The Joliet Jackhammers, a baseball team in Illinois, have put up an interesting sign to get people to buy tickets.
Some people are unhappy and want it taken down.
"It's in very poor taste," Councilwoman Jan Hallums Quillman said. "To have God tell you to buy tickets? Give me a break."
I wonder if Quillman felt the same way about the serious billboard campaign that had God announcing his will and intentions? There was one that read, "Let's Meet At My House Sunday Before the Game -God." Was that in poor taste? It seems to me that many people think it's perfectly alright to put words in their imaginary deity's mouth as long as it sounds serious and respectful, no matter what it may be.
Anyway, there's a poll at the team website.
Should the JackHammers take down the current I-80 billboard?
56%: yes
44%: no
Since it appropriately trivializes the foolishness of claiming that a god speaks, I had to vote no. Keep it up!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Here's another proof that Christians have no sense of humor.
Guess that's not in the bible.
47% no after my vote
David
48% after mine.
It's no different then when people say God helped them win, a claim Stephen Colbert helped debunk.
What makes a billboard distasteful is it's existence, not it's content. Billboards suck. Down with billboards!
er, prove. Silly me..
Still a majority saying yes (51%).
You can vote multiple times though.
My question: Are the Jackhammers' owners sincerely godbothering fools who actually think this sort of advertising is reasonable and persuasive, or are they subversive geniuses out to give the local Christians a plausibly deniable thumb in the eye?
Opinions, Illinois Pharynguloids?
Vote early - vote often. Lots going on both sides at the moment. No is a bit quicker. Currently 52%
What I most offended about is the fact that they use the name "Joliet". I misread it as being "Joilet" which also happens to rhyme with "Toilet"
I voted no. I love Baseball.
Hey! wait up before voting. It says, " The sign went up Saturday and is part of an ad campaign where 10 percent of December ticket sales will be donated to the church or charity of the customer's choice. "
I think we should be voting 'YES', on the grounds that most of the Illinois money would probably end up in feckin' churches.
What a great marketing gimmick. They will be well-known in the area after this, even if they offend a few humor-impaired folks.
Is that the best that the god-fellah can do? Promote baseball on a tacky billboard? Beats smiting, i guess.
Clearly, Jammer shows evidence of Intelligent Design...
http://www.jackhammerbaseball.com/kidszone/jammer/
[/cdesign proponentist]
vanharris -
The god-fellah let's his followers do whatever they feel like.
44/56, the opposite of what it was when you posted. Free speech and all that. I don't see what the big deal is. Players and fans pray for a win at every game what's wrong with using god to get people to attend games as well.
Hey! That's my hometown!
I still get up there regularly, but I'm rarely on I-80, so I haven't seen the sign.
As for them donating to churches, I suppose they can do whatever they want. Might be a little grumbly depending on what government support they get, but they're basically a private business. And apparently desperate for sales.
Since it appropriately trivializes the foolishness of claiming that a god speaks, I had to vote no.
Well there you go, folks. Atheists like it. God likes it. It's a win/win all the way around!
"I'm so glad the atheists are on board with this one. That's one for the Gipper, or somethign like that." - God
Well, there you go!
But when god tells you to homosexuality is a sin, it's not? Give me a break.
Jackhammers Baseball is every bit as much an authority on what god says as the Pope is.
"The god-fellah let's his followers do whatever they feel like."
Yup, he's been created in their image. Jealous, misogynistic, petty, petulant, & the morals of an alley cay.
alley cat!
How shall we vote, Oh Lord?
Thanks for telling us - I was a little confused on that one.
58% no after I voted.
Billboard owners have an unpleasant habit of refusing lefty political messages despite the customer having the money to pay. Free speech for those who can afford it but also only for those whose speech the owners of the medium approve.
It's all just plain ridiculous.
My two cents:
Should the JackHammers take down the current I-80 billboard
2189 / 41%: yes
3159 / 59%: no
5348 total votes.
Interesting: the fact that this poll is on the team's own website suggests that this is a rare poll Pharyngulization, in that it might make a concrete difference somewhere besides cyberspace.
If the "No" votes win out, that provides the team with a noteworthy excuse to leave the billboard up. If they don't, it'll probably come down.
By the ordinary standards of these kinds of things, this one has very high stakes!
Tell me how it's in any less poor taste to say that God helped you win a sporting event.
And let the wall of undeserved reverence continue to crumble.
I never understood how they could sit there and thank god for winning. Isn't that the same as thanking god for making the other guy lose?
"There but for the grace of god go I" is just another way of saying "there by the grace of god goes someone else."
Don't forget to press the back button on the result and vote a couple of times, or until you get bored.
That spelling error makes me suspicious. This missive from god could not have been digitally signed, and is therefore not authentic.
Vote no.
Really, God is more of a Schaumburg Flyers fan.
Bill Dauphin@7-
Don't know, don't go there much. Joliet is kind of a hillbilly sort of place. Oil refinery, munitions factory, NASCAR track. Easily correlates to the redneck religion thing.
God is not a Maple Leafs fan. (grumble grumble 40 years of futility grumble grumble.)
He's too busy being a Devils fan.
daveau @31: Really, God is more of a Schaumburg Flyers fan.
I heard god is seriously considering a switch to the Kane County Cougars, though. Figures those poor kids ought to experience something good before they get called up to join the futility of the current A's roster...
geds81-
The Cougars have really good PR. They don't need god.
2222 / 25%: yes
6637 / 75%: no
8859 total votes.
I voted no because it's an echo chamber... chamber... chamber... chamber...
But really, why would I vote "yes, take it down" when atheists are just now going on the offensive with our own signs? I wouldn't want us to have to take ours down because it offends the religious nutballs.
"It's in very poor taste," Councilwoman Jan Hallums Quillman said. "To have God tell you to buy tickets? Give me a break."
I emailed the good councilwoman a link to this article stating that her reply would be very welcome here.
voted no. not because it reveals their foolishness, I didn't look at it that way, and I agree with it now. I voted no for free speech.
Ahhh, billboard controversies.
Here in Sin City Las Vegas, the FFRF has engendered a controversy over billboards with two messages: four with "Heathen's Greetings" that are still up and six with Santa and "Yes Virginia ... there is no God" which were taken down after only two days after numerous complaints. Racy billboards with scantily clad women and sexual innuendo are apparently OK [complaints are ignored], but nonbelief is apparently too much.
natural cynic-
What are they afraid of; that kids will see it?
"Heathen's Greetings." Hilarious.
Bill Dauphin #7 wrote:
Given vanharris' information in #11 (that a portion of the proceeds from ticket sales will be donated to churches), probably closer to the first. I suspect the Jackhammers are trying to capitalize on their act of charity -- which reinforces faith -- by appealing to the faith of the potential ticket-buyer. It's not that God wants you to go to the baseball game: God wants you to donate to churches. And if you like the idea of local businesses supporting churches, you'll buy more tickets.
But, despite what may be the noble religious intentions of the publicity crew for the Jackhammers, the billboard still makes the idea that God speaks through people, look ridiculous. Technically, anyone who objects to the billboard should have to show that God didn't say any such thing. Lots of luck, with that one.
@Michelle R #1
I'm pretty sure humor is one of the great multitude of things outlawed in Leviticus.
Voted No (now at 83%) as a free speech issue.
@natural cynic #39
FTA you linked to:
Jebus, where is Smoggy when you need him?
Me: Hello, am I speaking to the PR manager of ClearChannel?
PR Manager: Yes, what can I do for you?
Me: Well, it's about those christian-themed billboards you have up all over the city with messages about god on them. I want them all taken down.
PR Manager: Wha... on what grounds?
Me: Well, I've seen it stated as your official policy that you'll remove advertising if it's offensive to a particular group.
PR Manager: That's correct. And... what particular group do you belong to, Mr. uh...?
Me: Heathen. You can just call me Mr. Heathen. I'm an atheist, and those billboards with references to god all over them are very offensive to me.
PR Manager: I'm sorry Mr. Heathen, but we would only remove material that was offensive to someone's religion. With all due respect, atheism is not a religion, last time I checked anyways.
Me: OK, we've established that you're not a creationist. But you're still a hypocrite. Think about it. Thanks for your time *click*
84% no
As others have said, it's free speech. They're not inciting violence or slandering anyone (which are two issues where I would think twice about supporting them). And they would probably donate to church charity anyway, so it doesn't really make a difference. It's not like thousands or even dozens of atheists are being duped into supporting fundies financially.
Atheist and humanist billboards (or in the recent NZ case, even competing Christian billboards) get torn down, damaged and stolen all over the planet, without exception by upstanding morally firm Christians. Supporting their right to free speech should be another step demonstrating that 'we' are just as or better willing to do the right thing as any faither. The censors stand opposite.
The best part of this particular poll is that the team seems prepared to take action based on its results. So busting it may actually have a concrete result.
Conscious Machine #46 wrote:
Not necessarily -- or at least probably not in the expected direction. For one thing, the baseball team is far more interested in the opinions of local people who are likely to decide to go to their games, than they are interested in the opinions of unknown people on the internet who aren't. And, for another thing, the opinions of the Pharyngula readership are likely to have a negative impact, if they have any impact at all. If it can be taken "the wrong way," then it was a bad decision.
Once they find out the atheists like it, then kiss of death for the God billboard. My guess.
@39
Reminds me of that parody website, the "Full Gospel Ranch". Prostitution draped in a cloak of piety. Amazing, innit?
(I have no problem with the oldest profession being legal--I believe workers should be able to control the terms of their employment, and you obviously can't when your work is illegal. I'm also well aware of what's in the OT. What astounds me are the mental gyrations Christians will go through trying to justify this stuff. Just give it up! Your religion is stupid. There are other religions out there and it's a free country. 'Nuff said.)
I find those pregnancy crisis/virgin--it's not a dirty word/dead fetus billboards all over the South offensive.
Clear Channel sends mixed messages... on their radio channels they play songs about fucking women dry or meeting some dude at the club and having unprotected sex, and then on their billboards it's all you'd better have that baby, you dirty slut!!!11eleventy
My only consolation is that broadcast radio has gone through some rocky years recently and they hopefully took some nasty losses. Hehehehe.
Bill Dauphin, OM | December 18, 2009 9:30 AM:
Probably, like most people, they are totally ignorant of the whole controversy, and thought nothing of the idea except: "Sounds like a great way to sell tickets". They are most likely equally baffled by all sides.
2348 / 12%: yes
16472 / 88%: no
18820 total votes.
I hear and see all sorts of people telling anyone who'll pay attention that god wants this, that or t'other. And god's been commercialized ever since the first collection plate got passed.
FWIW, I don't see this as a free speech issue. The people who put up the sign are asking for public opinion on it. They say they will decide whether or not to take it down based on public response. Which they've asked for, explicitly.
Anyone notice how Jammer looks like a blue version of the Phllie Phanatic?
I think anyone who is offended by this sign needs to prove that god didn't say "BUY JACKHAMMERS TICKETS TODAY."
Speaking of FFRF, our local weekly that didn't move to Manhattan had a cover story on Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker.
Not for nothing, but how exactly do you prove someone didn't say something?
If they're going to play this game, they should insist the Jackhammers show that god did say it. Then we can turn it around the next time one of them claims to have heard god's word...
Not for nothing, but how exactly do you prove someone didn't say something?
That's exactly my point, they can't. It's like their tired argument that we need to prove that their god doesn't exist turned back around on them. Impossible to prove a negative.
2425 / 6%: yes
36546 / 94%: no
38971 total votes
Great job people!
Which is precisely why we say we don't have to. I guess I'm just not a big fan of logical fallacies no matter who they're used on, but I can see the merit of giving them a taste of their own medicine.
They're right. God's not interested in people buying baseball tickets. After all, there are people to kill for no apparent reason. Lots and lots of people to kill.
Tsunamis. Earthquakes. Plagues. Disasters. Diseases.
You name it, he's there. Sparing a few, but killing thousands.
Impossible to prove a negative.
No it's not. Many negatives are provable. The problem comes from the argument from ignorance in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.
If I say "There is NOT a cat in this box" we can simply open the box and find out. I can prove many other negatives, like I'm not John Bolton... So, as you can see, it's surprisingly easy to prove many negatives because there is some sort of positive that can be found to prove the negative.
Where it's difficult is proving negatives of things that don't exist. I can't prove there are no pink flying unicorns. I can't prove that Obama is not a super-secret Afro-Muslim America-Destroyer. I can't prove there isn't an invisible teapot circling the sun in orbit between the Earth and Mars.
But those things are nonsense. And when people say "ah ha!" I point out that the default position is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and you need to put on proof that your invisible flying monkey (or God) exists. You're the one making a claim. I make no claim about God except to say that all evidence indicates God is nothing more than one of many fairy-tales invented by primitives for various reasons.
Yeah, do it for the lulz :DDD
In general, when people say "you can't prove a negative" they mean "you can't prove a universal negative without universal information" ie. you can't know something doesn't exist unless you've looked, literally, everywhere. These days it's just understood that's what they mean unless they are using it in a case where the negative is indeed provable. As gettingfree was using it in the universal sense I think it's fair to say that's what s/he meant.
Latest standing:
4% Yes
96% No
Pharyngula'd! :D
Here's a cute billboard with a motion sensor.
God is infinitely present everywhere and is infinitely powerful (and therefore should have infinite mass?) and has infinite knowledge and infinite love and infinite compassion.
... in which case, he really shouldn't be invisible and undetectable. If there's any place in all existence that their god isn't detectable, doesn't that mean their claim is provably bollocks without having to look everywhere?
88,000-plus votes. I'll bet they didn't know there were so many baseball fans in Joliet.
It's 89-11 against them taking the thing down, BTW.
9726 / 11%: yes
78816 / 89%: no
88542 total votes.
The Jackhammers certainly got people interested in their sign. However, I suspect few of us will be going to Joliet to see a game.
And infinite assholishness.
That's in the ballpark (no pun intended) of 60% of Joliet's entire population. What dedicated citizens.
I think it's fair from reading what I wrote that point is, in fact, implicitly acknowledged in my post.
I'm elaborating on the whole "you can't prove a negative" saying is, in fact, a contextual remark and itself, not true in all cases. Thus relying on the quip, as some sort of intellectual grand-slam or other such nonsense, has its flaws and can lead one to embarrassment if one blindly wields it as a hammer instead of a scalpel.
Also, just because YOU believe yourself to understand the quip that way doesn't mean EVERYONE understands the quip that way. I have, as I'm sure you have and just forgotten about it, many times in my Internet life, run into many a creotard that believes you cannot prove ANY negative.
Well, yeah. There's a church on my way to work that currently has on its sign, "True peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of god." My argument is, well, isn't he supposed to be everywhere? Then why is there still war?
But the "can't prove a negative" argument is usually employed by those whose concept of god is more of the "something out there somewhere" variety. Those who insist god is everywhere will generally tell you they see it everywhere.
Understood. I was only pointing out that this did not appear to be the case in this instance.
Evolution is real. -God