Originally Posted By mele New holiday themed "No God" bus signs going up in Seattle Excerpt: There's an early winter solstice surprise coming to a corner near you in Seattle, courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. You know, they're the folks who want to move the immaculately conceived fable of baby Jesus in the manger back to churches and out of the public square. Somehow, they think, it's not a good fit with the separation of state and church that America's founders wrote into the U.S. Constitution. They also think this surprise is too good to keep under gift wrap, so here it is: Starting this week, the Foundation is sponsoring 100 ads on Seattle buses that say "Yes, Virginia, there is no God." That's coming straight from the Santa's mouth on the signs, 100 of which will be king-sized exterior ads, with about 300 smaller ads inside buses. <a href="http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m11d2-New-holiday-themed-No-God-bus-signs-going-up-in-Seattle" target="_blank">http://www.examiner.com/examin...-Seattle</a> _________ My husband saw one of these signs on a bus in our neighborhood the other day. I did not find it humorous at all and I don't really wanna start a debate on the truth behind God, etc. Maybe I shouldn't post it at all, but I wonder...won't most people find this offensive? Does anyone agree that it's funny? Aimed at kids? Just curious what people think. It'd be nice not to have a bash religion thread...
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin I find it offensive...not to get on my soap box, but I think the framers of the Constitution would have assumed that God was a given and didn't need to be protected by them. (Just thinking of them in their time and place)
Originally Posted By JazzCat That's so sad. If a religious group were to sponsor the opposite on 100 buses they would be slammed for it. I'm passionate about equality but this is a crass and rude way to get their message seen.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, if a Christian puts a fish on their car to symbolize Jesus, it's seen as a perfectly acceptable expression of faith. If an atheist puts the fish with the feet and the words Darwin on their car, they're seen as a d-bag who's just trying to be annoying. We're such a religious society, and it's so commonplace without us even realizing it, that it's constantly acceptable to have expressions of religion. Christmas trees, money, churches, etc., etc. No one thinks a Christian is being a jerk for expressing their faith; at best they might think a "Jesus is Lord" bumper sticker might be a bit zealous. Atheists, given our religious society, have no such luxury. *Any* expression of their lack of faith will be seen as "in your face" or as confrontational. It's an unfair double-standard. All that said, on the other hand, there's something to be said for practicality. Yes, it may be a double-standard. Yes, it may be unfair that religious people can express their faith without so much as a whisper, but like it or not, these billboards will piss people off. It will do nothing but rally the unfaithful. So what's the larger purpose? This can't make people think, "Gee, I never thought there wasn't a God before. They're right!" Pragmatism, people.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 RE post #4: I have no problem with anyone putting religious, non-religious, or even anti-religious symbols or signs on their cars or homes. My problem with this particular display is that it is a very public attack on religion. I am a Christian and I would be equally offended by a bus advertising that all non-believers are going to hell. I really wish that people (and I do not just mean on here but just people in general) would stop attacking each others' beliefs.
Originally Posted By gadzuux 400 bus ads for a month costs money. Where's the funding coming from, and why? What do they hope to achieve? I've seen bus ads here in SF from this same organization. The message wasn't quite this blunt, and it wasn't christmas, but I thought the same thing at the time. Why? To what point and purpose?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Where's the funding coming from, and why? What do they hope to achieve?<< God only knows.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I heard the idiot Mark Levin say on the radio this evenng that the separation of church and state was in no way ceated or suggested by Thomas Jefferson but instead by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who did so out of a sheer desire to discriminate against the church. Mark Levin is an ass.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I remember when I was a kid and stated that there was as much proof of god's existance as there was no proof. I was given detention. At 7 years old, I knew then America was crazy about god. If the true meaning of America is liberty and freedom of speech, then this campaign is brilliant. Though personally in our house, we like to celebrate all the major holidays of every faith. Life's a party.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <On the one hand, if a Christian puts a fish on their car to symbolize Jesus, it's seen as a perfectly acceptable expression of faith. If an atheist puts the fish with the feet and the words Darwin on their car, they're seen as a d-bag who's just trying to be annoying.> One is a smple expression of faith. The other is taking that expression, twisting it, and using it to show that you disagree. Very different.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Not true Josh. Perhaps one is showing their faith in science.> The double standard might be out there, but it's not in this case. If there was a long-respected, hundreds of years old symbol of athiesm, I wouldn't want a christian morphing it into a cross. It's taking something loved and twisting it around. It's not cool.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I don't know, I always love the post modern approach to art or symbolism.
Originally Posted By DAR I'm not crazy about the message but freedom of speech does allow them to express it.
Originally Posted By DAR Though I think it's kind of ironic that they're using Santa Claus who evolved from religious traditions to spread the message.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<If there was a long-respected, hundreds of years old symbol of athiesm, I wouldn't want a christian morphing it into a cross. It's taking something loved and twisting it around. It's not cool.>> I'm going to take your statement and make one slight change. See if you still agree with your words: "If there was a long-respected, hundreds of years old symbol of PAGANISM, I wouldn't want a christian morphing it into a cross. It's taking something loved and twisting it around. It's not cool." I'm referring to the pagan high cross, which was "morphed" into the Celtic Cross by Christian monks, possibly even St Patrick. They did so to make Christianity more acceptable to the pagans they were trying to convert. The pagan high cross had been around for centuries before being co-opted by the Christian monks. The Celtic Cross became popular in this country in the 1940s, and is still used by many Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches. Scholars still consider the Celtic Cross a part of pagan symbolism, while Christian churches in Great Britain claim it as their own, especially in Ireland. So... was it cool for the monks to morph the pagan high cross into the Celtic Cross to use as a tool of conversion?
Originally Posted By FaMulan skinnerbox, Christians also co-opted the Pagan tradition of bringing a sprig of evergreen into the home for the winter as a reminder of the green that will return. Early Christians co-opted quite a bit of things from Paganism and Polytheism to convert people. As to the busboards, a bit crass, but there is Freedom of Speech and Religion in this country and even a lack of belief in God shouldn't be dissed as it is. As far as the pundit saying the Founding Fathers didn't include Freedom of Religion in the founding documents of this country need to look into when they were written and when the first Supreme Court was seated. Do your research, people.
Originally Posted By DAR But the cross also represents Jesus dying as many Christians believe for our sins.
