God Wanted These Censored

[Atreus21]

Insulting as in "Christians are dumbf*cks" or insulting as in "There are other options to the various Christian faiths"?

Exactly which of those billboards, either in the OP or in the linked article, is insulting.

This one.

It's so easy to be a militant atheist in America. Christians are such easy targets.

 

[MtnMan]

 

[alzan]

I definitely read #1 as suggesting that Atheism is superior to Mormonism, and can see how that would be insulting to put in a Mormon community.

#2-#3, on their face, fall in the lines of "other alternatives," but the intent to use them in Utah strikes me as suggesting that Mormons are oppressive and/or bigoted in their treatment of atheists. Now, if #2-#4 were used in other states, I would instead perceive them as an attempt to educate people that, contrary to popular (and my own) belief, Utah is not filled with Mormons and Christians.

I disagree. Looking at it at face value I see the billboard as stating that Susan Smith used to be Mormon and perhaps had a crisis of faith or disagreement with LDS elders over how they treat non-Mormons; she then thought to identify as an ex-Mormon, both to strengthen her emotionally against the teachings and dictums of her former religion and to tell others in her community of her displeasure with the LDS leadership. Finally she came to grips with her former need for faith in a deity and became atheist, able to live to both community and her own ethical standards.

You should probably visit Utah or the surrounding areas of it's bordering states then, Mormons are incredibly oppressive in their dealings with non-Mormons. Buy a home, rent an apartment or start a business as a non-Mormon and you'll see just how oppressive they really are. If your non-Mormon son or daughter falls in love with a Mormon and wants to marry, guess what, you won't be allowed to attend the wedding if it's in a tabernacle.

 

[alzan]

This one.

It's so easy to be a militant atheist in America. Christians are such easy targets.

I don't see how it's "militant" as you seem to suggest. The holiday season of which Dec. 25th is a part was a celebration of the winter solstice and was practiced long before Christianity co-opted it for "their" special day.

 

[ch33zw1z]

As an atheist, I have to wonder why anyone would want to put those billboards up anyways?

I guess the same reason Catholics, Mormons, Protestants, etc....put up billboards, converts. But the Christian ones forcus more on a scare tactics.

 

[ch33zw1z]

This one.

It's so easy to be a militant atheist in America. Christians are such easy targets.

Oh puhlease. A little taste of their own medicine once in a while won't kill them. Consider it part of the straight and narrow. God never said your choice would be easy.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

This one.

It's so easy to be a militant atheist in America. Christians are such easy targets.

Oh man the 5% is such a huge threat to the 75%.

 

[mikeymikec]

This one.

Please describe the nature of the insult.

From what I see, it's an incorrect statement; evidently some people feel that they need Christ during Christmas. If I then resort to nitpicking, they crossed out the word 'Jesus', making the sentence incoherent

IMO the company responsible for the rejection did a very fashionable thing at the moment, confusing "hate speech" with "they said things I don't agree with".

 

[Orignal Earl]

When a billboard deliberately tries to insult Christians, you can expect some push back.

Looks at your av

It's so easy to be a militant atheist in America. Christians are such easy targets.

Some Christians certainly are..

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh puhlease. A little taste of their own medicine once in a while won't kill them. Consider it part of the straight and narrow. God never said your choice would be easy.

The funny part is, that close to 99% of Christians know Christ wasn't born on Christmas...so I don't see what's so offensive about it.

 

[rudeguy]

He went on, “Religious persecution of the kind that similarly led to the Holocaust began with small baby steps of ridicule and hatred of the religious beliefs of others.”

Religious persecution? The Holocaust?!? D:

What ever happened to our seemingly sacred and constitutionally protected ideal of free speech?

You really have no idea what free speech is do you? The government did not have any hand in this, yet the government is what free speech addresses. You do not get so say whatever you want with no consequences. Private companies can sensor however they feel.

Its just like the admin community here banning people for speaking out against them. It might not be right, but it doesn't violate the 1st amendment.

 

[alzan]

The funny part is, that close to 99% of Christians know Christ wasn't born on Christmas...so I don't see what's so offensive about it.

Shens

 

[Oldgamer]

Billboards rejected in Utah because they were "misleading, deceptive or offensive to the moral standards of the community."

And, this billboard below, which did make the cut in Times Square, was called by State Senator Andrew Lanza (R-Staten Island) an “expression of hatred.”

He went on, “Religious persecution of the kind that similarly led to the Holocaust began with small baby steps of ridicule and hatred of the religious beliefs of others.”

Religious persecution? The Holocaust?!? D:

What ever happened to our seemingly sacred and constitutionally protected ideal of free speech?

Wait, let me get this straight is it the state that is banning these billboards?? Isn't that censorship of free speech?

 

[alzan]

Wait, let me get this straight is it the state that is banning these billboards?? Isn't that censorship of free speech?

According to the article it's private companies in Utah, not the state. However, given the concentration of Mormons in Utah and whether they're in government or private business owners there's not really that much of a difference.

Censorship is vile no matter who's doing it.

 

[Atreus21]

I don't see how it's "militant" as you seem to suggest. The holiday season of which Dec. 25th is a part was a celebration of the winter solstice and was practiced long before Christianity co-opted it for "their" special day.

Right. And did they call it the Winter Solstice? No, they called it Christmas.

There's nothing wrong with promoting atheism as one might promote any other viewpoint. But you can expect some push back when you spitefully set out to disrespect other viewpoints, especially of the widely-held variety.

 

[Atreus21]

Looks at your av

Yes, by all means look at it. And you know why that's my AV? Because radical Islam says that anyone, not just muslims, showing an image of Muhammad (not denigrating or insulting him, but simply showing his image) is to be ruthlessly attacked. "If you cross us, we will physically harm you." That's terrorism, and I rebuke that.

 

[alzan]

Right. And did they call it the Winter Solstice? No, they called it Christmas.

There's nothing wrong with promoting atheism as one might promote any other viewpoint. But you can expect some push back when you spitefully set out to disrespect other viewpoints, especially of the widely-held variety.

Yeah, co-opting a given day or time period just to push their religion down peoples throats. Slightly off topic but they didn't stop at just saying the Christian savior was born on that day which in itself is a lie, they replaced Roman deities with Christian saints, rededicated temples, just to name a couple of actions.

Spiteful and disrespectful from your somewhat biased viewpoint. Also the number of believers of a given religion is irrelevant.

 

[rudeguy]

Yeah, co-opting a given day or time period just to push their religion down peoples throats. Slightly off topic but they didn't stop at just saying the Christian savior was born on that day which in itself is a lie, they replaced Roman deities with Christian saints, rededicated temples, just to name a couple of actions.

Spiteful and disrespectful from your somewhat biased viewpoint. Also the number of believers of a given religion is irrelevant.

Not in a democratic society it isn't.

 

[WilliamM2]

I guess the same reason Catholics, Mormons, Protestants, etc....put up billboards, converts. But the Christian ones forcus more on a scare tactics.

But atheism isn't a religion, and doesn't need converts. There's nothing to follow...

 

[Orignal Earl]

Yes, by all means look at it. And you know why that's my AV? Because radical Islam says that anyone, not just muslims, showing an image of Muhammad (not denigrating or insulting him, but simply showing his image) is to be ruthlessly attacked. "If you cross us, we will physically harm you." That's terrorism, and I rebuke that.

There are no Muslim terrorists reading ATPN

 

[Retro Rob]

Right. And did they call it the Winter Solstice? No, they called it Christmas.

I think the point is that the day was hijacked, so Christians don't technically own it.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, co-opting a given day or time period just to push their religion down peoples throats. Slightly off topic but they didn't stop at just saying the Christian savior was born on that day which in itself is a lie, they replaced Roman deities with Christian saints, rededicated temples, just to name a couple of actions.

Spiteful and disrespectful from your somewhat biased viewpoint. Also the number of believers of a given religion is irrelevant.

lol Takes a pretty bad burn to sting after 2,000 years, no?

 

[alzan]

lol Takes a pretty bad burn to sting after 2,000 years, no?

The history of Christmas and other "religious" days is all I was communicating. Organized religion, governments, organizations, etc. generally have an ulterior motive when composing laws, writing history, etc., I think pointing out more than just one side of a given topic is important.

 

[mikeymikec]

Yes, by all means look at it. And you know why that's my AV? Because radical Islam says that anyone, not just muslims, showing an image of Muhammad (not denigrating or insulting him, but simply showing his image) is to be ruthlessly attacked. "If you cross us, we will physically harm you." That's terrorism, and I rebuke that.

So disrespecting a religion isn't OK unless they want to kill you in response?

Another way of looking at what you wrote is "it's not OK to piss someone off, but it's fine if they're so pissed off that they want to kill you".

You still haven't answered my question about what the insult is in that advert.

 

[ch33zw1z]

But atheism isn't a religion, and doesn't need converts. There's nothing to follow...

Agree with ya there. The truth will set you free

I guess what I'm saying is that they want to use the billboards to push their agenda. Which fine with me. If one billboard company won't do it, find another.