1. Comment #146217 by FightingFalcon on March 18, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Ugh...as much as I sympathize with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a private company cannot censor. Only a government can censor, as censorship requires the use of force.

This is a purely economic decision made by a company that would rather not deal with controversy. If the government was forbidding the billboard from being displayed, then that would be censorship. But it's not.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

2. Comment #146222 by notsobad on March 18, 2008 at 7:37 pm

It's a private company and if they don't want your money, deal with it and go elsewhere.

Other Comments by notsobad

3. Comment #146225 by Mitchell Gilks on March 18, 2008 at 7:40 pm

I can't go back now. A while ago some fundies were putting up "pro-life" billboards in all the major cities in new brunswich, and fredericton billboard owners refused to rent them the billboards. So they made a pig stink, saying that it was taking away their free-speach. I said then what I'll say now. A private company has the right to rent to whoever they please, and refuse to rent to whomever they please. It is not a free-speach issue.

I stick to that opinion here.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

4. Comment #146231 by Storeo on March 18, 2008 at 7:49 pm

I agree completely.

A private company doesn't (and shouldn't for that matter) have any obligations here.

Other Comments by Storeo

5. Comment #146235 by SPS on March 18, 2008 at 7:53 pm

As usual, it's profit before principle unless the latter threatens the former.

Other Comments by SPS

6. Comment #146236 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 7:54 pm

I am amazed and impressed with my atheist peers. I bet if this was a Christian forum, everyone would be crying foul in unison.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

7. Comment #146239 by theantitheist on March 18, 2008 at 8:02 pm

82abhilash

We're able to way up both sides of an arguement because we are free to do so. We won't go to hell for failing to back up the side were told to.

The company has stated that they wish to avoid controversy and whilst I do not respect thier position they are a company and not an individual. They have to make practical decisions and at least they have given their reasons.

Other Comments by theantitheist

8. Comment #146240 by Double Bass Atheist on March 18, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Comment #146236 by 82abhilash

I am amazed and impressed with my atheist peers. I bet if this was a Christian forum, everyone would be crying foul in unison.

Oh, how right you are!!!

As most of us have experienced, I've even had non-confrontational posts deleted from theist sites.

Atheists are rational, logical, and even-handed. We go with the best available evidence (that's why we're atheists!), and that's why most posters here will not see this issue as big deal... private company, it can do what it wants.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

9. Comment #146241 by Opisthokont on March 18, 2008 at 8:04 pm

I am glad to see sense here: there is no insult to freedom of speech when any private entity declines to support another's point of view. We would applaud a publisher who refused to print works endorsing creationism. The fact that we are on the opposite side here does not give us any justification to change our stance.

Now, I object to billboards in general, but that is another battle.

Other Comments by Opisthokont

10. Comment #146248 by JD Cherry on March 18, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Atheists are rational, logical, and even-handed.

Any libertarian or fiscal conservative would have arrived at the same conclusion, you know. I think it's the frequent self-congratulation of us atheists that turns people off more than anything.

Other Comments by JD Cherry

11. Comment #146258 by MelM on March 18, 2008 at 8:42 pm

It could also be that the company approves of dogma. Whatever, to withdraw the right to not support ideas is (borrowing from Hitchens) "making a rod for your own back" (as I recall). I cringe every time I hear someone use "censorship" the way it was used by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Atheists are getting our point across without coercion being used to violate freedom of speech--lets continue that way. Confusing the actions of government and the voluntary decisions of the people is a sure way to end freedom of speech.

Other Comments by MelM

12. Comment #146259 by dragonfirematrix on March 18, 2008 at 8:46 pm

This is the age of technology, or at least so we think now.

We need to create our own signs, magnetics for vehicles, bumper stickers, etc.

We should not wait for the authorities to recognize we non-believers. We should go around these religious authorities and create our own displays.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

13. Comment #146262 by MelM on March 18, 2008 at 8:54 pm

I believe there are web based outfits that will make bumper stickers. And, I'll bet it wouldn't take long to have some "Beware of Dogma" buttons made. etc, etc.

Other Comments by MelM

14. Comment #146265 by Enlightenme.. on March 18, 2008 at 8:59 pm

I'll add a pat on the back to early posters in this thread.

But let's not count chickens - the thread could just as well have devolved as evolved, partly due to the fact that a lot of us treat these comment sections as a forum ;)

^: "I believe there are web based outfits that will make bumper stickers. And, I'll bet it wouldn't take long to have some "Beware of Dogma" buttons made. etc, etc."
Tch tch, bloomin' capitalism eh - principles out the window.
Root of all evil isn't it!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

15. Comment #146266 by PsyPro on March 18, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Just so we are clear about what is being said here:

A private:

employer may refuse to hire someone because he or she is an atheist, a woman, a member of a racial minority (or majority) group, ...

landlord may refuse to rent to someone because her or she is...

restaurant owner may refuse to serve...

bar owner ...

...

billboard owner ...

I just want to be sure.

Other Comments by PsyPro

16. Comment #146267 by fontor on March 18, 2008 at 9:12 pm

4: A private company doesn't (and shouldn't for that matter) have any obligations here.

Sorry to wreck the party, but I'm not so sure. Can the billboard company approve or disallow /any/ message? Do they have /no/ obligation to the public?

Who gave them the permission to control the billboard business anyway? Can I make my own billboards and put them up? Probably not, in which case they have a monopoly. Is it right for them to control the 'broadcast' of ideas with impunity?

If anyone can put up a billboard, then there's no problem. It's like the web; no one else gets to tell you what to post on your blog. But if the right to broadcast is limited, and perhaps even government-sanctioned (as I suspect it is), then the company has the responsibility to ensure that decisions like these are non-arbitrary and in the public interest.

Other Comments by fontor

17. Comment #146268 by Enlightenme.. on March 18, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Psypro,
Indeed, a grey area,
This sort of stuff has come up in UK recently regarding Christian private landlords being able to refuse bed & breakfast accomodation to homosexuals (or even unmarried couples I believe if they choose) , but if they ran a hotel they would be obliged to obey the law.
I'm sorry I can't say further as I didn't pay that close attention.

Also other stuff about Catholic adoption agencies able to turn down same-sex couples 'on-principle'

That's getting off-topic though!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

18. Comment #146270 by lordfenriz on March 18, 2008 at 9:28 pm

A private company has the right to rent to whoever they please, and refuse to rent to whomever they please. It is not a free-speach issue.

If a private company decides not to rent to an individual because he is black, does this argument still hold?

No, it doesn't. I don't know about the UK, but here in the US a company can't discriminate against another group based upon race, religion, etc.

In other words, companies can't, in fact, do whatever they want in every situation.

I'll cede the point, of course, if there is a US lawyer on the forum who knows differently.

This quote is from legalzoom.com:

Both federal and state laws prohibit businesses from denying public accommodation to citizens on the basis of race, color, religion or national original. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Other Comments by lordfenriz

19. Comment #146278 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 9:38 pm

I am going out on a limb here, but I personally do not mind it if a private company discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion or gender. I would not mind as long as there is a free market in which there are other private companies that also compete that do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion or gender.

What makes me think there will be? Private firms rely on talented individuals and are mostly indifferent to things that has no bearing on the talent of the individual. Which these kinds of discrimination truly are. Those that do will find themselves fighting for a smaller piece of a large talent pie and will struggle to keep up.

I will have a big problem if the government does that. But not private companies, unless of course the government is actively or passively endorsing such an activity.

I would rather that such private companies be out competed in a free market and boycotted by responsible citizens and driven to bankruptcy. That would be my ideal.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

20. Comment #146286 by Bigorra on March 18, 2008 at 9:59 pm

The billboard company doesn't have to rent the space to the FFRF if in their judgement it would cause harm to their business. Sorry if the space was their first choice, but it doesn't mean that CBS Outdoor Advertising is obligated to rent the space to them. FFRF has every right to make as much publicity as they can about CBS-OA's decision and call it wrong if they like. There are other billboard companies out there, such as Gannett that may rent them space. Then FFRF could freely post a link to information about CBS-OA's decision right on the billboard. The NY Times wouldn't be obligated to give the FFRF prime space in their newspaper if Ford or 3M was willing to pay more for it. Perhaps Amway (Grand Rapids is the home of Amway) was paying CBS-OA more money than FFRF was willing to pay, to put up their billboard, or others had threatened to pull their advertising when the billboard went up in other markets. While I support FFRF, I would never agree that a private company should have to do anything for them. And if you disagree with CBS-OA, don't buy products from those who advertise with them and let those companies know why you don't shop with them.

Other Comments by Bigorra

21. Comment #146292 by Fire1974 on March 18, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Opinion shall never be governed!

This law is absolute!

Feel free to disagree.

Other Comments by Fire1974

22. Comment #146295 by Mitchell Gilks on March 18, 2008 at 10:22 pm

I am also not against companies discriminating arbitrarily. Refusing to do business for race, religion, age, weight, or even dress code. Unless they are receiving government support in some way, then they should be required to comply with government restrictions.

If some guy wants to refuse business, let them sabotage their success. I think that such a company can be destroyed without legal action, be boycots, as well as other companies willing to take your business.

I'm all for rights, and I think someone has the right to be a stupid bigotted prick if they want to be. As long as they aren't infinging on anyone else's rights.

This may not be the law, maybe such discrimination is illegal. Even so, I will say that I am against that, and still highly doubt that this instance could be construed as such an example of discrimination.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

23. Comment #146297 by Richard Morgan on March 18, 2008 at 10:27 pm

MUSIC NEWS


Due to the number of requests that I have had for the music I created to accompany an excerpt from The Lava Lizard's Tale, I have uploaded an MP3 of "Fingerprints â€" past time" into a second stand-alone player on the Fleabytes Myspace.
This composition my be downloaded by:
1) Rationalists
and / or
Welsh persons, and / or
Musically gifted Lava Lizards.



http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

24. Comment #146302 by MelM on March 18, 2008 at 10:34 pm

The public interest be damned!
Be aware that while enforcing "obligations" in the "public interest", individual rights are being rejected item by item. Obligations and public interest are the complete opposite of individual rights.

The U.S. FCC is now considering a new law to control excessive violence on TV (CENSORSHIP) just as obscenity is now controlled (CENSORSHIP)--all, of course, in the public interest (an undefinable term). We may very shortly have conscript national service (an obligation) imposed in "the public interest". I have no desire to lead a life of unchosen obligations in the public interest; others can load up on all the obligations they want--I won't try to stop you. I abhor any idea of ever violating anyone's rights but, the public interest be damned.

The nutters are likely going to win.
Remember this. I think the chances are very good that within 2 or 3 decades, the nutters will be the ones deciding what the obligations are and what the public interest is--the more rods we hand them, the less they will have to do and the sooner power can be consolidated. At the very least, they will control every school and university that's publically funded and anything else operating with public obligations--such as the "air waves". I will hold out for every area of private independant action that I can; it'll be the last to sink and the last place from which to fight back.

Other Comments by MelM

25. Comment #146303 by MelM on March 18, 2008 at 10:42 pm

If some company can be found that will not refuse because of religious convictions or for any other damn reason, I think a "Beware of Dogma" button would complement my A pin very well.

Other Comments by MelM

26. Comment #146308 by Skeptic Pete on March 18, 2008 at 11:07 pm

In my home town of Newcastle Australia there's a HUGE billboard with a very simple message...

"Jesus is the answer"

I just wish I had the balls to grab a can of spraypaint and write "If Jesus is the answer then you're asking the wrong questions".

Other Comments by Skeptic Pete

27. Comment #146311 by mundusvultdecipi on March 18, 2008 at 11:26 pm

There are several subtle differences between the role of a publisher and a seller of billboard space however. Firstly, as regards taste and censorship a billboard is in a public place where it can easily be viewed by all, including children, as they go about their everyday lives unlike other media which have a watershed (tv), an age rating system (cinema) or a degree of voluntary access (just about everything else) as a result the regulatory framework in most jurisdictions differs for outdoor advertising displays.

As a result comparisons with book publishing are not necessarily helpful as it is usually recognised that taking money for advertising or display does not necessarily imply an endorsement of the message involved. A case CAN be made that those who provide a service open to all in the PUBLIC domain, (albeit for a fee) have to a limited extent diminished their ability to pick and choose. As a result many countries prohibit discrimination in provision of goods and services on the basis of certain criteria such as sexuality, religious belief, sex and so on and so forth.

Other Comments by mundusvultdecipi

28. Comment #146313 by PsyPro on March 18, 2008 at 11:47 pm

mundusvultdecipi writes:

A case CAN be made that those who provide a service open to all in the PUBLIC domain, (albeit for a fee) have to a limited extent diminished their ability to pick and choose. As a result many countries prohibit discrimination in provision of goods and services on the basis of certain criteria such as sexuality, religious belief, sex and so on and so forth.

*Can* be made? How about HAS been made by the constitutions and statements of rights and freedoms by *ALL* of what we would regard as civilised countries?

Do we really have re-fight this every generation? I wear a t-shirt, purchased for me by my wife of over 30 years, that proudly proclaims: ``This is what a feminist looks like''---and I have NO desire to fight that battle again.

The idea that private corporations because of self-interest will correct all the evils of discrimination is just so .... ignorant, stupid and ahistorical that I cannot believe I see it pontificated it here. So much for the idea that atheists are from the high end of the intelligence pool.

Other Comments by PsyPro

29. Comment #146314 by mmurray on March 18, 2008 at 11:51 pm

So you are OK with something like a backpacker hostel not allowing black people to stay. This happened recently in Australia in Alice Springs. As far as I know they were completely privately run.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

30. Comment #146320 by mundusvultdecipi on March 19, 2008 at 12:09 am

PsyPro - the reason I qualified my statement with CAN, as against HAS is that the US, Canada and most EU countries (for example) operate, in this regard, under very different regulatory and constitutional frameworks.

Additionally even where there is a broad degree of concensus in principle on this matter there is a wide variety of opinion as to what categories of expression and/or of consumers should be covered. Personally, I myself broadly agree with the sentiments you have expressed, am not convinced by your last statement though, I seldom find that people are worse off as a result of having honestly and intelligently debated an issue thoroughly no matter how self-evident the conclusion may be to some individuals.

Other Comments by mundusvultdecipi

31. Comment #146358 by BicycleRepairMan on March 19, 2008 at 1:59 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8abqbk8ex9E

How to Reach 100,000 People for Under $1.00

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

32. Comment #146411 by Geoff on March 19, 2008 at 4:15 am

They could get more publicity from the ensuing debate than they would from the billboard itself.

Other Comments by Geoff

33. Comment #146444 by FightingFalcon on March 19, 2008 at 5:07 am

PsyPro - the Supreme Court would argue that an employer cannot discriminate against someone based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

As a civil libertarian, I would argue that a private employer can discriminate against whomever he or she wants. But I don't think my opinion counts as much as our Justices...

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

34. Comment #146484 by Lord Asriel on March 19, 2008 at 6:08 am

I object to any discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation etc. The problem is, I am even more opposed to the government telling me what is right and what is wrong.

I am not sure how to solve this dilemma. Perhaps one should take into account how easy an alternative can be found (e.g. here in Switzerland the billboard company has a quasi monopoly so it is not ok to discriminate) and what type of service is denied on a discriminatory basis (e.g. renting out a flat probably needs to be qualified differently to selling flowers). Still it is difficult to draw lines.

Other Comments by Lord Asriel

35. Comment #146488 by Gymnopedie on March 19, 2008 at 6:18 am

In the US, it is absolutely illegal for a private or public company to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, or social status. The law prevents KKK style little cities from taking hold. Religious discriminationg, though, I think is a particularly complicated issue because religious belief can and often is utterly arbitrary to the point of being capricious.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

36. Comment #146501 by Mango on March 19, 2008 at 6:33 am

comment 19 I personally do not mind it if a private company discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion or gender.

I'm surprised to read comments here saying that the government should turn a blind eye toward discrimination and essentially repeal so much progress on civil rights. Such a libertarian streak here!

Could CBS-OA legally reject putting up a billboard on behalf of a black community organization because the mostly-white community might get ruffled by it?

FFRF's billboard is not sexual, violent, crude, hateful, or in any other way harmful to children, these being the only grounds for which I could accept CBS-OA rejecting a billboard.

That being said, I am glad that FFRF is not seeking a lawsuit. As a member of the organization I prefer that it follow more meaningful avenues of attack.

Other Comments by Mango

37. Comment #146589 by notsobad on March 19, 2008 at 7:59 am

So you are OK with something like a backpacker hostel not allowing black people to stay. This happened recently in Australia in Alice Springs. As far as I know they were completely privately run.

Michael

There is a difference here. They didn't refuse to use the ad because they were atheists but because of the message. If they wanted to advertise something else, they wouldn't have a problem.

Other Comments by notsobad

38. Comment #146620 by Saerain on March 19, 2008 at 8:24 am

35. Comment #146488 by Gymnopedie on March 19, 2008 at 6:18 am

In the US, it is absolutely illegal for a private or public company to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, or social status. The law prevents KKK style little cities from taking hold.

That is true, but doesn't apply. Unfortunate as it is for us in this case, the law does not prevent a private company from refusing to advertise a message it opposes.

It would prevent it from refusing to advertise a message due to the race, gender, religion, or social status of the person approaching it with the message ('No, we won't advertise your spoons, we know you're atheists'), but not due to the content of the message itself.

Other Comments by Saerain

39. Comment #146629 by Madmaili on March 19, 2008 at 8:32 am

I'am pretty sure I agree with the whining athiests. Private companines need a valid reason to reject somone's bussiness.

Other Comments by Madmaili

40. Comment #146630 by Mitchell Gilks on March 19, 2008 at 8:32 am

I for one am definitely, and in no way ok with discrimination of any kind. That is a clear distorting of anything that has been said. There is a difference between what I think is ok, and what I think should be illegal.

Such fights can be waged without legal action. In such a situation it must be recognized that someone's rights have to take a back seat to another's. This makes such a situation sticky at best, and is not easily solved with "I'm right, and everyone who disagrees is stupid."

Such a bigotted individual is an ignorant prick, to say the least, but they have rights too.

I also would point out that such discrimination is not over in the US, the boyscouts still do not let in gays and atheists. Yet they receive goverment funding, and are allowed to meet for free at public places, like schools. Now that should be illegal, the government should be brought out of supporting discrimination.

If it were just a private organization, then I would still be pissed off, and hope that we don't relent in making a stink, but I would not call what they are doing criminal.

This is indeed, a tough issue, because someone's gets screwed no matter what. I think that the only way to solve such a problem without infringing on anyone's rights, is to coerse the bigot through civil, and social activitis, and outrage.

Sure is it easy to say "fuck them, they're pricks anyway." Though putting someone else's rights ahead of another, even when they are wrong, sets a precedent...a precedent that I don't want, and I think is dangerous to our individual rights and freedoms.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

41. Comment #146745 by whig on March 19, 2008 at 10:52 am

I dont in anyway see this as censorship. As I have a dictionary next to me, I looked the word up, and as expected, it mentioned official action.

In Ireland, discrimination is prohibited on nine grounds: gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, physical or mental disability, race or membership of the Travelling community (an indigenous nomadic group of people). I think religion is different to some of those, someone shd have the right to refuse to employ a creationist as a biology teacher, for example. I think the real issue is where discrimination receives public support. Here, it's prominent because 95% of primary schools are owned by the Roman Catholic Church, with most of the rest owned by smaller churches. They have an exemption to the above equality legislation on moral grounds in certain areas, so they have the right to refuse to employ someone as a teacher (the local bishop usually has a veto over appointments) for reasons such as being divorced, an unmarried parent or gay, even tho the state pays for the teachers. There's also a problem now with parents finding it increasing difficult to find a school for their children unless they're baptized Catholic. I wouldnt have a problem with this if were like the US or France, where religious schools were an fee-paying minority.

I know I'm branching out a bit, but on the overall question of the right to discriminate, I'm not sure that I'd be against all laws prohibiting discrimination, but it is far worse, both morally and in practice, when state sanctioned. From what I can tell of America from across the pond, the most insidious form of discrimination was at school level, and this was supported by the states. It's wrong both because the black students and their families in worse schools contributed thru their taxes to the upkeep of the better schools, and because the lack of integration at that level meant that it continued for the rest of their lives.

But back to the billboard, what of a private radio station? Should they be forced to accept an ad from the FFRF? And also, whatever about anti-discrimination laws based on race, I think that discrimination based on ideas should be allowed, for the same reason as I agreed with opposition to the Religious Hatred Bill.

Other Comments by whig

42. Comment #146752 by Gymnopedie on March 19, 2008 at 11:01 am

I didn't mean to imply this incident is the same as racial discrimination. What makes this incidence complicated is the religious grounding. Because religious beliefs can be utterly capricious (thank faith for that), religious grounds for discrimination should be treated differently than the others I mentioned. I can make up a religion that believes that God mandates that I get 100% on all college exams and at the same time not study. Imagine going to a professor with that doozy.

If a private company disagrees with a religious message or thinks it will hurt its business, then they should be able to reject it. Now if the company claims it won't advertise because it doesn't deal with blacks, then that is obviously a different case and should be illegal. The difference between religious discrimination and racial discrimination is astonishing and shouldn't be lumped together as being the same.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

43. Comment #146794 by Madmaili on March 19, 2008 at 12:13 pm

"I think religion is different to some of those, someone shd have the right to refuse to employ a creationist as a biology teacher, for example"
The analogy does not bear , being a creationist directly goes to this person's ability to do his job . I sometimes between classes work as a bouncer , if my boss refused to hire a disabled person as a bouncer is he being discriminatory ?

Other Comments by Madmaili

44. Comment #146867 by mundusvultdecipi on March 19, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Whig - your assessment regarding Ireland is extremely accurate, further information on the relevant provisions can be found here (including education and advertising): http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=77&docID=49

At the time the legislation was put in place it was regarded as quite bold and widely hailed as a model of best practice, the odd religious exemptions notwithstanding.

Other Comments by mundusvultdecipi

45. Comment #146965 by theantitheist on March 19, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Atheists are rational, logical, and even-handed.

Any libertarian or fiscal conservative would have arrived at the same conclusion, you know. I think it's the frequent self-congratulation of us atheists that turns people off more than anything

Atheist are not all the same, there are actually some very stupid, disagreeable and obtuse people out there who don't agree with religion or believe in anything. To paraphrase Dawkins "Not everyone who has a beard is the fucking same, and what has having a beard got to do with the price of fish anyway""

Other Comments by theantitheist

46. Comment #146993 by MelM on March 19, 2008 at 4:18 pm

On a hunch, I checked Wikipedia for "Jim Crow Laws" and got an interesting hit. It includes some examples from various states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_crow_laws

I'm not a constitutional scholar at all and it's always amazed me that such flagrant violations of rights were tolerated by the U.S. Supreme Court. If they're not protecting us from government, then what the hell good are they?

Today, their are people around who don't even know that the courts are supposed to protect us from the government. Look at the appaling "court stripping" laws the nutters in Congress tried to pass. Unbelievable! And, if we end up with conscript national service, the Court will probably uphold it even though the Thirteenth Amendment states:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

I think the trouble is that there's no definition of "rights" in the Constitution and there seems to be little or no grasp of their source or validation among the population. So, as in the past, the Court can't do its job well and is wide open to such ideas as that "rights come from God". I don't think this is innocuous bullshit. If this is taken seriously--which is what I expect the nutters to do--it means that the interpretation of the Constitution is a branch of theology--and it'll be Christian theology for sure, based on the Bible.

doublethink
But, we'll be "free", they will say, no matter what; no one will have the honesty to reveal "we reject freedom--bring in the guns". How? Well, maybe "doublethink" will do the trick--it's working very well so far:

From Nineteen Eighty-Four--Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
doublethink:
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies--all this is indispensably necessary.

Other Comments by MelM

47. Comment #146995 by Gymnopedie on March 19, 2008 at 4:23 pm

theantitheist, I couldn't agree more with you here about the sweeping generalization about atheists (made by atheists, in this case). Anyone can simply browse through the forums to see how hideous some disagreements here at the oasis are.

I used to use the terms atheist and rationalist interchangeably. Then I spent time with atheists... So many of them touted pseudoscience in the form of CAM, even shamanism and TCM, others believed in ghosts and UFO's (not the Carl Sagan kind), and even more defended religious belief as someone inherently positive (I don't even want to get into politics...).

I actually wonder if atheists are any more rational then the average person on topics outside of ye ol' God question. The impression of the rational atheist is given off by most skeptics being atheists, I think.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

48. Comment #147016 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 19, 2008 at 5:15 pm

i think those who are upset are upset at the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.

the company didnt put up the message because they are avoiding controversial messages. so any controversial message reguardless of the message would be rejected.

the key here isnt attacking the company, its going out and collecting signatures from the people, proving to the company that the controversy would NOT be that bad, or that it may even be beneficial. (for instance, a controversial billboard draws more people to that area, this increaes the amount of people in that area who see other billboards and thus increases the effectiveness of those billboards, cover over with them a way of making sure that companies and individuals know the opinions of organizations that advertise with them in no way reflect their own opinions, and you can actualy turn this from a possible bane to buisness into a boon.)

the key here is business, and proper business doesnt depend on stamping your feet and calling foul. it depends on tact, it depends on convincing them that not only would it not be bad for them but they would be stupid not to, make em offer they cant refuse.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

49. Comment #147024 by MelM on March 19, 2008 at 5:28 pm

I agree that atheist does not equal rational. However, revealed religion and commandments and holy books stop thought in it's tracks. Once faith takes over, we see thought reduced to hack rationalizations (= theology). In ethics, commandments are not just some ideas that god said we might think about--just suggestions. No, we are not to think about them; they are commands--obedience is demanded. Under penalty of burning in hell, thought is eliminated. I found this little 1 minute YouTube Q&A video by the Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff the other day and it's really right on the mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M37Kq0ob9MA

So, I think religion is the worst and by far most dangerous form of irrationalism; anyway, I don't see the UFO people trying a power grab in the U.S.

I've commented before about unreason being the general problem and that a direct attack on religion is needed at the same time as a vigorous defense of reason generally. Indeed, without support for reason, I don't see the New Atheism lasting very long. Just look at all the fleas already (nearly 2 dozen). Yes, they are crap; but, how many fleas does it take to kill a dog?

Other Comments by MelM

50. Comment #147025 by Ed-words on March 19, 2008 at 5:29 pm

There are no doctor rights or billboard owner rights or restaurant owner rights.Our elected
representatives may enact laws regulating the services and products of any business,(or professional),if its actions could be harmful
to the public interest through discrimination,
or unsafe practices.

(Am I right, or should I forget about law school?)

Other Comments by Ed-words