1. Comment #288742 by windfall on November 22, 2008 at 10:49 am

Insecure facists.

What is the big deal? It eludes me.

Other Comments by windfall

2. Comment #288743 by Dhamma on November 22, 2008 at 10:50 am

"Imagine no religion - Then this sign wouldn't be taken down."

Other Comments by Dhamma

3. Comment #288746 by AllanW on November 22, 2008 at 10:52 am

I love these reactions from the company and by the local religious leaders. We must be doing something right to reveal the repressive, reactionary mindsets that religiots have. If we keep poking these knee-jerk reactions I can see many rational, normal and thoughtful people coming over to our side; not necessarily won by the arguments (that will come with mature reflection) but because they just do not want to be associated with extremist, unthinking dogma.

Keep doing it Annie Laurie!

Other Comments by AllanW

4. Comment #288747 by righton on November 22, 2008 at 10:56 am

Atheist Billboard Campaign?

Other Comments by righton

5. Comment #288750 by epeeist on November 22, 2008 at 10:58 am

Comment #288742 by windfall

Insecure facists.

If you think that is a sign of insecurity and fascism then you might be amused by this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7743312.stm

Other Comments by epeeist

6. Comment #288751 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 11:03 am

I must admit I am disgusted with the behaviour of the religious people that forced the removal of the billboard. Nevertheless, they are their own worst enemy.

I've taken the position that in a liberal democracy it is everyone's basic human right to believe, practice and pursue whatever religious opinions they feel comfortable with. It seems that even this basic right is being denied by whoever objected to this billboard.

Good grief, this billboard is about as mild as could be in expressing someone's opinions on religion.

Odd, isn't it, that one's religious opinions in the USA are everyone's else's business but in Europe most people don't give a stuff about them. No wonder the Zeitgeist is changing.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

7. Comment #288755 by Swordmaiden on November 22, 2008 at 11:11 am

There's a HUGE billboard near my home telling me I should go to the Life Church blah blah blah....I find THAT offensive. Can we not start funding for billboards everywhere not just buses....we raised lots of money for that....lets do it some more.

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

8. Comment #288757 by aquilacane on November 22, 2008 at 11:13 am

I will donate money toward a sign, in the same place, that reads:

Imagine free speech

That would be hard for them to argue, and would remain to make a stronger more reasonable point. Imagining no religion congers up a very scary and bad world for many who read it. That isn't their fault, but it is real. Tell them what to imagine, or expect what you got. To ask the sign to be taken down is an allowable right. Just give them a sign that is hard to take down.

Other Comments by aquilacane

9. Comment #288764 by NormanDoering on November 22, 2008 at 11:25 am

Dhamma wrote:

"Imagine no religion - Then this sign wouldn't be taken down."

Because it would never have been put up in the first place.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/consequences-of-belief.html

Other Comments by NormanDoering

10. Comment #288768 by elfinabout on November 22, 2008 at 11:32 am

Followed the link by eepist to the BBC article. This made me chuckle - under the third image:

Malaysia is a secular democracy where Islam is the official religion

Um... FAIL.

Other Comments by elfinabout

11. Comment #288769 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 11:40 am

Aquilacane says "Imagining no religion congers up a very scary and bad world for many who read it."

Tough shit to them. So does religious fundamentalism conjour up a very nasty and bad world for many. Indeed, to many mainstream or otherwise religious people, fundamentalism is blasphemy and/or heresy and damned dangerous.

If the fundies want to get politicised, they should expect copious and vigorous criticism of all that they stand for. Instead, all too often, they just resort to bile and the insidious martyrdom complex about how persecuted and hard done to they are.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

12. Comment #288770 by BrandySpears on November 22, 2008 at 11:44 am

Action Alert from Atheists United: Here are three things you can do to right now to express your opinion about the violation of First Amendment rights by the city of Rancho Cucamonga:



HELP FFRF’S LEGAL CASE

If you are an attorney or know an attorney in the Los Angeles Area who has experience filing in Federal Court and can file on behalf of the Freedom For Religion Foundation in the Southern District, please contact Annie Laurie Gaylor, Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation as soon as possible at algaylor@ffrf.org, 608/256-8900. Please include all your contact information.

SPEAK OUT
You can speak out directly to the city of Rancho Cucamonga using the “Automatic Message Generator” provided by Atheists United.
http://atheistsunited.org/about-atheists-united/programs/147-automatic-message-generator


SPREAD THE WORD
Forward this message to all your friends or use our on-line tool to spread the word.
http://atheistsunited.org/index.php?option=com_rsform&formId=10





Brian Parra

Director of Communications and Membership

Atheists United

membership@atheistsunited.org

Other Comments by BrandySpears

13. Comment #288772 by Polaris29 on November 22, 2008 at 11:53 am

John Lennon is spinning in his grave, Founding Fathers too.

It's in the USA, just SUE THEM!

Other Comments by Polaris29

14. Comment #288774 by Dhamma on November 22, 2008 at 11:57 am

NormanDoering:

Really, it was an obvious joke.

Other Comments by Dhamma

15. Comment #288778 by Enlightenme.. on November 22, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Post#9, referencing post#2,

Of course, without religion, then none of us would exist, in fact, perhaps the species might no longer exist!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

16. Comment #288785 by apjohn23 on November 22, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Should then any church/religion affiliated billboard be taken down? -pause- emphatic yes! If someone was to seriously bring up complaints and even signatures of people who are sick of church signs and focus on the fam messages, the god-heads would be flabbergasted like "but it is a peaceful sign and message, we are just spreading the word." They wont get it. Hippo-crits!

Other Comments by apjohn23

17. Comment #288790 by Logicel on November 22, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Thanks, BS, #12, Just sent in my own missive to the city of Rancho Sans Cujones.

Seems that it is dawning on the religiots that atheists are willing and able to spend money to get their viewpoint out there.

Other Comments by Logicel

18. Comment #288798 by Frankus1122 on November 22, 2008 at 12:47 pm

I got this from the FFRF statement:

While the Foundation has encountered billboard companies unwilling to lease boards in several locations (Rapid City, Mich., Peoria, Ill., rural Nebraska and Salt Lake City), this is the first time one of its billboards has been censored after going up.

Is there any kind of law about the denying people the right to free speech?
I suppose the billboard companies are privately owned but would they not be considered to be in control of a public space? I am thinking along the lines of radio stations controlled by the FCC.
Can anyone put up a sign anywhere they want?
If not, and if there are laws regarding where signs are allowed to be posted, is there some control over the messages on them.

Could this be a freedom of speech issue?
I know it is but I am thinking in legal terms.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

19. Comment #288802 by mordacious1 on November 22, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Here is something that irks me locally:

A few years ago they built a church nearby me and named it Christian Life Church, no problem.

Then they put in a road to it and named it Christian Life Way, it's a private road so again, no problem.

The issue I have is that the state came along and put up signs indicating the approaching intersection. Big green signs with white lettering stating "Christian Life Way", in both directions on a state highway, paid for with taxpayer's money.

Am I getting peeved for no reason? I'm sure if I named my road "No God, No Way", they would not put up state signs indicating the approaching street.

Other Comments by mordacious1

20. Comment #288816 by robotaholic on November 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm

in light of recent events- FUCK california

Other Comments by robotaholic

21. Comment #288819 by iType on November 22, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Maybe FFRF should rethink it's strategy, obviously a billboard telling people what to do isn't going to work. Why not use their campaign dollars to promote the benefits of an open mind rather than further the stereotype of negative, angry atheists.

Other Comments by iType

22. Comment #288832 by Ivan The Not So Bad on November 22, 2008 at 1:40 pm

You might enjoy the following extract from another report on this incident:

Judy Rooze, administrator of First Baptist Church of Rancho Cucamonga, which is two blocks from the billboard, was relieved it was coming down.

Rooze said it was unsettling.

"I understand people have freedom of speech, but this is taking it too far," she said. "It's very jarring."

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

23. Comment #288835 by Don_Quix on November 22, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Yes, you have complete freedom of speech as long as that speech does not contradict or offend the First Baptist Church of Rancho Cucamonga.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

24. Comment #288849 by shaunfletcher on November 22, 2008 at 2:10 pm

I don't have a lot of criticism to make of the billboard company. Being a company, their purpose is to make money. If this will not contribute to that then they will not do it.

However the city, churches and various totalitarian scumbags are shameful, and I almost wish all their christian crap was true so they could all go to hell for their behaviour.

Almost.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

25. Comment #288851 by eellerto on November 22, 2008 at 2:13 pm

In response to this earlier post:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7743312.stm

In 2005, the GOP party in Washington tried to ban Yoga and witchcraft. I mean, I too hate the smell of patchouli and talk of chakra release, but really.

Other Comments by eellerto

26. Comment #288854 by Diacanu on November 22, 2008 at 2:16 pm

shaunfletcher-

I don't have a lot of criticism to make of the billboard company. Being a company, their purpose is to make money. If this will not contribute to that then they will not do it.

*Thinks about it*.....no, fuck 'em.

I don't let the amorality of business off the hook.
Profit motive kept slavery going.
Fuck 'em.

Other Comments by Diacanu

27. Comment #288855 by Eshto on November 22, 2008 at 2:22 pm

@eellerto:

Hey I do yoga, it's great for posture and working out back pain. And the Wii Fit lets you monitor and develop your balance.

Ain't nothin' wrong with psychophysical exercise, it's really just stretching, deep breathing and relaxing. Just because chakras and kundalini energy aren't real doesn't mean yoga isn't good for you.

Plus Pat Robertson thinks yoga is demonic, so that gives me even more incentive to do it.

P.S. I love patchouli.

EDIT: "Islam is a complete way of life. Islam is able to cater to the needs of Muslims; spiritual needs, intellectual needs and other needs, material needs. So there is no need to bring in elements from outside"

Really?

Show me the doctrine in Islam that encourages muscle tone and flexibility. Is there one?

Other Comments by Eshto

28. Comment #288856 by Alex1956 on November 22, 2008 at 2:22 pm

They should buy, not lease, a billboard, thus leaving them free to be as in-your-face as they want to be. Just think of all the churches with signs out front stating some variation of "if you don't believe as we do, you're going to hell."

Other Comments by Alex1956

29. Comment #288857 by Border Collie on November 22, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Their rights are the default setting in society. Ours aren't.

Epeeist ... You link was interesting. I have fundie churchie friends here in Fort Worth who took their kids out of public school because the public school class was doing some simple relaxation techniques with the elementary school students which they described as 'yoga'. I asked them what the problem was with that. They said that things like yoga, meditation, etc. open one up to invasion by Satan. I've always found it odd that almost all Christians I know believe that the very first 'entity' that invades their whatever is a demon, or Satan or some such. Regressive belief system ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

30. Comment #288858 by DarwinsPitbull on November 22, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Diacanu

I don't let the amorality of business off the hook.
Profit motive kept slavery going.
Fuck 'em.

Thats easy to say when you are not the one who runs the billboard company. You expect them to lose money because of group of people who want to make a statement? I am sure if that billboard company has dozens of atheist clients then they might not care, but more than likely they have more religious clients than atheist clients. So they are going to stick with the group that is going to give them more money in the long run.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

31. Comment #288859 by Patrick McArdle on November 22, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Let's expand upon the idea given by another commenter, above, and send enough money to buy another billboard, with the same words -- but the imagery Richard Dawkins has used: the Twin Towers standing. Maybe they won't find the first billboard so offensive by comparison!

If they complain anyway, recite our First Amendment to them. Note carefully the first two clauses. Then wish 'em a "Happy Winter Holiday," and ask about their pagan customs of lighting the darkest days of mid-Winter.

Other Comments by Patrick McArdle

32. Comment #288861 by Eshto on November 22, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Yeah, if they're renting it from a company they can't do much in the way of legal action.

However, I feel justified in pointing out that the people over at the billboard company are morons. If they didn't want the controversy, they shouldn't have even agreed to it in the first place. I don't have much sympathy for them or any criticism they get, they had to know what they were getting into.

Other Comments by Eshto

33. Comment #288862 by black wolf on November 22, 2008 at 2:32 pm

With each similar incident, and there have been countless, one thing becomes more and more clear: the dedication to proselytize for religion is directly proportional to the lack of understanding of the fundamentals of free speech. Also, the amount of free speech made use of by their opposition is directly proportional to the frequency with which they claim persecution.
Getting a religious message out is one thing, silencing dissent crosses the line with a big black combat boot. Will they ever understand they have no right not to feel offended, and no right to get uncomfortable statements out of sight just by claiming annoyance? I doubt it - it's now three hundred years since the Enlightenment began, and hundreds of thousands of theists would reopen the dungeons for unbelievers tomorrow if we let them by doing their will and shutting up. As we say in Germany, for very good reasons: Wehret den Anfängen! - Resist the Beginnings!

Other Comments by black wolf

34. Comment #288864 by eellerto on November 22, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Eshto,

I was totally being sarcastic. I love Yoga, but I do hate patchouli, and I do cringe when they say some of the ridiculous crap in there. I am a neuroscientist, so when I hear things like, "Breath through the right nostril to invigorate your left hemisphere" (I kind of made that up, but I have heard similar absurdities), I cringe.

Other Comments by eellerto

35. Comment #288865 by iType on November 22, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Ivan - Comment by Judy Rooze, "I understand people have freedom of speech, but this is taking it too far," she said. "It's very jarring."

I think this comment is an insight to the counter-productive nature of FFRF's approach. Church going families, FFRF's target audience here, have been further alienated by FFRF. IMHO FFRF needs a smarter campaign manager.

Other Comments by iType

36. Comment #288866 by Evilcor on November 22, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Do they not understand?
Atheists are smarter than average and generally take a perverse delight in freaking out squares like them.
Tear down the billboard. . . we'll just put on our thinking caps and get more in-your-face next round.
It's half the fun of being godless!

Seriously though, the billboard came down because in the popular view atheism is a deeply immoral position. To the unthinking sheeple that sign might as well have read: "Imagine raping toddlers."

Sigh. . . We'll win someday, but not tomorrow, and not next week.

Then we can get SERIOUSLY immoral! MWAHAHAHAHA!

Other Comments by Evilcor

37. Comment #288867 by j.mills on November 22, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Yeah, the billboard company had presumably entered into a contract anyway, and what gives a company the right to disregard the First Amendment, regardless of what the local minister thinks?

Sent my missive through the link in BrandySpears' post. In case anyone wants to nick my material:

I was saddened to read of your city's action in pressuring for the removal of the "Imagine No Religion" billboard, placed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. There could scarcely be a more inoffensive way of inviting people to consider the worth of religious beliefs. Yet even these three words (from one of the world's favourite songs) were apparently regarded as too threatening by those of insecure faith in Rancho Cucamonga.

Your action does more to discredit religion than the billboard itself ever could. The First Amendment of the US Constitution and the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, instruments you should be proud to uphold, appear to have been disregarded in order to protect the weak-minded sensibilities of the religious townsfolk.

I am not a citizen of California, nor even of the USA; I live thousands of miles away in the UK. This should indicate how much damage you do to the reputation of your city by such a squalid response to a legitimate and overdue exercise of free speech. I hope you will find the grace and good sense to apologise for this mistake and arrange to have the billboard reinstated.

Other Comments by j.mills

38. Comment #288868 by black wolf on November 22, 2008 at 2:49 pm

iType,
I respectfully disagree. I have read testimonies from former believers who said they needed that exact sort of jarring message to shake them free from their cozy slumber in false assumptions.
The message 'Why believe in a god? - be good for goodness' sake' was called hateful and a sign of the beginning of large scale persecutions by Christians. There is no slogan, no possible message that they can and will not twist into something negative to remove from sight.

The only message they will not denounce as anything from 'jarring' to 'strident' to 'hateful' is the following:







.

Other Comments by black wolf

39. Comment #288869 by jabber on November 22, 2008 at 2:52 pm

i was woken up early one sunday morning (very early), having finished work at a care home the previous night after midnight. It was amplified tannoy speech and music. The New River of Life was to be inaugerated later that morning - and, in true Rock Concert tradition was TESTING...TESTING...TESTING..WON..TOOOO...TheREE..
That was bad enough; but i drew the line when they started balancing their channels with slappy-happy Mary Hopkin guitar and tambourine music. I tried to be liberal about it, i closed all my windows, i drew my duvet over my head yet, not only could i hear the music, i could feel it through my matress. Enraged and tired, I leapt out of my bower and perused my cd collection...and spent some time preparing a cunning plan. I thought, is this Christian consideration ? - as a non-believer, i was being forced to hear their appalling platitudes and music, i could not escape...that is the nature of abuse.

When the congregation had arrived, and the first song was announced (they were holding this in their spiritual garden, not inside the newly built church) i powered up my amp, placed my large (and rather gorgeous) speakers on my 6th floor balcony, and raised their consciousness with "Sweet Transvestite" from Rocky Horror. The spokesman then had the bloody hippocritcal nerve to use my behaviour as an illustration of how the ungodly are so selfish they won't allow believers the freedom to worship in whatever way they choose - i had a lovely morning sharing s selction of songs from First Nudie Musical (Lesbian, Butch Dyke; Perversion; Song of the Dancing Dildos et al). Most of my neighbours shared my humour, and they too put on their fravouirte music (its a council estate, so i think they kinda missed the point of what i was doing, nevertheless, they joined in.). The service had to resume inside the Church and peace was restored to 'this happy breed'.

Other Comments by jabber

40. Comment #288870 by Diacanu on November 22, 2008 at 2:53 pm

DarwinsPitbull-

You expect them to lose money because of group of people who want to make a statement?

Nope, not at all.
Dense as usual.

I'm saying if that's the game, find a political/business end-run around them, and don't feel bad about doing so.

Conservatives beat us over the head all day with with "Entitlement! Entitlement! Entitlement!", but business feels entitled to profit, or to even exist, when in true pure capitalism, neither are true.

Fuck 'em.
Business isn't sacred.
Money is just a technology, not holy life force,
and a business is only as good as how it serves it's clientel.
They're a means, not an end.

Other Comments by Diacanu

41. Comment #288872 by Ivan The Not So Bad on November 22, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Comment#288866 by Evilcor

....it [the billboard] might as well have read "Imagine Raping Toddlers".

That would be a slogan advertising the Roman Catholic church.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

42. Comment #288873 by DarwinsPitbull on November 22, 2008 at 2:59 pm

J mills

Yeah, the billboard company had presumably entered into a contract anyway, and what gives a company the right to disregard the First Amendment, regardless of what the local minister thinks?

Freedom of speech does not apply in business. If you walk into your job and say you hate jews and muslims, then you boss has every right to fire you even though you are using your freedom of speech. But with this billboard company, they also have the right to take something down if they find that it is insulting people. Now we all know its not really insulting anyone but that doesn't matter. If the company is repeatedly getting phone calls by either regular people or other clients of theirs, then they have choice of either keep pissing off people and lose money in the process, or just take it down. Now I don't know what the contract they had with this billboard company is. If for example the contract said they had to keep the sign up for 2 weeks and charge x amount for it, then the billboard company owes those people a refund, unless there was some clause that said if people find the sign offensive they have the right to take it down and not offer a refund.

But like someone else mentioned, the best thing to do is just buy a billboard or something like it so that people can complain all they want but they won't have to take it down because its not a business.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

43. Comment #288874 by j.mills on November 22, 2008 at 3:00 pm

iType said:

Comment by Judy Rooze, "I understand people have freedom of speech, but this is taking it too far," she said. "It's very jarring."

I think this comment is an insight to the counter-productive nature of FFRF's approach. Church going families, FFRF's target audience here, have been further alienated by FFRF.

Au contraire, it is Judy Rooze and her ilk who are plainly wrong to take offence at this innocuous sign, and further wrong to think that their invented offence takes precedence over other people's right to free speech. The correct response is not to 'tone it down' (how could you??), it's to tell them they are wrong.

Other Comments by j.mills

44. Comment #288875 by iType on November 22, 2008 at 3:06 pm

black wolf,

I don't disagree with your point. I guess my point is use the most effective strategy in any given situation, whatever that may be. I this case I am questioning the effectiveness of FFRF's approach given one small church had the power to call for the billboard's premature demise. Did FFRF's dollars really make any difference? Maybe, IMO probably not.

Other Comments by iType

45. Comment #288876 by mordacious1 on November 22, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Private businesses may discriminate under certain conditions. They cannot do business across state lines, that includes receiving, in this case, any of their billboard material from another state. Also, only if the particular state does not have anti-discrimination laws in its constitution. Plus, if they allow a christian group to post a billboard and that group claims a federal tax deduction then they may have problems.

For example, I can start a Bob Jones University and not allow gays, jews, blacks, or anyone else I choose to enroll. But if the school does any interstate commerce or expects federal help, then forget it.

I think a lawsuit would be successful in this case because it is very difficult to avoid these federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

DP- it doesn't matter if it is a private company and would lose money, they must follow the law or be liable.

Other Comments by mordacious1

46. Comment #288878 by Eshto on November 22, 2008 at 3:15 pm

@eellerto:

"Eshto,

I was totally being sarcastic. I love Yoga, but I do hate patchouli, and I do cringe when they say some of the ridiculous crap in there. I am a neuroscientist, so when I hear things like, "Breath through the right nostril to invigorate your left hemisphere" (I kind of made that up, but I have heard similar absurdities), I cringe."

Do you ever watch Mad TV? There was an episode once where the yoga instructor was saying even crazier things, and most of them were sexual.

"Now, stretch to the right and let your nipples face west."

"That's right, now breathe deeply through your anus."

Other Comments by Eshto

47. Comment #288879 by j.mills on November 22, 2008 at 3:19 pm

iType said:

Did FFRF's dollars really make any difference? Maybe, IMO probably not.

Well, hard to measure, but both the city and the billboard company have now had e-mails from yours truly. :) Maybe worldwide disdain will be something they take note of. (There were only 90 complaints originally - a lot in a small town, no doubt, but easy to outnumber if we all put fingers to keyboard...)

Other Comments by j.mills

48. Comment #288880 by iType on November 22, 2008 at 3:19 pm

j.mills,

"Au contraire, it is Judy Rooze and her ilk who are plainly wrong to take offence at this innocuous sign..."

I don't think it is 'wrong', I might take offence at a sign that says 'believe in Jesus', anyway, their offence did take precendence over FFRF's contract with the billboard company, that is the reality of what happened. It would be interesting to here people's opinions of a possibly more effective approach to de-converting the religious, and I agree that sometimes a confrontational approach is the best in some circumstances.

Other Comments by iType

49. Comment #288881 by Titania on November 22, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Has anyone done a study on how many cucas reside in Cucamonga?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuca_(folklore)

Ok, I really am leaving to out to dinner now.

Other Comments by Titania

50. Comment #288883 by Evilcor on November 22, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Ivan:

Statua rapina toddlers.

I can't find "toddlers" in the English/Latin dictionary. :(

Other Comments by Evilcor