War on Christmas

[Ravi]

YES!!! Post #1,000 is mine.

Give it up, people. I've won the war on Xmas.

 

[catzmeow]

YES!!! Post #1,000 is mine.

Give it up, people. I've won the war on Xmas.

Sucka MC. DENIED.

On topic:
Give it a rest, people. IT DOESN'T MATTER if the advertising space is publicly or privately owned, if they accept religious advertising, they have to accept ANTI-religious advertising. Just because it offends your little baby Jesus loving hearts, them's the facts. They cannot apply one standard to one group, and a different standard to another group just because the Christians can't bear to see a message critical of their beliefs. They'd get sued and it would cost everyone in your city money.

So, avert your eyes if you must. That's what the grownups do.

 

[KittenKoder]

YES!!! Post #1,000 is mine.

Give it up, people. I've won the war on Xmas.

LOL ... sorry to post faster.

 

[Ravi]

LOL ... sorry to post faster.

Damn it! The post count in on the page tally is different than the actual post count.

I smell a plot.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sucka MC. DENIED.

On topic:
Give it a rest, people. IT DOESN'T MATTER if the advertising space is publicly or privately owned, if they accept religious advertising, they have to accept ANTI-religious advertising. Just because it offends your little baby Jesus loving hearts, them's the facts. They cannot apply one standard to one group, and a different standard to another group just because the Christians can't bear to see a message critical of their beliefs. They'd get sued and it would cost everyone in your city money.

So, avert your eyes if you must. That's what the grownups do.

Er..no, they don't. It's up to the people who own the space. If they want to rent to religious advertisers, then choose not to rent space to anti-Christian idiots, that's their privilege and their right.

 

[KittenKoder]

Damn it! The post count in on the page tally is different than the actual post count.

I smell a plot.

Oooh ... a new conspiracy?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I wasn't aware those God billboards were on private property.

Yes. Billboards are private property. Typically, they are owned by a private company, which rents them out for the ads that go up on them. In my city, virtually all the billboards are owned by ClearChannel Communications.

If a 'Believe in a god' type bus ad were proposed to the city, I'd think the city would have to rent out the space for this message as well. Are you upset over the message or because the message is on city property or both? Should either one of these types of messages even be on city property? Is there a rule for separation of non-church and state?

I find the message juvenile and childishly offensive, taken out primarily for the purpose of picking a fight and being unpleasant to people the advertisers dislike. It's the advertisement version of a teenager using foul language at the Thanksgiving table just to get a rise out of his parents. And I find the city's response suspicious and self-servingly hypocritical, insofar as I don't think for a second that they would feel any of the same pompous "commitment to the First Amendment" if the situation were reversed.

I don't think the city should accept either ad, frankly. I think a true commitment to the First Amendment, not to mention public decency and the needs of ALL its constituents, would require the city to say, "We're not in the business of taking ads for the purpose of being offensive." If the American Humanist Association wants a recruitment ad, then I have no problem with them buying space on the buses to say, "Join the American Humanist Association", and if a church wants to put up a recruitment ad, I have no problem with one that says, "Come to [fill in the blank] church." Ads for the purpose of picking a fight don't belong on public, taxpayer-funded property.

Yup, my guess is that they did it to spark controversy and draw attention. Their ad people are pretty clever because they've succeeded in doing just that.

Which doesn't make it any less contemptible.

 

[sky dancer]

Billboard power!

http://www.moreinspiration.com/Innovation.aspx?id=2009

 

[Cecilie1200]

Good point. I wonder who owns those buses that have the advertising.

BTW, what does *rae* mean?

I believe the story said that DC Metro is actually a city-run proposition. Not all city bus systems are subsidized by taxpayer money, but I think most are. I know my own city was forced to take over the bus system in order to keep it running, because the previous managers ran it into the ground.

Either way, though, I still find the whole sententious "First Amendment" thing to be highly suspect, and most likely hypocritical bullshit, because I really doubt they'd feel any compulsion to accept an ad that was diametrically opposite.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sucka MC. DENIED.

On topic:
Give it a rest, people. IT DOESN'T MATTER if the advertising space is publicly or privately owned, if they accept religious advertising, they have to accept ANTI-religious advertising. Just because it offends your little baby Jesus loving hearts, them's the facts. They cannot apply one standard to one group, and a different standard to another group just because the Christians can't bear to see a message critical of their beliefs. They'd get sued and it would cost everyone in your city money.

So, avert your eyes if you must. That's what the grownups do.

Yeah, except DENIED! No one ever said they DO accept religious advertising, much less religious advertising deliberately aimed at being insulting and offensive to others. That's the entire question, and one you're trying to dodge by pretending YOU are the one in the position to be outraged about double standards.

Talk to me about "what grownups do" when an ad goes up claiming that all atheists are going to Hell. Or, for that matter, talk to me about averting your eyes like a grownup on any of the numerous occasions that atheists have felt compelled to sue simply because Christians DARED to put something religious where their tender eyes had to encounter it. Put a manger scene on public property, and see how "grownup" the atheists are about "averting their eyes". THAT is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and it's not even an insult. But take out an ad that's the verbal equivalent of slapping Christians in the face, and we get these hypocritical, self-righteous lectures about "grownups" and "tolerance".

Spare me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Er..no, they don't. It's up to the people who own the space. If they want to rent to religious advertisers, then choose not to rent space to anti-Christian idiots, that's their privilege and their right.

Actually, I think private advertisers can be sued for discriminating on the basis of religion, just like they can for refusing solely on the basis of race.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Yeah, except DENIED! No one ever said they DO accept religious advertising, much less religious advertising deliberately aimed at being insulting and offensive to others. That's the entire question, and one you're trying to dodge by pretending YOU are the one in the position to be outraged about double standards.

Religious advertising? More like anti-religious advertising.

Talk to me about "what grownups do" when an ad goes up claiming that all atheists are going to Hell. Or, for that matter, talk to me about averting your eyes like a grownup on any of the numerous occasions that atheists have felt compelled to sue simply because Christians DARED to put something religious where their tender eyes had to encounter it. Put a manger scene on public property, and see how "grownup" the atheists are about "averting their eyes". THAT is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and it's not even an insult. But take out an ad that's the verbal equivalent of slapping Christians in the face, and we get these hypocritical, self-righteous lectures about "grownups" and "tolerance".

Spare me.

I didn't see this bus ad as a 'slapping Christians in the face'. It attemped to do this but missed the mark. Don't misunderstand -- I believe these billboards were deliberately worded to spark controversy but as a Christian, I don't feel like I was slapped in the face. Why? Because of the wording -- 'don't believe in a god'. Had it said 'don't believe in God', then yes I'd feel slapped in the face and much more. I don't believe in 'a god' I believe in 'God' - big difference. Offensive? Sure . . .but I still think they have the right to run the ad.

 

[KittenKoder]

Religious advertising? More like anti-religious advertising.



I didn't see this bus ad as a 'slapping Christians in the face'. It attemped to do this but missed the mark. Don't misunderstand -- I believe these billboards were deliberately worded to spark controversy but as a Christian, I don't feel like I was slapped in the face. Why? Because of the wording -- 'don't believe in a god'. Had it said 'don't believe in God', then yes I'd feel slapped in the face and much more. I don't believe in 'a god' I believe in 'God' - big difference. Offensive? Sure . . .but I still think they have the right to run the ad.

You have got to be one of the strangest (not in a bad way) christians I have seen on here. This is not an insult, strange is far more interesting than normal. But THAT is a good point which even I missed, and I pride myself on trying to see all sides of an argument.


SNOW! It's SNOWING HERE!

Sorry, just looked out my window. Anyhoo ... when people take offense at something it's usually because they want an excuse to attack it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

when people take offense at something it's usually because they want an excuse to attack it.

Or maybe because they find it offensive.

 

[KittenKoder]

Or maybe because they find it offensive.

The problem with offense is that it requires having little confidence in the standing of your own belief, logic, or self. So perhaps they did, but still it doesn't make taking offense a good thing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I didn't see this bus ad as a 'slapping Christians in the face'. It attemped to do this but missed the mark. Don't misunderstand -- I believe these billboards were deliberately worded to spark controversy but as a Christian, I don't feel like I was slapped in the face. Why? Because of the wording -- 'don't believe in a god'. Had it said 'don't believe in God', then yes I'd feel slapped in the face and much more. I don't believe in 'a god' I believe in 'God' - big difference. Offensive? Sure . . .but I still think they have the right to run the ad.

Amazingly enough, I don't see any reason to be forgiving of their attempt to be offensive simply because they did it badly. I'm willing to give them credit for intent. And I think they chose that wording in order to be offensive to ALL religions, not just Christians, so that doesn't exactly cut any ice with me, either.

And why is it that people always insist on meaninglessly reverting to "They had a right!" Who said they didn't? Who even implied it? They have every right to take out any ad they can get people to accept. The city even has the right to accept it, I suppose, provided they ARE, in fact, willing to accept the same ad in reverse from religious groups.

My criticism comes from two things. One, I don't believe the city IS willing to accept the same ad in reverse from a religious group, which makes them hypocritical and also in violation of the law. Second, I don't think it's a good idea for the city to accept such ads, legal or not, because I don't think it's a prudent choice for a government agency to put itself in the position of offending taxpayers. I think it behooves them to remain as neutral as possible.

There's a big difference between "I have the right" and "It's a good idea".

 

[KittenKoder]

If all choices were based only on "it's a good idea" then nothing would ever get done. While I agree that it was an attack on all our religions, if we go after their freedom of speech then it will begin to snowball like many of our laws have. Remember when food use to taste good anyone? We can't start down that slippery slope, it will end up bad. Just like all things people don't like, the more you attack it the more power you give the message.

 

[KittenKoder]

Gotta find out why this keeps double posting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was thinking about this just the other day while I was shopping. I typically wish the cashier at the store "Merry Christmas" as I collect my bags and leave, and have noticed increasingly every year how startled and surprised they appear to be when I do so. I find this very sad.

I don't wish people a Merry Christmas because I'm trying to be in anyone's face, or because I'm assuming that everyone celebrates Christmas (although apparently over 90% of the US population DOES celebrate Christmas, either as a religious or a secular holiday). I wish them a Merry Christmas because that happens to be the holiday I celebrate. If someone wants to wish me a Happy Chanukkah or a Happy Ramadan or even a Happy Kwanzaa in return, because that's what THEY celebrate, then I take it in the spirit it's presumably intended.

It is incomprehensible to me that we have turned a simple wish for joy and happiness in the lives of others into a battleground. It's beyond ironic. It's pathetic. How do you get mad over someone wishing you happiness?

 

[Agnapostate]

Must be those demon-possessed witch doctors at the ACLU...they're secular atheists! And Muslims too.