

Can we commit secondary vandalism on these? Maybe crossing out 'God' and writing 'Allah', or 'Aphrodite', or 'Emo Phillips'?

Posted by: fattirefinally | July 10, 2010 11:30 AM

I've never understood how people who claim to have an all-powerful being on their side can feel so threatened.

Posted by: olie25 | July 10, 2010 11:32 AM

I think we need to start a little digital vandalism of some of the christen signs that blight our land. Please no actual harm to there signs just take pictures of them and post them on athiest nexus then let the photoshop fun begin.

Posted by: Peter H | July 10, 2010 11:35 AM

And the hypocrite completely misses the point with her, "...and the fact that you haven't stepped forward to take credit makes you a hero."

No. The failure to step forward is cowardice. She clearly hasn't read/understood Civil Disobediance or the speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. The vandal(s) know this was a minor civil crime and don't have the guts to squarely face the repercussions of the act.

As has been noted many times, this selective blindness & selective morality can in the long run have only negative returns for the "sanctimoniously oppressed."

Posted by: Dae | July 10, 2010 11:39 AM

Aaaagh, from #82, blockquote fail, sorry.

Should read:

Westcoaster #42 said:

Never would I encourage vandalism, but in this case I think I'll let it slide.

Never would I encourage violence, but in this case I think I'll let it slide.

It's not that big a leap, really.

Posted by: tytalus | July 10, 2010 11:49 AM

It would be swell for the xians to encourage the vandals in their ranks to step up and 'take credit' for their heroic crimes. We may then arrest them. :)

That said, #74 has a point and PZ may be busted on hypocrisy. That doesn't make his argument here incorrect; just makes him a hypocrite, apparently.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 10, 2010 11:51 AM

"I also want to add that our country is better served under Christianity's God than it is under atheism"

How so? If your god exists, then supposedly every country is "served" under him. If he doesn't, then why act like we are? In short, why does your supposedly all-powerful god need a human government supporting him? I suspect it has less to do with the god and more to do earthly power, and of course all your prominent preachers and the politicians who make a big show of their religion only confirm this suspicion.

"In other words, I like that our founders believed we as individuals owe our allegiance to God and therefore our government and country were set up to reflect that belief."

Citation needed.

Posted by: Autumn | July 10, 2010 11:51 AM

Okay, one more time for all the demented failures at history out there:
Yes, a majority of America's founders were Christian. A large minority were Deists, who believed that the available evidence pointed to a non-interventional deity, who created the universe with natural laws and a natural order. This belief in evident order also lead directly to the belief that it was obviously natural for only rich, white men to hold any power. It also allowed them (the Deists) to converse in the symbolic language of metaphors about a creator.
Despite the theism and deism of the founders, they did not include any sort of appeal to gods in the Constitution, and were taken to task for it in the media of the day. It was not an accident that the Constitution is secular; it was a deliberate action taken by a largely Christian group of people who believed fervently that any mingling of government and religion was bad for both.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 10, 2010 11:53 AM

You want your rights, the rights that require being rude, but you also want to deplore the very people being rude. You want your cake, AND you want to eat it while sneering at the very people who insure you can have cake and while publiclly blowing the very people who would happily take that cake away.

People like you fatheist accomdationists are the reason why the cake is a lie. You're the sort Martin Luther King was slamming when he wrote Letters From a Birmingham Jail. When we have to go to a fucking preacher to teach us how to be good active atheists, well, there's a pooch been screwn somewhere.

-Kieranfoy @63

Agree or not, y'all have to admit that's QOTD-worthy material right there.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 10, 2010 12:03 PM

I also want to add that our country is better served under Christianity's God than it is under atheism and, subsequently, the government.

It's hard to parse what you're trying to say here... but no country should be governed "under" any god, nor indeed "under" atheism.

In a free society, government should be secular. That is, government should be neutral in matters of religion: it should be up to each individual, not the government, to make his or her own decisions about religion. You have the right to believe in, advocate and practice Christianity, just as we have the right to reject and criticise Christianity. But the coercive power of government should not be used to promote any form of religion, nor indeed to promote non-religion.

This is a view that I held even when I was a Christian. It is not in anyone's interest for the state to promote a particular religion. In a free society, Christians are free to be Christians, and atheists to be atheists, without any interference from the state.

In other words, I like that our founders believed we as individuals owe our allegiance to God and therefore our government and country were set up to reflect that belief.

Um... what? The US Constitution does not mention God even once. It is an avowedly secular document, and deliberately refrained from recognising or supporting any religion. Some of the Founding Fathers were orthodox Christians; many others were post-Christian deists, Unitarians, or belonged to other sects which rejected conventional Christian beliefs. But irrespective of their personal beliefs, they chose to establish a government with no official religion, and this was specifically enshrined in the First Amendment.

(As an aside, I also think the obsession of American political discourse with the Founding Fathers is bizarre and unhelpful. They were not gods, omniscient beings, or purveyors of ultimate wisdom: they were a group of wealthy white landowning men, writing centuries ago for a very different society. Nor is the Constitution some sort of holy writ. It was a compromise between many competing values and interests; much of it is deliberately vague, and, of course, the original text tolerated slavery, as well as leaving the state governments free to oppress their own populations in a multitude of ways. I'm not disparaging the US Constitution, which I think is a very valuable document; but it shouldn't be pretended that the Founding Fathers had some sort of special political wisdom which is lost to the modern world.)

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 10, 2010 12:03 PM

What's QOTD?

Quote of the day

Posted by: raven | July 10, 2010 12:04 PM

It's nice to know that I am not alone in my beliefs.

Well, duh. This woman is an idiot.

5 seconds with google would turn up the fact that 76% of the US population self identifies as xian, 230 million people. And that there are 2 billion xians in the world.

A few seconds more would turn up the fact that atheists can't be elected even dogcatcher in the USA.

Not sure what the point of her statement is. That she is astonishingly ignorant, stupid, doesn't know how to count, and is unable to use a simple search engine?

Posted by: Zoot Capri | July 10, 2010 12:09 PM

I try to be polite and respectful to all people, even when they are spouting crap out their traps. Now, I have reached a point in my life when I just can't stand to be around religiosios at all. And when I start getting some evangelizing holy roler yammering on about my immortal soul, I just want to scream at them I fucking don't want to hear it. They are "praying" for my unsaved soul. Well, go right ahead, but do it far away from me. Here, on the billboard vandalism, is the same damn thing, they are not allowing us to have a freaking idea of our own that they don't agree with.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 10, 2010 12:12 PM

"In other words, I like that our founders believed we as individuals owe our allegiance to God and therefore our government and country were set up to reflect that belief."

What did God to do protect us during 9-11 or pearl harbor? Or in the founder's time the war of 1812? I'm with Hobbs we owe NO allegiance to a sovereign who can't hold up his obligation to protect us.

Posted by: heatherly | July 10, 2010 12:17 PM

The atheists have apparently been sticking a spray can nozzle up her nostrils and scrawling graffiti on her brain…which if you think about it, actually explains a lot.

I'm not sure...one of my former clients abused marijuana, ecstasy, LSD, over-dosed on Benadryl, and huffed LYSOL. He was still more capable of critical thinking than Ms. Satterfield. :)

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 10, 2010 12:26 PM

Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years, so it's about time the shoe was on the other foot.

I'm pretty excited by this concept of "belief-vandalism", I have to say. Who knew? From now on, every time someone tells me I'm wrong about something, I can denounce them as a vandal. Because, as we all know, disagreeing with someone's opinion is no different from destroying their property.

Of course, this does mean we need to make a few changes. We'll have to set up a special task force to stop the epidemic of belief-vandalism in our schools, for instance. Why, under the guise of "education", teachers are vandalising children's beliefs every day! Many kids have a sincere and heartfelt belief (bless their little hearts) that the sun goes around the earth and that the Battle of Waterloo was fought in 1066: we have to start protecting those beliefs from vandalism by these so-called intellectuals. And we must put a stop to the annual outbreak of vandalism every Christmas, when innocent young kiddies across the world are told, to their shock and dismay, that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 10, 2010 12:33 PM

In other words, I like that our founders believed we as individuals owe our allegiance to God and therefore our government and country were set up to reflect that belief.

Amen, Brotha! Thank God (and Greyhound) that our Founding Fathers (blessings be upon their nipples) were such Righteous Christians, and modeled our constitution after the 10 Commandments. They weren't "10 Suggestions," after all.

Why, if it weren't for all those "Honor your mother and father" laws, familial child molestation would be illegal! And if I were able to put other Gods before Him, I might believe in Allah, or be a Unitarian, or have a Buddha mask in my royal purple bedroom. And if there weren't Constitutional proscriptions about keeping the Sabbath holy, I'd have electricity on Sundays (or Saturdays -- I always forget which one is Constitutionally-mandated as the Sabbath). And without electricity on the Sabbath, there is one day a week which I cannot watch porn. Oh, and if I weren't for that Constitutional clause forbidding me from wanting things, I'd be coveting the shit out of my neighbor's wife.

I do wish we followed other biblical traditions. I could've gotten a mint selling my daughter into slavery. And I really long for my own concubines. Maybe 300 of them. 365, maybe, one for each day of the year. (I'd have to rest every February 29th, though. Obviously.)

Imagine what kind of world we would be living in if the Constitution actually forbade Church involvement in government. Why, only Satanists could become President! Only Godless could serve in government, and you know how immoral the Godless are -- they mutilate the very Wafery Flesh of God. There would be no laws persecuting homosexuals for their obviously-deviant behavior (which affects my marriage, somehow -- maybe because I'd then covet my neighbor, and not his wife).

Praise Jesus, I'm just so gosh-durned happy our country was founded on such Christian values as child slavery and polygamy. Now let's go raid Mexico, so we can get us some slaves, and have some good old-fashioned God-approved raping and pillaging!

Don't eat that bats, though. They are unclean.

Posted by: Peter H | July 10, 2010 12:40 PM

Upon reviewing the billboard in question, I am led to speculate, "What would have been the upshot - if any - had the sign read 'One Nation Undivided' (with a nod to Abe Lincoln)." Simply because the sign's wording is perceived by some to be taken from the Pledge of Allegiance is no assurance that it was, it may have been an inadvertent similarity. It seems a possible conclusion that all the faithfuls' screaming like scalded cats might be attributed to a mere coincidence and a wide-spread case of thin skin coupled with an overdose of imagination and, one sign of the paranoid, a sincere belief in persecution when there's nobody there.

Posted by: PenguinFactory | July 10, 2010 12:43 PM

I just love the whole "I don't endorse vandalism but thanks so much for vandalising those signs and buses you guys!" thing she's got going there.

We will only take so much before we stand up against our oppressors

Chrissy Satterfield has A Dream- that some day the sons of former billboard viewers can sit down at the table of brotherhood with the sons of former billboard makers. Let's make this beautiful vision come true, people.

Posted by: Loim | July 10, 2010 12:51 PM

It appears in the picture that "One Nation, Indivisible" is actually above God!

Zing!

Posted by: grudgedk | July 10, 2010 12:52 PM

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.

Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years, so it's about time the shoe was on the other foot.

It shows everyone that you are more devoted to the message than you are to the spotlight.

Don't give the secular world a reason to call your name; instead, let them call for our God.

Posted by: pcarini | July 10, 2010 1:02 PM

#65:

Whomever defaced that billboard should be ashamed of themselves - if they really wanted to get the message across, they could've spent some time doing it nicely and neatly, rather than just seeming cheap and boring.

Seriously. Where's your artistic integrity, faith-head?

You've obviously never heard any Christian "Rock". They have no taste. Nor any integrity, it seems.

Posted by: Peter H | July 10, 2010 1:07 PM

@ #118

It's been established that PZ was not the impaler.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 10, 2010 1:14 PM

I can't take he "vandalisism billboards is never justified" line. I think creative alterations to bilboards and posters can enliven political debate. That doesn't mean I think altering them should be legal - but a certain level of (non-violent) lawbreaking is necessary to a free society!

Huh? I don't quite understand your position here.

While it certainly can be justified and necessary to break the law, surely this can only be so where the law itself is unjust? And surely, if a law is unjust, it should be abolished? If you think that "creative alteration" of billboards and posters can be justified, why would you argue that it should continue to be illegal?

There are plenty of laws which I consider to be unjust: laws against recreational drug use, for instance, and discriminatory anti-gay laws, and laws censoring or restricting political speech. And I would argue that it is justified to break these laws, if one can do so without harmful consequences to oneself or others. But I also argue and campaign for these laws to be repealed. I can't envision any circumstance in which I would support a law's continued existence, but simultaneously argue that it is justified to break that law.

Posted by: sullenfish | July 10, 2010 1:25 PM

If I were in North Carolina, I would start a band called UNDERGOD and bask in the free publicity. (Obviously, the name could benefit from added umlauts.)

Posted by: "Roger" | July 10, 2010 1:37 PM

And, no. I didn't have [b][/b] in the original letter. I posted this letter somewhere else afterwards.

Posted by: ogremkv | July 10, 2010 1:50 PM

I also wrote the little dummy a letter asking (among other things) at what point should illegal actions not be encouraged... listing several examples.

I also made a blog post and dared some of my Christian friends to take this woman to task for encouraging illegal behavior.

Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach | July 10, 2010 2:00 PM

the obsession of American political discourse with the Founding Fathers is bizarre and unhelpful. They were not gods, omniscient beings, or purveyors of ultimate wisdom:

The key value of an authority figure is that you can stop an argument at the point where your disputant bangs up against him/her/them/it.

Posted by: Louis | July 10, 2010 2:13 PM

I haven't read the thread yet, haven't had time, but saw the title, read the post and thought:

"Cracker whiner in 5...4...3...2...1"

Have we got one? Have we? Have we? Huh? Huh?

Louis (off to read the thread)

Posted by: Moggie | July 10, 2010 2:29 PM

I can't speak for North Carolina atheists, or indeed any atheists other than myself; nevertheless, I'd like to thank whoever vandalised this sign. Thank-you, anonymous coward! By your action, you have generated a lot of free publicity for atheism, and have helped to demonstrate what American atheists are up against, while not detracting from the message of the sign in the slightest. Good work! I hope we can count on your assistance in future campaigns!

Posted by: KG | July 10, 2010 2:32 PM

While it certainly can be justified and necessary to break the law, surely this can only be so where the law itself is unjust? And surely, if a law is unjust, it should be abolished? If you think that "creative alteration" of billboards and posters can be justified, why would you argue that it should continue to be illegal?

I think the dynamics of political processes are more complicated than that allows for. It would not be good if no-one could put up a poster without it being immediately vandalised (so there has to be a legal sanction), but the current situation (where such vandalism is viewed as a minor matter unless it's very systematic), allows a degree of active participation in public politics to those prepared to take a small risk. And some "subvertising" is creative and even funny.

I'd say much the same about other forms of non-violent direct action, like blockading exits from polluting plants or exporting torture equipment or whatever - again, there has to be a general right to move your goods, but it's admirable and necessary that people are prepared to break the law that enforces this right sometimes (and in this case, generally be prepared to take the legal penalty).

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 10, 2010 2:38 PM

"Cracker whiner in 5...4...3...2...1"

They show up on the racism threads.

But Hyperon is gone now!

Posted by: neojames13.wordpress.com | July 10, 2010 2:46 PM

Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years, so it's about time the shoe was on the other foot.

What like the persecution atheists suffered from the church until the early 20th century and possibly afterwards. Yep, we vandalized their beliefs and they have never done anything to us.

Posted by: Schenck | July 10, 2010 2:52 PM

"to deliberately insult those who understand the importance of "Under God." "
The billboard had part of the Pledge and a big ol american flag on it. The vandals effectively vandalised a flag. What if 'under allah' was written there? People'd already by arrested and mosques would be under surveillance. By putting under god there, these criminals were arguably promoting god over country, which is downright treasonous. Lock 'em up.

Posted by: Ñbrevu | July 10, 2010 2:59 PM

Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years

and the fact that you haven't stepped forward to take credit makes you a hero

@Dibs:

So, PZ, defacing a Christian billboard is something that you would find deplorable, but stealing a communion wafer, sticking a nail through it, throwing it in the trash, and then taking pictures of it and putting it on the internet is perfectly acceptable?

@PZ - I apologise, I misread the intent of your post. This is obviously about property laws and I didn't comprehend that properly. The point I want to make is that you talk about quietly speaking up for the truth when deliberately seek to offend. Fine, the cracker was your property, and fine, it isn't really Jesus, that is understood. The point is that many people believe it is, and many people were deeply, hurt and upset, and you knew that this would be the case. Your posts constantly ridicule and insult believers, you clearly set out to offend and antagonise. You are not speaking quiet truths.

Just one of that options is unacceptable, and this is precisely the case.

By the way, any christian which considers him/herself "persecuted" or "part of a minority" is very obviously someone whose idea of a normal society is any in which non-christian simply don't exist or can't express themselves. It's the only explanation I can think of.

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | July 10, 2010 3:22 PM

So now that the friendly approach is getting vandalized, what should 'we' try next?

The militant approach? "There is no god. Deal with it." (More slogans wanted.)

Or the subtle approach, as was mentioned above "Jesus is not gay. Don't believe the myth." and "Of course God exists. Why doubt?" Those would be hard to vandalize, fundies would agree with them, but it might just make some people think. Or so I hope. At least it would be fun to use slogans they could not possibly disagree with.

Posted by: Epinephrine | July 10, 2010 3:32 PM

But (pat myself on the back), this week, just received in the mail my (seriously pretty and tasteful) sterling silver Dawkins A on a chain that I now wear all the time. Hey, the Jewish ladies have their stars and the Christian ladies have their crosses, it was about time there was something for me.

I have a pack of the little "A" lapel pins, and (once I explained what it was to a coworker) I was asked if I thought it was appropriate to wear at work. Umm, yes? Of course it is! Nobody would ever ask if a crucifix or star of David was ok to wear to work, and this isn't even a religious symbol.

Congrats on the necklace, hope you wear it proudly, everywhere, and enlighten the masses.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 10, 2010 3:48 PM

I wouldn't vandalize or advocate vandalism...

...but I did have the thought of sub-subverting the editorial addition by modifying what it says slightly, in different ways:

1: UNDER GODS
2: UNDER GODDESS
3: UNDER GODLESS
4: UNDER GODBOT
5: UNDER GODOT
6: UNDER GÖDEL
7: UNDER GODZILLA
8: UNDER GODIVA

...and so on.

Let's see her approve of that.

(I think #7 is the funniest, but #1 is probably the simplest and sneakiest)

Posted by: ladyh42 | July 10, 2010 3:57 PM

I'm with someone up above, this whole thing reads like she forgot the sarcasm tags.

Not sure of the morality of it, but modifying the vandalism would be pretty awsome.

Posted by: raven | July 10, 2010 3:59 PM

"Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years"

It's just typical xian double standards, hate, and hypocrisy.

Xian not vandalism: "All you pseudointellectual, cannibalistic atheists are going to hell and we hope soon."

Atheist vandalism: "Your invisible, undetectable sky fairy doesn't exist. Hell doesn't either.

Atheist vandalism: "Go away and leave us alone."

Fundie xianity is concerned with power and hate and nothing else matters to them.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 10, 2010 4:09 PM

I see that I am not the first to think of "under Godzilla"...

  http://kissthebeaver.com/one.htm

Posted by: sandiseattle | July 10, 2010 4:22 PM

So maybe its a Minnesota thing (our hosts current stomping ground) but I really want to know where these "many" christian billboards are. I drive, a lot, (Sandi's Taxi Service, my friends will tell you). I see a lot of billboards, and maybe one in 100 is for a church or religious. Just saying.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 10, 2010 4:28 PM

I see a lot of billboards, and maybe one in 100 is for a church or religious. Just saying.

Try looking harder. Or perhaps you should alter your route. I know of one saying Jesus is Lord, on for Sandal Church, another for Harvest, another in Korean, and another says Prayers change things. In either case, there will be more business billboard because obviously they have more money to put out more. But if we compare the numbers of Christian billboards to non-Christian ones, you'll see that the numbers are higher for Christians one (significantly so). Just saying.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/piranhaintheguppytank#9ee73 | July 10, 2010 4:34 PM

Once again, the Xtian Persecution Complex (TM) rears its ugly head.

Satterfield compares vandalizing a billboard to atheists "vandalizing" her beliefs. But how exactly does one go about "vandalizing" someone else's personal thoughts? Perhaps the real problem here is that Satterfield's beliefs are so fragile that they can't withstand the slightest criticism. And if one's beliefs are that weak, then maybe they're not worth having in the first place.

I've often said that religious faith is like a house built on a weak foundation. Any disturbance to the substructure threatens to bring the whole thing crashing to the ground.

How typical of the Deluded Hypocritical Xtian to believe it is okay to break the law and cause property damage when their pet beliefs are criticized by those who legally exercise their First Admendment right to free speech.

Are Xtians much different, except in terms of degree, from Muslim extremists who believe it is justifiable to kill cartoonists that make fun of their prophet? And in either case, is it not the Xtian or Muslim who ultimately consider himself or herself to be one that is being "persecuted".

Speaking of persecuted Xtians, I'm reminded of something that the late Robert G. Ingersoll once said...

Hundreds of years ago, Church leaders debated whether or not to cut out the tongues of heretics before they burned them at the stake. They decided that they should, because if they did not heretics might by their words scandalize the men who would bring the wood.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | July 10, 2010 4:59 PM

Who will come first? Jesus, or Godot?

They're having sex? With each other?

Godot better be careful. Jesus was into some pretty fucking hardcore shit. Vect once told me that dude jumped at the chance to 'tour' a haemonculus's office.

One Nation Under Godiva

I wish. You ever see her portraits?

Oh, wait. The chocolate. Maybe even better.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 10, 2010 5:08 PM

Kieranfoy @ 167;

They're having sex? With each other?

Godot better be careful. Jesus was into some pretty fucking hardcore shit. Vect once told me that dude jumped at the chance to 'tour' a haemonculus's office.

I knew that whole 'suffering on the cross'* thing had to be some kind of kink...

* Insert your own 'nail me harder' joke here.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 10, 2010 5:10 PM

blockquote fail @ 169.

At the second time of asking...

They're having sex? With each other?

Godot better be careful. Jesus was into some pretty fucking hardcore shit. Vect once told me that dude jumped at the chance to 'tour' a haemonculus's office.

I knew that whole 'suffering on the cross'* thing had to be some kind of kink...

* Insert your own 'nail me harder' joke here.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 10, 2010 5:14 PM

phantomreader42 @ 170;

Though what the cultists want seems closer to one nation under the Goa'uld.

Suddenly, the ubiquitous Goa'uld quote takes on really sinister undertones...

"Kneel before the (Catholic priesthood) of your god!"

Posted by: Birger Johansson | July 10, 2010 5:26 PM

I just found this at the Comedy section of Huffington Post: "Mel Gibson is Biblically Correct!"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/mel-gibson-is-biblically_b_641756.html

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 10, 2010 5:30 PM

Yawn, ABQ stopped by show us the true religious mind. Devoid of coherent and congent thought, consisting of nothing but slogans of idiocy. Great job ABQ. You showed your idiocy fantastically!

A minor quibble ABQ, about the constitution, both federal and state, which we atheists do live under. We live under the secular laws. Unlike you religious fools and your lower amoral laws that allow for slavery, selling daughters into sexual slavery, genocide, death penalty for minor infractions, being around females at the wrong time of the month, and other nonsense found in their mythical holy books.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 10, 2010 5:51 PM

homophobia, misogyny, racism and genocide.

Remember, those are all GOOD things on the Right.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | July 10, 2010 6:01 PM

GG@178:

PZ is not a priest, and we Pharyngulites could hardly be called a congregation.

We prefer the term "horde."

Posted by: Acronym Jim | July 10, 2010 6:05 PM

Owlmirror@153:

I submit the following suggestions:

1. GOATSE (to really offend.)

2. GOOOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLL!!! (in honor of the World Cup.)

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 10, 2010 6:09 PM

UNDER GOADS
UNDER GOATS...

ON FIRE!

Posted by: shreddakj | July 10, 2010 6:18 PM

How on earth can these moronic Christians possibly feel that they are persecuted? Even watching video clips from the 70's and so on, the fundies have always claimed they are persecuted. When your religion consists of 80% of a population you shouldn't even be allowed to USE the word persecuted unless you're referring to a minority. FFS.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 10, 2010 6:25 PM

Sandiseattle, have you ever read the old testament in toto? Particularly Deuteronomy and Leviticus? I have. I meant amoral, especially lacking any moral center. Any relationship between what Yahweh (or rather his scribe) wanted and a reasonable morality was purely coincidental.

Posted by: SteveM | July 10, 2010 6:27 PM

re 80:

And, of course, you realize that the Pledge of Allegiance was originally written in 1892, and has absolutely no connection with the US Founding Fathers?

Not to mention that the phrase "under God" was inserted into the Pledge in the 1950's

Honestly, Americans are profoundly ignorant of their own history.

Too true.

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | July 10, 2010 6:48 PM

One Nation Under Tzeentch?

(A reasonably refreshing change from two terms under Khorne).

Posted by: Acronym Jim | July 10, 2010 6:55 PM

Is malmoral a word? If not, perhaps it should be. Or how about Oxymoral (moraldox?) for expressing contradictory morals?

Hmmm, according to my spell-checker, none of the above is a word.

Pity.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | July 10, 2010 6:59 PM

@Gravity: Man, I'd prefer One Nation Under Slaanesh. Daily orgies and proper sex-ed.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | July 10, 2010 7:01 PM

Umm...correction "none of the above are words." None of the above is not a word. It's several.

Shit, you'd never guess English is my first language.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | July 10, 2010 7:06 PM

Morality is a strategy, not a code, and it is just as malleable in the claws of Christians as in the hands of atheists.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 10, 2010 7:07 PM

But you fundamentally misunderstand if you think that this is some top-down construct

I seriously don't think it should be classified as "misunderstanding", so much as it is "projection".

see it all the time. Especially with the religious.

They can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that not everyone functions in hierarchical authoritarian mode. It's what they're taught from birth:

obey god
obey parents
obey peers
obey preacher

They don't even have the ability to question authority, so they automatically project that everyone else's worldviews are also formed around authoritarian hierarchies and figures.

It's why we always get those "atheism is a religion", "science is a religion", you're all just a bunch of PZ minions, etc. comments.

they simply are unable to conceive of any other way, so they project their own structure on to everything they see.

...and of course come to the wrong conclusions.

I'm not saying that's Al's problem. I rather think Al is just bugfuck nuts (or a teenage troll who thinks he's being funny), aside from anything else, but I figured it would be a good place to post this anyway.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | July 10, 2010 7:14 PM

Shrieking Harpy,

do you think that private property is an absolute? Do you think that defacing a schoolbus, a home, your car, a synagogue with swastikas, or a Unitarian Church with a crucifix are equal actions?

Just curious.

I consider fair use anything I can get away with, and the little bo peep arguments about morality high comedy.

I define my own terms. Slavish obedience to whatever bullshit fashion that makes your little world feel safe are amusing, got anything else?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 10, 2010 7:16 PM

Because he was a hardcore fundamentalist Baptist, like me (back then). And we didn't believe the Christian church should have any hand in government.

I'm guessing American, not Southern, Baptist?

Posted by: scooterKPFT | July 10, 2010 7:23 PM

MAJeff

All of the evangelical, born again churches rejected getting into politics, sort of the render unto Ceaser thing until the moral majority movement around the mid 80's, Southern Baptists included.

I'm referring to electoral politics.

That's my understanding

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 10, 2010 7:26 PM

Sounds a bit preachy to me.

We'll let the Christians take the low road.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 10, 2010 7:27 PM

why start a sentence thusly

PZ is entitled to say whatever he wants. If he thinks that people should not conduct themselves in a certain way, then he is free to express it. However, that is his opinion. It's there to be taken on or ignored, because there is no authority in what he's saying. He's just another person, do you not get that?

If I say "People ought to give more to charity", is my authority as a person coming from a non-existent person bible? No! It's an expression of my desires and values, not coming from any authority at all. PZ can say what he likes about what he thinks atheists OUGHT to do and what OUGHT NOT to do, but that doesn't mean he's speaking in an authoritative capacity. He's speaking as PZ, stop putting your won authoritative capacity on his words because all you are doing is inadvertently misrepresenting them.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 10, 2010 7:28 PM

It's how any oppressive group works. Fuck, this is textbook.

Active oppression and the propagation of societal inequities and the defense of an ignorant and oppressive status quo = Not oppression, also probably not real.

Minority group fighting for equal rights or speaking at all (if they were previously banned from conversations or muscled out by terrorism or societal weight) = Oppression X 10, Apocalypse

Always.

See gay rights. Gays arguing for the right to have their loving relationships receive the same secular recognition as opposite-sex couples (cause, the religious right to marry? They already got that and it's shit without secular equality)?

Religious Oppression against Christians.

See civil rights. Whenever blacks speak about documented instances of racial inequality?

Playing the race card, trying to foment racial hatred and violence against whites, etc...

See feminism. Woman speaks out about sexism. What's the most common complaint about her?

Oh, she hates all men, she probably wants to cut off all men's dicks, feminists like to commit violence against men and are angry all the time.

So yeah, given that's a tool oppressors love to play to try and get oppressed minority groups to try and focus overmuch on their "message" and to discourage others from listening to them, why wouldn't they continue to use it against atheists?

I mean, yeah, it's also true that Christianity in specific has major baggage issues about being such a dominant religion but having all of its holy writs be about the moral struggle that comes from being an oppressed minority, but the main reason they do it is because every oppressing force does it to every oppressed minority.

Why?

It's a great tactic. It helps create an illusory "counter-balance" to accurate accusations of oppression to trigger people's "the truth must be in the middle" responses and the desire of privileged people to make problems of oppression just sort of "go away" without having to think or change. It also makes actual oppressions seem less than because they are compared to fictional ones.

And of course it can prevent the growth of minority right's group by ensuring they have to penetrate a social atmosphere that says their very presence and voice is itself an "attack" on the majority "deserving" of certainly strong social rebuke but also hinting strongly at the "morality" of a direct violent rebuke through terrorism.

Certainly the latter claims are not smoke. The current level of dead transpeople as a message to "gays and freaks". The abortion clinic bombings of the last 20 years or so as a message to women. The lynchings of the first half of the 20th century and the killing of unarmed black men by cops in the latter half as a message to blacks.

The majority has certainly not been averse to using violence to enforce the status quo and that adds extra weight and insinuation to minor-league vandalism like this.

The message is "you are not allowed to speak up on your behalf, hated minority" with the subtext of "next time, it might not be paint on signs..."

The only solution is to keep yelling, keep speaking out, keep making them see our faces and grow against their wills into better people.

And we will.

Oh yes, we will.

Posted by: wanderinweeta | July 10, 2010 7:34 PM

#214

That's "with", not "wit" (a "p").

Typing too fast.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 10, 2010 7:39 PM

Icthyic @203

Yup.

Indeed, I believe there was a slacktivist post a while ago pointing out how empathy often stems from imagination, the ability to imagine oneself as someone with different circumstances or way of being.

Someone without that ability will have a more difficult time with empathy and if the raised culture they are using to try and figure stuff out is the diseased hierarchal, everyone out for themselves or to dominate others world of christian conservatism (or conservatism in general), then that's how they'll see the other side.

As we can see from conservatives, that's pretty much how they are. Liberals try and get inside their minds even when it skeeves them out and try to see how they can see things so alien to their own perspective.

Whereas conservatives or those suffering this trait end up only seeing reflections of themselves. They want to stamp out minority voices, dominate others, and only care about themselves or money? That's what they think liberals or minority groups they hate want to do.

In short, every accusation becomes projection not simply because that's a sadly proven reality of conservative arguments, but also as a consequence from this inability to use their imagination and stunted empathy to imagine how someone would act differently to them.

As such liberals of course seem like they want to eliminate conservatives and of course minority groups only want to enrich themselves at the expense of others or dominate or oppress simply to feel more powerful. Of course there is an agenda positing destruction. Because those are the things they are doing and to them, the world is only filled with themselves.

And really, understanding that, almost makes me hate them less. I mean, imagine how terrifying that must be, to be surrounded in a world of nothing but greedy malevolent dipshits. Of nothing but tribalism and hierarchies.

Of course, I say almost, because even though they have created their own perfect hell, one which may have been abused into them by a hateful raising environment, they are still causing real damage and real pain. But yeah...

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 10, 2010 7:47 PM

Conference Baptists. The Southern Baptists were too modernistic for us.

Damn, that's like going WELS because the Missouri Synod is too liberal. "Let the women preach? Shit, we don't let 'em out that house!"

Posted by: scooterKPFT | July 10, 2010 8:05 PM

Harpy

I concede, I co-opted the 'fair use' term, I should have said fair game, obviously I'm speaking to extra legal activity..

Apologies to all, that's a huge distinction.

Hold on I have pictures of me in a leather jacket.... they are very rare

third from the left

http://acksisofevil.org/images/kom/5b.jpg

http://acksisofevil.org/images/kom/s-trot.jpg

http://acksisofevil.org/images/kom/KomFinger.jpg

Posted by: wanderinweeta | July 10, 2010 8:14 PM

MAJeff, OM #221;

Damn, that's like going WELS because the Missouri Synod is too liberal.

But at least, we weren't "legalists"; we were permitted to play quiet games on Sunday, and go around with our heads uncovered, even cut our hair!

I remember, though, going to a picnic at the Southern Baptist Seminary in Mexico City, and worrying all the time if I wasn't sort of contaminating myself by associating with them. I was about 18 at the time; years later, I actually joined the Southern Baptist church in the US. Mom was horrified.

Posted by: MS | July 10, 2010 8:32 PM

Is there no end to the conservative Christian's:

1) sense of entitlement
2) unjustified persecution complex

?

And yes, it's a rhetorical question.

Posted by: kyhwana | July 10, 2010 8:40 PM

Except of course, one nation under god IS divisible..
(Very divisible, in fact)

Posted by: Bubba707 | July 10, 2010 8:53 PM

The only difference between Satterfield and the vandals and terrorists is degree, the mindset is the same.

Posted by: DarkKnightBob | July 10, 2010 9:10 PM

Oh come on, like us athiest have NEVER defaced any public signs to make a comical point.

We do this kind of stuff ALL THE TIME!

Posted by: Greg Laden | July 10, 2010 9:31 PM

Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years, so it's about time the shoe was on the other foot.

Right there. That's it. That's the fulcrum on which her topsy turvy insanity rests.

If we think certain thoughts she KNOWS it hurts her beliefs, can measure that hurt, and use it to buy off her own morality. She determines how much she gets for our transgression, and set sets the price of her own morality.

And that's pretty much consistent with biblical teachings.

Posted by: Judy L. | July 10, 2010 9:55 PM

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_l5a5d1WIV01qzufnjo1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1278898658&Signature=y%2BR%2BTW2cOwlkDSYmlnVkuIf7mpM%3D

Posted by: stephensonbillings | July 10, 2010 11:15 PM

Wow Pharny, that was one self-righteous little blog post you wrote up there. You sound far more arrogant than the women you are so harshly attacking. And to extrapolate from her albeit poorly written argument that "the brain of Chrissy is a broken and frightening thing" takes a leap in logic, psychology and basic common sense that I would think beneath an educator like you. Your ad hominem assault may endear you to the crowd that has already purchased your flavored punch by the gallon, but it's not at all convincing to any outsider.

I find your accusations reckless and if you were a decent man, I would demand an apology on behalf of Ms. Satterfield and her family. but frankly you are not that interesting nor that humane.

And just to add to Chrissy's point, atheists have caused incredible damage to this world in the name of their causes: Mao, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge. It is precisely the lack of God in our society's life that pushes us into dangerous, faithless territory where simple men rewrite the rules of how we should live, disregarding thousands of years of human knowledge and tradition to build their apocryphal empires of fantasy and death.

Well, God bless you my friend and please keep an open heart to those of us of faith and love.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 10, 2010 11:24 PM

Your ad hominem assault

I do wish morons like yourself would stop substituting a description of a logical fallacy for what is plainly meant as an insult.

seriously, just stop it.

atheists have caused incredible damage to this world in the name of their causes

what causes would those be that have anything THE FUCK to do with atheism, moron?

It is precisely the lack of God in our society's life that pushes us into dangerous, faithless territory where simple men rewrite the rules of how we should live

two words for ya simpleton:

Sharia.
Law.

look it up sometime.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 10, 2010 11:27 PM

Well, God bless you my friend and please keep an open heart to those of us of faith and love.

oh, I almost forgot.

yes, fuck you very much too.

don't forget to close that gaping hole in your head sometime. Even though your brains have already fallen out, nobody likes to see the emptiness that remains; it's disgusting.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 10, 2010 11:34 PM

dangerous, faithless territory where simple men rewrite the rules of how we should live, disregarding thousands of years of human knowledge and tradition

I see no evidence that atheists wish to disregard human knowledge and tradition. We are human, it is our knowledge and tradition. We do not, however, view the knowledge and tradition of our Bronze Age ancestors to be the final word in human wisdom. It is part of our heritage - it is not the magical word of an invisible sky fairy.

If I own Mao and Stalin, will you, as a religious American, own slavery, the Middle Passage, the Inquisition, the genocide of Native Americans, and, of course, the great mustachioed mid-20th century Roman Catholic leader of Germany?

Posted by: Peter H | July 10, 2010 11:36 PM

@ #239,

"We" are "not that interesting," yet you come here with vomit & drivel. None of which has not been seen here innumerable times and in innumerably fallacious settings. Go somewhere and get a life - if you're capable of recognizing what that might be.

Posted by: Peter H | July 10, 2010 11:38 PM

And your smarmy sanctimoniousness is noted.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 10, 2010 11:46 PM

You sound far more arrogant than the women you are so harshly attacking.

psychology and basic common sense that I would think beneath an educator like you.

I find your accusations reckless and if you were a decent man, I

atheistsreligions have caused incredible damage to this world in the name of their causes:

Well, God bless you my friend and please keep an open heart to those of us of faith and love.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 10, 2010 11:46 PM

Satterfield glorifies vandalism and somehow, according to the drive-by death-cult troll, we owe her an apology.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 10, 2010 11:52 PM

It's really quite sad that so many believers are taught to fear atheism. As someone who grew up without religion thrust upon them, I find it fascinating that at the slightest hint of a break from the influence of theocracy the cries of Stalinist persecution are put forth as the inevitability of any society that is looking to discount God. Meanwhile much of the rest of Western Democratic societies have become less religious and none of these societies are even remotely turning into anything resembling Stalinist Russia.

It's arguing out of fear, plain and simple. Is anyone advocating such a society? No! The post wasn't even about that, rather it was a criticism of someone who justifies breaking her morality because of the existence of atheists. And cowards like stephensonbillings have shown just why such rhetoric is dangerous. Anything suddenly becomes permissible because the fear is the destruction of society!


stephensonbillings, actually listen to what people are saying about the kind of society they want. Because the resemblance to what your fantasy of what you think is the inevitability couldn't be farther from the truth.

P.S. learn what an ad hominem is.

Posted by: PrometheusUnchained | July 11, 2010 12:00 AM

@239
Oh my, Yet Another Liar for Jesus... *yawn* Run along now, and let the adults continue their conversation.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 11, 2010 12:07 AM

@ Ichthyic et al.

I am not advocating that Mao and Stalin are the moral responsibility of atheists, just that it's a total bullshit argument to insist that atheists have to answer for them but theist Christians don't have to answer for anything.

Despite the misapprehensions of #239, being an atheist does not mean abandoning millennia of human tradition, it just means that we continually reevaluate the wisdom of that tradition to see if it still makes sense. Sometimes the answer is yes, often it's no. Mao and Stalin are part of that tradition that would be in the "no" category.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 11, 2010 12:18 AM

Here comes Godwin

I'm surprise Godwin didn't come earlier. Of course, if I told them what happened to the Native Americans, Taiping, the Conquest of the Aztec, Mayans, Incans, was done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, they'd deny it. Hey, a Rwanda pastor was convicted of genocide.

What huh, he doesn't fucking represent a True Christian? Well fuck you seem to use Pol Pot the same way against the non-religious.

FUCK YOU, stephensonbillings! Stop using the suffering of my people to promote your tyranny. You know why Pol Pot did what he did? I wasn't because he didn't believe in God (Many of the intellectuals he murdered didn't believe in God either.) It was because he believe that genocide would work. See the difference? So STFU and stop using my people's blood for your gain. Fuck shit, your god damned religion was used as racist policy in Southeast Asia. You treated us as backward and demand we worship your God. FUCK YOU, TWIT.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 11, 2010 12:25 AM

Oh, and rock on Gyeong.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 11, 2010 12:36 AM

I was being sarcastic also. I am tired of hearing about Mao and Stalin. In the grand scheme of human suffering, they pale in comparison to what people have done in the name of religion (and I tend to think that belief in "Progress" shares most of the flaws of theism).

I think that all humans have to take some responsibility for the actions of our forebearers. That's part of the tradition and heritage that we need to assess. My point was that EVEN IF I should take my share of responsibility for the suffering caused by Mao and Stalin, theists like #239 are unwilling to accept the tremendous suffering caused by theists.

Posted by: articulett | July 11, 2010 12:51 AM

All murderous regimes have been non-Scientologists so, per Stephenbillings straw man, non-Scientology is the root of all bad things! (Surely Stephenbillings ought to be taking his "free personality test" to save the world.)

It must take a brain damaged by faith to imagine the murderous regime comparison is a point on the side of "belief." (If only theists would be a tenth as moral as the imagine themselves to be.)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 11, 2010 12:57 AM

Patricia:

There is no rising from the dead. The grave covers us all. Read your goddamned bible. Freaks.

You know what they'd say though...that's the old covenant, God sent his only son, yada yada yada. You can have a more meaningful conversation with a parrot.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | July 11, 2010 1:00 AM

Another brilliant piece of writing from Whirled Nut Daily. /sarcasm

Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 11, 2010 1:11 AM

Caine - Yes, I know. The stupid bastards. That is one of the things that made me an atheist.

If the Bible is the WORD of GOD infallible then why is Gawd so damned stuuupid?

A person at work won't answer my question of Where is God? why didn't he stop Katrina, where was he during the Tsunimi, why did 9/11 happen, why is the BP gulf death happening? Her answer is Gawd knows what is best.

What!? It grieves me that I once believed this stupidity.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 11, 2010 1:16 AM

You goddamned right I will insult a Believer. You dumb ass.

You are so stupid that you will believe and stake your life on a fairy tale. There is NO god. There is no Santa, Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny. Fool. Wake up.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 11, 2010 1:24 AM

You know what they'd say though...that's the old covenant, God sent his only son, yada yada yada. You can have a more meaningful conversation with a parrot.

Yet they still say laws against homosexuals are still valid. Had a conversation on a gay blog with fundie who said that a gay Christians are deliberately breaking Leviticus. Then I retorted that she was braking Timothy, thus hypocritical. She accused me of cherry-picking not realizing choosing to obey one command but not another is cherry-picking.

More to add on the Godwin: Korean Evangelicals have called the literal destruction of Buddhist temples (killing it's residents), and actively committed arson against them. Pol Pot destroyed temples too. So you want us to be accountable for the Khmer Rouge, but you're not going to be accountable to Korean Evangelical arsonist? Christians say Muslim Sharia law is oppressive, but see what you're doing in Uganda? How about the Lord's Resistance Army? You might also argue that converting the Mayans and Aztec stopped religious sacrifices, yet Diego de Landa slaughtered thousands of Mayans to fit his Catholic need. See how hypocritical it is. It only shows that, no, religion (including Christianity) isn't the basis for morals. So shove your hegemonistic sanctimonious high horse up your ass.

Posted by: raven | July 11, 2010 1:41 AM

A person at work won't answer my question of Where is God? why didn't he stop Katrina, where was he during the Tsunimi, why did 9/11 happen, why is the BP gulf death happening? Her answer is Gawd knows what is best.

A god that says nothing and does nothing might as well not even exist. In fact, it probably doesn't exist.

No one has yet been able to tell the invisible and undectable from the nonexistent.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 11, 2010 1:58 AM

Patricia:

A person at work won't answer my question of Where is God? why didn't he stop Katrina, where was he during the Tsunimi, why did 9/11 happen, why is the BP gulf death happening? Her answer is Gawd knows what is best.

What!? It grieves me that I once believed this stupidity.

Oh, I know. I look back on my Jesus Freak days and shake my head. I was not thinking. At all. As for your co-worker, no, they won't answer. It doesn't matter what you ask, it always boils down to 'god's will'. Irritates me no end.

I had someone giving me that during Katrina, when I was worried sick about 6 friends I had in Nola and who I hadn't heard from in days and days. "Oh, it's god's will..." I turned and snarled "god's will, is it? It's a good thing, a necessary thing, all this destruction, the death, the loss? That's what you're fucking saying to me, while I'm wondering what's happened to my friends, hoping they are alive?"

"Well, god knows best, god's is merciful..." I absolutely lost it. I told her "your god is a sick fuck of a murdering sociopath. If anyone, ever, breaks into your house, grabs you in a parking lot, puts a gun to your head in a store, you had better remember that what you believe is: A Murderer Knows Best, Do What You Will!" Fortunately, at that point, she shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2010 2:06 AM

If that is the case that they are getting desperate, it is going to be a weird next few years.

I think they know this too.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

Posted by: Maslab | July 11, 2010 2:17 AM

If that is the case that they are getting desperate, it is going to be a weird next few years. And PZ Myers will have an endless supply of fundie xian atrocities for his blog.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 11, 2010 2:31 AM

Ichthyic's link @ 283:

Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

Someone needs to break it to the author that xians being monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures is hardly a new thing.

Posted by: ecpaulsen | July 11, 2010 2:44 AM

Jaysuz! The wafer whingers return.

How about we take out some billboards with a priest holding a communion wafer standing behind a crying alter boy with the words "Worst. Cracker. EVER!" in 20 inch high letters?

Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2010 4:29 AM

gdh, that's not paraphrasing, that's rephrasing.

If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding.
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?

</Pink Floyd aficionado>

Posted by: Orange Utan, Librarian of Death | July 11, 2010 4:48 AM

...and it was more in the vein of playing with ecpaulsen's imagery of a priest holding a wafer ("dessert").

Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2010 5:51 AM

id=AItOawlfZHXxcgb0x4TQkyiQoFdEC0oRt0oBfKo, that's fine and well, but this person purports not to condone it¹.

See the difference?
You're not hypocritically equivocating.

--

¹ Never would I encourage vandalism

--

PS Others have managed to tame their Google IDs to an actual moniker. Are you up to it? :)

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlfZHXxcgb0x4TQkyiQoFdEC0oRt0oBfKo | July 11, 2010 6:46 AM

Sorry about my Google ID, most odd, it seems to want to stay as AItOawlfZHXxcgb0x4TQkyiQoFdEC0oRt0oBfKo but you can call me Ed. I'm not defending anything said by the woman whose brain is being peeked into here. I'm challenging the repeated defence of billboards on the ground that they are "private" property. Adverts vandalise public space and I applaud the public whenever they reply.

Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2010 7:16 AM

No worries, Ed.

I'm challenging the repeated defence of billboards on the ground that they are "private" property

Your position is noted, but it's not what the post is about (cf. my #295).

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 11, 2010 10:02 AM

#300

the only way to avoid ridicule is if everyone else believes the same thing!

Absolutely...
They know it is fucking absurd, and the only way to not be a laughing stock is to infect everyone else.
They are marginalised mentally anyway.
They know that and play on that point...hence the intolerance and hatred dogma they claim is their burden.
The same retards also wax lyrical on the secular law and society and what is or is not acceptable...thus neatly forgetting that their freedom of worship and to believe ridiculous codswollop is guaranteed under the same law they rile and complain about!
It is pompous ego that guides their way not rational illumination.

The level of insult or lack of respect they feel is in indirect proportion to their insecurity level.

What missy does is underline the point they are severely threatened and anything ...absolutely anything that might or does upset their precarious sense of balance is targeted.
From innocuous mild criticism of their behaviour to billboards and beyond.

They are literally shit scared that their nonsense will be exposed for the nonsense it actually is, the paint is well tarnished, cracked and peeling, and no-one is in the market for shoddy broken goods these days.
Xianity stands to lose big time, financially and jeebus legion wise, it is already haemorrhaging members at a alarming rate year on year, and the 'awe' is fading with the revelations week by week of xianity at play.
Leaders are increasingly letting the sheeple see their crass and insipid hypocrisy and dumb lies.
And xian folks are the only ones stupid enough to believe the conman's excuse, because after sky-fairy lusting a little greasy pompous and disingenuous rhetoric is a no brainer and no barrier to their skewed sense of in-credulousness.

Okay to lie and make up fantastical stories about magic fantasy and mythological meme but a leader is not gay just wrestling with demons.
Besides the temptation assailed against gods little troopers is awesome.
It was not his penchant just his personal battle.
And it does not really matter how long his 'luggage has been lifted' it just matters how long the story stays in the press.

Of course she advocated the vandalism is was done in their favour, but the other way around and the howls for draconian life sentence, whipping, even burning would not be just one deranged incoherent voice in the wilderness.

Because they are shitting themselves, the tide has turned they are drowning and they fucking well know it!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2010 10:05 AM

We should all be law-abidin' citizens, but as others have pointed out, there's nothing in Atheism that specifically calls on disbelievers to 'submit to the governing authorites', as Paul calls on believers to do (Romans 13:1), but that doesn't stop PZ preaching imaginary Atheist moral values from a non-existent Atheist 'Bible'.

ALQ you say some stupid shit here but this is possibly one of the dumbest things I've read all week.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2010 10:11 AM

And to extrapolate from her albeit poorly written argument that "the brain of Chrissy is a broken and frightening thing" takes a leap in logic, psychology and basic common sense that I would think beneath an educator like you. Your ad hominem assault may endear you to the crowd that has already purchased your flavored punch by the gallon, but it's not at all convincing to any outsider.

I don't think you are in any position to claim a leap in logic when you can't even us ad hominem correctly.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | July 11, 2010 10:48 AM

# 306 Every once in awhile you have to tell it to the judge, nobody's perfect, except for this.

http://acksisofevil.org/Mahavishnu/Track02.mp3

Posted by: scooterKPFT | July 11, 2010 11:14 AM

So many Christians, so few Lions. I miss my bread and circus.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 11, 2010 11:21 AM

#308

Not content with having the freedom themselves to worship or not as they see fit, militant atheists increasingly seek to shackle the beliefs of their fellow citizens through their own distorted interpretation of "separation of church and state.

What now?

Well they should not mess with the 'baby eaters' then!
They are obviously not up to it.

Desperation again...they are not happy bunnies!
But this happens when you seek to shackle the beliefs of fellow citizens through their own distorted interpretation of "separation of church and state.

Kick the retards to the curb, it is where they belong!
Dimwitted self inflicted ignorant morons deserve no respect.
And no accommodation in rational society.

Posted by: "Roger" | July 11, 2010 11:32 AM

Comment #310 for the Effing WIN!

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 11, 2010 11:56 AM

We'll let the Christians take the low road.

"We'll"? Indeed, let PZ Myers speak for PZ Myers.

Sounds like he's making a prediction, to me.

Posted by: KG | July 11, 2010 12:11 PM

It is precisely the lack of God in our society's life that pushes us into dangerous, faithless territory where simple men rewrite the rules of how we should live, disregarding thousands of years of human knowledge and tradition to build their apocryphal empires of fantasy and death.

The facts show the precise opposite: more religious societies show higher levels of multiple social pathologies. See the work of Gregory Paul.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 11, 2010 12:18 PM

Damn right I'm confused.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 11, 2010 12:56 PM

And at the risk of trivialising rape, how is your assertion that the design of the alpha course poster was "begging" to be vandalised conceptually different from the argument that women who dress provocatively are "begging" to be sexually assaulted?

Let this be a warning, Kids. Don't run out of perspective, or you'll end up like this poor fellow. If you can't afford perspective of your own, borrow a friend's.

A perspective is a terrible thing to lack.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 11, 2010 1:05 PM

And at the risk of trivialising rape, how is your assertion that the design of the alpha course poster was "begging" to be vandalised conceptually different from the argument that women who dress provocatively are "begging" to be sexually assaulted?

This was a really, really bad analogy.

For the record, I think it was wrong to vandalise the Alpha Course billboards, and I said so at the time. But while I disagree with the idea that it was "begging to be vandalised", there is no moral comparison between defending vandalism and defending rape. None whatsoever. Drawing such a comparison was stupid and tasteless.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 11, 2010 1:12 PM

Well that is where the insanity lies in the minutiae of reason.

Those xian posters with a check box were seemingly designed to entrap faithless heathens with a felt tip handy...
One would suspect on purpose because the xian dream is based purely on psychological manipulation...it is what they do!
What better then to be able claim discrimination and hatred with proof then by having their tatty advertisements for a dubious jeebus love in defaced...aaawww!...what a travesty.

Unfortunately a few fell prey(sic) to the trap.
Every society has the few that do not practice the 'let us think this through' mantra.

The resulting press from that incident was mild slightly uninterested and there seemed to be absolutely no atheist backlash supporting the act.

On the other hand this defacement of atheist intent was characterized by the jeebus party applauding nee encouraging the act.

viva le difference....the intent was different...one slightly but not overly humorous the other pure spite and hatred.

'That shall be their undoing'!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 11, 2010 1:25 PM

You *nod nod wink wink* approve of the vandalism.

What I can't take is the fact that now

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 11, 2010 2:30 PM

Sorry about my Google ID, most odd, it seems to want to stay as AItOawlfZHXxcgb0x4TQkyiQoFdEC0oRt0oBfKo but you can call me Ed. I'm not defending anything said by the woman whose brain is being peeked into here. I'm challenging the repeated defence of billboards on the ground that they are "private" property. Adverts vandalise public space and I applaud the public whenever they reply.

Are they owned by an individual, not the government?

If so, they're private property. That word has a specific meaning, and it isnt' "Property kept hidden". Purchasing a plot of land, and then not putting a fence around it, is not inviting you all to walk into the building.

There's great reasons to vandalize. The powerful majority whacking a minority is not one of them. The powerful majority has several other avenues that don't involve wasting other people's money.

Posted by: stephensonbillings | July 11, 2010 3:51 PM

The armies of hate work through the dead of night I see. It frightens me to think of so many of you children wandering through life without direction or the love of God. How will you navigate careers and marriage with such hostility and blindness? Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of our leaders have been religious and mostly Christian? You need faith to survive and thrive in this world, my young friends.

One of you mentioned slavery as part of Christianity's heritage, but you failed to mention that slavery was ended by a Christian Republican president named Abraham Lincoln. The Civil Rights Act would never has become law if it were not for the help of Republican Congressmen (LBJ was very reluctant and JFK dragged his feet on it forever). The Democrats have for years been subtle enforcers of racism and have never apologized for their atrocious history of supporting black depowerment.

On a side note, I must say that the level of profanity and mean spirited personal attacks against me indicate and are representative of the general immaturity of most of the Liberal movement. You all cry for "freedom of speech" and "freedom of sex" but when someone says or does something you do not like, you demand censorship. When that fails, you use foul language to demean a person. You people seem to have very little instinctive respect for human life. I guess that's what separates the Christian community for those of you who don't care while America slips into a depression, sexuality depravity runs the day and outdated socialistic policies are secretly implemented in the federal government.

Posted by: Shala | July 11, 2010 4:04 PM

The armies of hate work through the dead of night I see.

Yes. We are very EVILLLL and HATEFULLLL. We're like Dracula's minions from Castlevania in a way, only instead of Dracula it's someone wielding a cutlass who leaves morphing into different forms to Chris Mooney.

How will you navigate careers and marriage with such hostility and blindness?

I use braile to help my blindness, thank you very much. We atheists like to apply our HATRED to every single thing we do, keep in mind.

We laugh at christians!
We laugh at Belmonts!
We laugh at our spouses!
We laugh at our bosses!

You need faith to survive and thrive in this world, my young friends.

I'm doing just fine without faith, so you are bullshitting.

One of you mentioned slavery as part of Christianity's heritage, but you failed to mention that slavery was ended by a Christian Republican president named Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln was a deist and, in any case, this was long before the Republican party became a platform for wingnut views. Does it sadden you that I, a Canadian, know more about your history than you do, with a google search that took 2 minutes?

The armies of the night memorize everything. They need to in order to take back the night!

On a side note, I must say that the level of profanity and mean spirited personal attacks against me indicate and are representative of the general immaturity of most of the Liberal movement.

Your concern is noted and your tears will be thoroughly licked by our spare Medusa heads.

So overall:

What is a Stephensonbillings?

A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF

BULL

SHIT

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 11, 2010 4:11 PM

One of you mentioned slavery as part of Christianity's heritage, but you failed to mention that slavery was ended by a Christian Republican president named Abraham Lincoln.

Souther Baptist supported slavery. Oh look Christians! And as Rutee said, Lincoln was a diest, so not a very helpful boost for Christians.

On a side note, I must say that the level of profanity and mean spirited personal attacks against me indicate and are representative of the general immaturity of most of the Liberal movement.

Oh, well so what. You haven't brought anything of substance to the table, except for delusions and lies. Substance over style. But if you like to play that game, then I must point out that the conservative movement is all about threats and death. Yup look at the teabaggers. Nothing but threats. Shell I tell you what Christians did to the Mayans so more? You know like burning them in masses.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 11, 2010 4:15 PM

The armies of hate work through the dead of night I see.

It frightens me to think of so many of you children wandering through life without direction or the love of God.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of our leaders have been religious and mostly Christian?

You need faith to survive and thrive in this world, my young friends.

The Civil Rights Act

I must say that the level of profanity and mean spirited personal attacks

but when someone says or does something you do not like, you demand censorship.

When that fails, you use foul language to demean a person.

. I guess that's what separates the Christian community

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 11, 2010 4:24 PM

Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of our leaders have been religious and mostly Christian?

Religious? Well that's questionable.

Christians? Well the majority of Nazi and their symphathizers are Christians too!
Us brown people are just savages anyways who need the white Christ right? Isn't that what you're told with your "White Man's Burden"?

Posted by: stephensonbillings | July 11, 2010 4:34 PM

"Human salvation demands the divine disclosure of truths surpassing reason." --Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2010 4:38 PM

"Human salvation demands the divine disclosure of truths surpassing reason." --Saint Thomas Aquinas.

blah blah blah

Posted by: Deviant One | July 11, 2010 4:40 PM

The armies of hate work through the dead of night I see.

Wow, US-centric, aren't we. Not everyone in the world or on this blog lives in the US. I, for example, live in South Africa, where it is now exactly 20:24 PM. So I wasn't working through the night at all.

Also, hate? The only ones hating here is you and your fellow "Christians" - hate against homosexuality, hate against people of other races, hate against women, hate against the poor, hate against those that don't believe in your god... the list is almost infinite.

It frightens me to think of so many of you children wandering through life without direction or the love of God. How will you navigate careers and marriage with such hostility and blindness?

My kids are wonderful, and growing up to be humanitarian, moral and incredibly good people who question everything and never accepts the "easy" answer, whether it be "because that's just how it is" or "because that's good/bad", redefining and refining their own wonderful morality through rationality and a deeply ingrained sense of fairness to everyone. Can you say the same for your brainwashed kids?

Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of our leaders have been religious and mostly Christian? You need faith to survive and thrive in this world, my young friends.

Do you think it's coincidence that the VAST majority of world leaders throughout history were men? Does that mean that women are naturally inferior, or do you think it could point to some systemic, social pressure?

One of you mentioned slavery as part of Christianity's heritage, but you failed to mention that slavery was ended by a Christian Republican president named Abraham Lincoln.

Republican does not equal Christian, even in this day and age. FSM, I live on the other side of the WORLD and even *I* know that.

The Democrats have for years been subtle enforcers of racism and have never apologized for their atrocious history of supporting black depowerment.

[Citation needed to show that Democrats were a.) doing this and b.) doing this exclusively, i.e. no one else was doing it as well]. Beam in your own eye, and all of that.

On a side note, I must say that the level of profanity and mean spirited personal attacks against me indicate and are representative of the general immaturity of most of the Liberal movement. You all cry for "freedom of speech" and "freedom of sex" but when someone says or does something you do not like, you demand censorship. When that fails, you use foul language to demean a person.

Don't like the pond, don't swim in it. Civility has long been a tool of oppression.

You people seem to have very little instinctive respect for human life.

Wow. That was quite the non-sequitur, wasn't it? Care to contextualize?

I guess that's what separates the Christian community for those of you who don't care while America slips into a depression, sexuality depravity runs the day and outdated socialistic policies are secretly implemented in the federal government.

So society is falling into a pit of depravity, and yet WHAT system is the majority system in terms of religion. Was it Christianity?

Also, conspiracy theory lol. "Secretly implemented" - hahahahaha.

As others have pointed out, COMMUNISM is the failed system. Socialism is perfectly logical and workable. Just look at Sweden.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 11, 2010 4:41 PM

Whoops, I meant to say "exposing your racist sentiments."

Posted by: raven | July 11, 2010 4:44 PM

Stephenson Billings being delusional:

It frightens me to think of so many of you children wandering through life without direction or the love of God. How will you navigate careers and marriage with such hostility and blindness?

We navigate very well without the invisible, undetectable sky fairy. It doesn't even exist.

Fundie death cult xians are another problem. They are baggage dragging our society back into the Dark Ages. We just navigate around them as best we can, hope their religion destroys itself from within as it is now doing from hate and irrelevance, and never turn our backs on them.

Billings is weird and delusional enough to provide hours of practice in troll kicking, but the sun is out and there are better things to do.

BTW Billings, most people on this site are ex-xians. We know more about the religion than the vast majority of xians, who generally know next to nothing.

Posted by: stephensonbillings | July 11, 2010 4:51 PM

‎"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever." --Thomas Jefferson

(that's for you, big dumb chimp-- how appropriately named you are)

Posted by: stephensonbillings | July 11, 2010 5:03 PM

Shale, I did click on your blog and was a bit surprised by your anarchist ramblings. I believe you are one of those people who has been educated, but uses her education to manipulate knowledge and cherry picks your history after you have committed to an ideology of rebellion and dissension. You are a manipulator of truth who clearly has no direction, no guiding light. Is there anything in life that brings you joy? Must you hate and destroy everything you come into contact with? For many, hate becomes an addiction. I think that is clearly evidenced by your obsession with Dracula and harsh video games. I feel sorry for your mother, she must suffer knowing her child has strayed so far from goodness. Do you ever think of her?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 11, 2010 5:12 PM

God who gave us life gave us liberty.

You are very illiterate. Especially about your own holy book. I'm not surprised PZ found problems with your quote. A favorite Xian style of lying, which you do, is called quotemining. If you do that, it makes anything you say suspect.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2010 5:17 PM

The armies of hate work through the dead of night I see.

You expect the church to stop at sundown?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2010 5:22 PM

Apparently billings is from Christwire which is a Poe site along the lines of Landover Baptist.

Posted by: Deviant One | July 11, 2010 5:29 PM

Shala - it's a VIDEO GAME. It corrupts the SOUL, OK?

Lulz.

Posted by: Anri | July 11, 2010 5:32 PM

Whew! Here goes...

The armies of hate work through the dead of night I see.

Um, you do know that it's not night everywhere at once, right?

It frightens me to think of so many of you children wandering through life without direction or the love of God. How will you navigate careers and marriage with such hostility and blindness?

Speaking in a worldwide statistical sense, much better than the more religious, but thanks for asking.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of our leaders have been religious and mostly Christian? You need faith to survive and thrive in this world, my young friends.

Assuming your myopic view of 'our' meant the Only Important Country, the USA, then no, I don't think it's a coincidence. I believe it's a largely christian electorate showing their desire for a leader that grovels before the same imaginary sky muppet that they do.

One of you mentioned slavery as part of Christianity's heritage, but you failed to mention that slavery was ended by a Christian Republican president named Abraham Lincoln.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.." - Abraham Lincoln.
Also, President Lincoln didn't end slavery. He just outlawed it in one part of the world - which had, by the way, held on to it long after most other, less religious, less christian places had abandoned it.
Please learn that history does not begin and end with the USA.

The Civil Rights Act would never has become law if it were not for the help of Republican Congressmen (LBJ was very reluctant and JFK dragged his feet on it forever).

And all of the people you have mentioned were christian, so that says that the christian stance on equal rights is... what, exactly?
Incoherent?

The Democrats have for years been subtle enforcers of racism and have never apologized for their atrocious history of supporting black depowerment.

That's true, both parties are equally interesting in operating against minorities... oh, wait, that's not true at all.

On a side note, I must say that the level of profanity and mean spirited personal attacks against me indicate and are representative of the general immaturity of most of the Liberal movement.

(Citation needed)

You all cry for "freedom of speech" and "freedom of sex" but when someone says or does something you do not like, you demand censorship.

(Citation needed)

When that fails, you use foul language to demean a person. You people seem to have very little instinctive respect for human life.

"Sticks and stones may break..." Ah, never mind.
And I was under the impression that respect for human life - according to your creed - was not instinctual, but only came from god? Please correct this if you believe that respect for life emerges from instinct and not your religious teachings, thanks.

I guess that's what separates the Christian community for those of you who don't care while America slips into a depression,

Yep, republican presidents have created larger budget surpluses in the last 20 years than democratic ones... oh, wait, that's not true either, DRAT!

sexuality depravity runs the day

... after all, the USA should take its sexual behavioral cues from that paragon of christian thought, the catholic church... oh, wait...

and outdated socialistic policies are secretly implemented in the federal government.

Yeah, because people in the USA are, according to you, so much stupider than Europeans, we can't make the social systems they have in place work at all.
Why do you hate America so much?

Posted by: Shala | July 11, 2010 5:43 PM

Shala is mocking your 'love' for a non-existent God by likening it to a 'love' for a non-existent Dracula. But I suppose that your reaction says it all.

Xians just have no sense of humour these days!

Shala - it's a VIDEO GAME. It corrupts the SOUL, OK?

Hey, some games have corrupted my soul (or at least me) beyond repair, such as E.T.

Posted by: Shala | July 11, 2010 5:48 PM

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the satisfaction for our sins.

By having Jesus die and be reborn, thus accomplishing absolutely nothing, to absolve us of a sin we never did.

Wonderful.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 11, 2010 5:52 PM

"In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the satisfaction for our sins." --John 4:19.

And how inefficient is it, to purposefully make another manifestation of your divinity for the purpose of simply being sacrificed so that you can forgive those worthless humans, when you could have just forgiven those worthless humans on your own to begin with? It sounds like you're just making your rules for the purpose of breaking them, because it's more important to keep your rules then be good to people.

Oh. That explains an awful lot.

Posted by: Shala | July 11, 2010 5:53 PM

Why can't one of the more fun religions be the dominant one in the world today? I'd love Norse mythology buildings, holy fucking shit.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 11, 2010 6:00 PM

stephensonbillings, you've been outed, dude. You can stop now.

Posted by: Travis | July 11, 2010 6:21 PM

Right on time. Al B, similar to stephensonbillings but really means it (maybe, sometimes I am not convinced). I had no idea I was am Animist, I do not think there is a soul in anything, certain not in aniamls, or trees, or anything else in the world.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 11, 2010 6:34 PM

It frightens me to think of so many of you children wandering through life without direction or the love of God. How will you navigate careers and marriage with such hostility and blindness?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 11, 2010 6:39 PM

Rey Fox:

By the way, anyone know what a Pharynsee is?

Pssst, I think that means us. Damn, I just sent out all the NA doctrines, dogmas and agendas, too. Dammit.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 11, 2010 6:52 PM

I have been calling the twerp Al B Asshole but after the show he put up in the Jerk Of The Day thread, I like the name of Al Beef Jerky. Maybe it is just my odd sense of humor.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 11, 2010 7:05 PM

Janine:

Al Beef Jerky.

Works for me.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 11, 2010 8:12 PM

while Billings is a Poe, Quirky is just... poor.

Posted by: fsamuels | July 12, 2010 12:29 AM

"insult", "oppressors"?

Give me a break! It is A billboard. It isn't even a very strongly worded atheist billboard. This woman likely would have killed over had she seen a message that actually stated there is no god. By her logic atheists should be offended by every church we see and down here in the South there is a church on every corner to offend atheists.

I would be surprised that someone is this offended by a subtle message that contradicts their own views but when religion is the topic, rationality gets thrown out the window.

Posted by: Maslab | July 12, 2010 2:04 AM

The armies of the undead work through the hate in the night I see.

Fix'd

You need faith to survive and thrive in this world, my young friends.

The list goes on for hundreds.

Christian Republican president named Abraham Lincoln.

You people seem to have very little instinctive respect for human life.

I respect human life. What I do not respect are the ideas that humans are afflicted with.

You all cry for "freedom of speech" and "freedom of sex" but when someone says or does something you do not like, you demand censorship

I guess that's what separates the Christian community for those of you who don't care while America slips into a depression, sexuality depravity runs the day and outdated socialistic policies are secretly implemented in the federal government.

Fuck. Off.

Shale, you are quick with your fingers I see. That comment was typed out very fast. Must be a trait that wins you many a friend in your liberal circles. I find you and your hate repulsive.

"Bad word, bad word! Stranger danger!"

(that's for you, big dumb chimp-- how appropriately named you are)

harsh video games.

If I ever meet a Nazi, I'll apologize to them for slaughtering them en masse.

I feel sorry for your mother, she must suffer knowing her child has strayed so far from goodness.

I cannot answer for Shala, but I have to comment on this: My mother doesn't give a damn whether I believe in magic sky-daddy or not. She's glad that I can stand on my own two feet, look a committee of panelists in the eye, and tell them I'm a liberal atheist who supports Communism.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | July 12, 2010 11:39 AM

Spock @ 387:

Luke 19:27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’”

Posted by: Leon | July 12, 2010 3:29 PM

...the Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics felt its only recourse was to deliberately insult those who understand the importance of "Under God."

It shows everyone that you are more devoted to the message than you are to the spotlight.