Dueling Billboards

To be equally unfair, we already know why Christians hate America.

So, atheists hate America? Damn, I wish someone had told me that before I went and signed up in the military to serve my country. Amazing how people found that last billboard offensive, but this one is just fine and dandy.

And yet we’re the ones with no morals?

JimboB

If it said “Why do racists hate America?” it would be up forever. Why? Because we all hate racist ideology. Atheism is ALSO an ideology. Atheists are CONSTANTLY saying that atheism is a lack of a deeply held religious belief. Thus, there is no religion or re;igious organization that can rightly claim offense at the sign. Atheism is nebulous at best and stands for nothing that approaches the depth of religion. That is why people will always be able to make claims like this without fear of any type of defamation being brought against them. Even more, I’d love to know what standard you’re appealing to when you say it is wrong to say something like this. Are you just offended on a personal level or is it fundamentally wrong? If it IS fundamentally wrong, how is that determined?

In the spirit of offensive, irrational, sweeping rhetoric: “Why do Christians hate the First Amendment?” False logic may be employed to translate “the First Amendment” into “the Constitution”, and further to “America” or “freedom”. By golly, these monsters could be living next door!

I hope that the FFRF will be taking this to court.

Hey dueling billboards are better than pistols at dawn!

If it said “Why do racists hate America?” it would be up forever.

Perhaps, but it’d still be wrong. There’s no connection between being racist and hating America. I despise racism and bigotry, but that doesn’t mean I feel any need to lob ridiculous non sequiturs at racists.

Because we all hate racist ideology. Atheism is ALSO an ideology.

In the only valid point in your entire post, you correctly point out that there’s a difference between atheism and race. You’ve effectively countered JimboB’s point; if you’d stopped talking right there, you’d have been on solid ground.

Atheists are CONSTANTLY saying that atheism is a lack of a deeply held religious belief.

Well yes, that is the dictionary definition of atheism. I can’t imagine what your point is.

Thus, there is no religion or religious organization that can rightly claim offense at the sign.

Are religions the only group that are allowed to claim offense suddenly? Atheists are a group of people; that fact is undeniable. You can make a group of people out of anything – “pasta chefs” or “teachers,” for instance. If a billboard said, “Why do teachers hate America?” that would be rightly offensive to teachers. I’m not sure what you think religion has to do with such things.

Atheism is nebulous at best and stands for nothing that approaches the depth of religion. That is why people will always be able to make claims like this without fear of any type of defamation being brought against them.

Actually, the reason people can make claims like that without fear of reprisal is because this country is 80% Christian and largely unsympathetic to alternate world views. It has nothing to do with how “deep” you think religion is, another non sequitur which has no bearing on whether or not anyone should be offended by this billboard.

Even more, I’d love to know what standard you’re appealing to when you say it is wrong to say something like this. Are you just offended on a personal level or is it fundamentally wrong? If it IS fundamentally wrong, how is that determined?

Of course it’s not wrong. Nedd’s an asshole, no question, but he has a First Amendment right to put up billboards asking silly questions. This billboard doesn’t actually offend me, but even if it did, Nedd would still have a right to do it. If I put up a billboard that said, “Christians believe stupid things,” the billboard company might react much as this one did, but the government wouldn’t step in and stop me. It works both ways.

Anyway, I don’t remember anyone saying it was wrong, but have fun attacking that strawman.

In the manner of the classic “Have you stopped beating your wife?” loaded question, this billboard asserts the lie that Christianists wish were true: that patriotism is dependent upon religion. Many of us can testify from personal experience that this is most definitely not the case.

Atheists do not hate America.

We do, however, hate liars—particularly the ones who libel us without provocation, without facts, and without honor.

This is one of those moments where I think, “I wish I was surprised by this.”

The Chambersburg, PA, chamber of commerce can be reached at

chamber@chambersburg.org

What’s funny is that whenever I’ve heard “Why do(es) X hate America?” it’s always been as a joking parody of what right wingers say. I never thought that I’d ever see the question be asked in earnest.

I Like Tea,

Taking apart what a person says sentence by sentence as if they are all separate arguments unto themselves is a defeatist way of approaching a debate. Claims that my argument makes sense is also not a statement of fact, rather one of opinion.

For the record, given that “All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” if you are a racist you, in affect HATE America. Now, one could, of course, argue that when the DOI and Constitution were written they were written mainly by and for land-owning white males who did not view other races, especially African-Americans as actual people. We would deem this to be racist. But, since modern Americans (and lawmakers) view these as living, breathing documents, they are often interpreted in light of current understandings and sentiments. Thus, one can make the claim that though racists are protected by the documents, the documents themselves convict them of being anti-American at their core. What could be pointed to, I suppose, in the case of atheists is that they appeal to a document that, at the very least, acknowledged the existence of a god (“Creator”). So, to deny the existence of this god is to deny the one who has endowed you with the unalienable rights spoken of in the document. Thus, to not believe in this god is to, in affect, HATE America. One can claim that some of the Founding Fathers were deistic in their outlook–believing in God, but only as much as they needed to. Still, the fact remains, they DID believe in a god and appealed to him as an authority for the document upon which this nation is founded.

You said that you could not understand why I would give the dictionary definition of atheism. The reason was given in the very next sentence. If, in fact, atheists and atheism are a nebulous group, then there is no fear of more than annoying protest rather than a real danger of attack. And while you can throw around numbers like “80% Christian” that number does not account for those who have a nominal Christian view, those who only believe twice a year (Christmas & Easter), those who only consider themselves Christian because it is, as you say, the dominant view. Yes, Christianity is the dominant view in the country. But, whether it is TRUE Christianity is up for serious debate. (Barna Research Group is a wonderful resources for statistics on Christians in America and what many of them actually believe practice.) However, I think we could both agree that it might be a combination of the two. On the one hand, atheists are always gathering here and trying to figure out ways they can be more vocal, visibile, and help each other out (kinda like a church without the dogma). So, in that sense, atheism is nebulous. The church obviously isn’t discussing this kind of thing because they’re pretty organized at this point. But, the fact that many people claim Christianity or some belief in a deity certainly must play into the fact that a sign that supposes atheists are anti-American can be displayed with little to no fanfare.

But, moving to the question of right and wrong. When discussing right and wrong, we’re not discussing someone’s Constitutional rights. That is a matter of legal versus illegal. If we keep it there, certainly what is being done is within their legal rights granted by the American government. But, when what are those laws based upon? You have appealed to an authority, namely American government to decide right or wrong in this matter. Is right and wrong then a culturally constructed and understood event? What happens when two views clash, such as Communism versus democracy? Communism, in world history, has generally been atheistic. So has socialism (for the most part). But, as free democratic Americans we have abhorred this outlook. To what do we appeal when considering right and wrong for this matter. Christians will appeal to God. This, I freely admit, must seem like a pie-in-the-sky trump card to someone who does not believe in God and can lead to a slippery slope for those who want God to say what they want him to say. History is full of these episodes. Be that as it may, it is an authority which nothing else can be behind–it is final. To what can and does an atheist appeal to? Right now, it seems all you have is government and culture. Is this a fair assessment? If not, please clarify for me what authority is appealed to in matters like this to say, “Nedd is an asshole.”

C.E. Moore,

Your post is fairly long-winded and I am unsure about all the points it is trying to make. Being verbose is good, when it serves a point. This just looked like rambling. You know why I’m going to take one sentence out of your post and reply to it? Because you wrote 150 other ones that are, at best, tangential.

So, to deny the existence of this god is to deny the one who has endowed you with the unalienable rights spoken of in the document. Thus, to not believe in this god is to, in affect, HATE America.

Well, the DOI has no bearing, whatsoever, on American law. So, actually, when I deny the existence of the god of the DOI, all I’m doing is saying that I don’t think inalienable rights came from a Creator, and that inalienable rights don’t need to come from a Creator to be inalienable.

PS. Are you serious?!

C.E. Moore:

However, I notice that you did not disagree with the argument in regards to racism but you did disagree in terms atheism. Why is that? Is this not a false dichotomy?

Cautious didn’t engage that part of the discussion. Are you mistaking Cautious for another poster here, or do you take uninvolvement in portions of a discussion as tacit agreement?

For example, I notice that you did not disagree with the billboard’s loaded, bigoted question “Why do atheists hate America”? Do you agree that it’s loaded, and/or bigoted? Why have you not stepped up to condemn this attack by a co-religionist on the good name of innocent and patriotic atheists nationwide? Surely this reflects poorly on you. Or do you agree with the tactics and or position of the good Bishop Council?

Still, the fact remains, they DID believe in a god and appealed to him as an authority for the document upon which this nation is founded.

No, they didn’t. The document upon which this nation is founded is the Constitution, which appeals to no authority aside from people. The DoI didn’t found any nation.

Ben,

The DOI is the founding document of the United States. With it, we declared our nationhood and independence from England. Historical fact. Also, most of the Founding Generation did, in fact, believe in a personal God and that Jesus is his Son. Here is a great resource to look at this more in depth. The Consitution is the supreme law of the land. You’re wrong. Period.

However, you are correct on your second post. They are two different questions. But they are directly correlated. They are both appealing to something outside of themselves to claim their view is right and the other person’s/nation’s is wrong. Violence won’t prove which view is superior. It will prove who has more guns. And if right and wrong are determined by ‘thinking subjects’ values and how actions affect those values’ how could we blame the Nazis for what they did? We could no more blame them for what they did than for the fact they had blue eyes. Who care if they impose their will and values on others if their beliefs dictate to them that it is ok. By going to war with them we were making a moral statement based on some ideology or belief outside of ourselves (or the fact that we didn’t like having our shipyard at Pearl Harbor bombed). Either way, we believed something had happened was wrong. Otherwise, we should have just shrugged our shoulders at World War II and 9-11. They’re not wrong. They just hold an opinionr or value we disagree with on a purely personal level.

I question what was created by the DOI, then? We celebrate every 4th of July as the day America declared its independence from GB and called itself the United States of America. I’m not exactly sure what your definition is. And in fact, so long as we remain a sovereign nation, the DOI is in effect. The nation might not look the same, but it still exists. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it is the law of a land created by the DOI.

You are correct in stating that no Supreme Being is cited in the Constitution. 1) It didn’t NEED to be. They had already done so in the DOI. 2) An absence of a Creator in the Constitution does not suppose the Founding Generation had stopped beleiving in one. In fact, if you look at the exhibit cited earlier, you will find most of the Founding Generation were very vocal about their faith, in both political and personal word and deed.

And when it comes to the opinion of man versus the decree of God, we are talking about finite belief versus eternal statement. I never supposed there was not some thinking being behind morality. Quite the contrary. The fact is, God is a final authority for morality. It can be appealed to and there need be nothing beyond it because God is final. When you eliminate God from the equation you are left with competing views and no authority to appeal to in order to make a case for right and wrong.

Basically, I could shoot you in the face and no one could say I was wrong. They could say they weren’t agreeable to it, that it is illegal, that most of the world disagrees with that kind of behavior, but they couldn’t say it was wrong. Obviously, I WON’T shoot you in the face. I have too much going for me to be another African-American behind bars. But, in Nazi Germany in World War II and Rwanda in the 90’s and the Republic of Congo and the Sudan and right now, there is nothing to be rightly condemned–only personally disagreed with. Basically, you have no moral ground to stand on as an atheist. You might act morally and actually BE moral. But, you have nothing you can point to as an authority to say that you must be this way or that it is right to act as you are acting.

In fact, if you look at the exhibit cited earlier, you will find most of the Founding Generation were very vocal about their faith, in both political and personal word and deed.

Oh, please. It’s a load of selective quoting from G.W.’s theocratic wing. I notice they make no mention of the Treaty with Tripoli, signed 1796, passed unanimously, and printed in full in major newspapers without any controversy or angry letters to the editor. “As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” As a signed treaty, it was equal to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. You would have to modify your position to one where the DoI, being the foundation of the government of the United States, was not in any sense based on the Christian religion – that the God mentioned is not the Christian God.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html

And when it comes to the opinion of man versus the decree of God, we are talking about finite belief versus eternal statement.

Oh, really? Hypothetical: My son is not listening to me. He is out later than he should be, disobeying my rules. Therefore I pick up some rocks and start striking him in the head with them. He reels and begins screaming. I keep striking him until he is silent and dead. Did I do wrong?

If you need more details on the hypothetical before you answer, ask.

The fact is, God is a final authority for morality. It can be appealed to and there need be nothing beyond it because God is final. When you eliminate God from the equation you are left with competing views and no authority to appeal to in order to make a case for right and wrong.

When you cite an authoritarian basis for morality, you lose any connection with morality being tied to human self-interests like health, life, freedom, or well-being. Another hypothetical:

Five seconds in the future, God simultaneously appears to every human and every other sentient being in the Universe. He says “I created the Universe, all that is in it, and the Grunjigar race to occupy it. Some other creatures have begun occupying their universe. Any species other than the Grunjigar race is evil and flawed; they should all be exterminated. It is right and proper that all individuals in races other than the Grunjigar should begin killing all non-Grunjigar individuals without delay.”

God, the supreme authority, has now made his wishes clearly known. Heck, he repeats the message and convinces every sentient being in the universe that he is God, creator and authority over the universe.

Will you begin slaughtering your neighbors, your family, etc.?

Basically, you have no moral ground to stand on as an atheist. You might act morally and actually BE moral. But, you have nothing you can point to as an authority to say that you must be this way or that it is right to act as you are acting.

Conversely, as a subscriber to authoritarian morality, you have completely divorced morality from being tied to any human self-interest. Saying ‘but X would be unnecessarily hurt by this action’ is no argument against an authoritarian based morality. You might act morally and actually be moral, but you are actually amoral, and are just following orders that could just as easily hurt people as help them.

In our humble opinion, morals and values do not exist except in the human mind. They are a construct, and it’s our job, as humans, to build them, agree upon them, and punish people who break them.

And I would add: and continue to work to improve them, including arguing over whether their validity is justified, and whether or not it has positive and verifyable results in minimizing harm.

C.E. Moore: As for the feminism thing, Christianity in its TRUE form, understanding the historical backdrop from which it stemmed, it is meant to be extremely liberating for women. Some have gone out of their way to deny this, but historically, for the most part, it has been very liberating for women.

I completely lost the thread of the main discussion as I spent the last half-hour trying to wrap my mind around this. Wow, just wow.
Might we find True Christianity in the same place as True Scotsmen?

Yeah. Interesting that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other founders of the women’s suffrage movement didn’t think so highly of the “liberation” Christianity provided to women. Sheesh.

nice to see bigotry is still allowed……..::sigh::

C.E.Moore –

As for the feminism thing, Christianity in its TRUE form, understanding the historical backdrop from which it stemmed, it is meant to be extremely liberating for women. Some have gone out of their way to deny this, but historically, for the most part, it has been very liberating for women

this is utterly true – of course, it’s entirely dependant on selective interpretation of vast swathes of the bible, pretending that christian authoritative systems don’t really work they way they actually do, and ignoring the way that christianity has been practically implemented over history. with that in mind, i could legitimately argue that ‘True Islam’ is the religion most likely to support feminism.

let’s face it, mass organised religions are not places for historical (and mostly even contemporary) equality of sexes. even buddhism, one of the least objectionable mainstream religions, has it’s dirty little secrets when it comes to treating woman as the ‘lesser’ sex. by all means, try to change this status with your denomination, but you are doing everyone, including yourself, a disservice by pretending it’s not so.

Basically, you have no moral ground to stand on as an atheist. You might act morally and actually BE moral. But, you have nothing you can point to as an authority to say that you must be this way or that it is right to act as you are acting.

is it worth pointing out that unless you can prove absolutely that there really is a god, and that further, you can prove absolutely that such a god is definitely the god of your chosen religion, any and all moral values stemming from that belong in a box marked wishful thinking/majority interpretation of the time? hmmm.

Ben, i was thinking more of a god showing up and proving that my existing moral structure was entirely derived from him/her/it, not changing mine to fit. the reason for my ponderance on the worthiness of pointing it out was that until a theist can prove that such a being exists, they’re in exactly the same boat as a non-theist in matters of morality…as a deity cannot be proved either way, i’m not convinced that an argument of holding the moral high ground because you believe you have an invisible friend necessarily deserved an answer…

I wrote the Bishop Nedd and informed him that I don’t hate my country and in fact I served my country in the Air Force for 7 years. I also told him he might want to get to know an Atheist, before he makes statements like this. I’ll let you know if he replies.

Holy crap. That’s my home town. Reason I hate central Pennsylvania #2,492.

Utterly deranged. Thanx for the update.

I have one thing to say..if I could create a billboard and stick it up right next to an atheist billboard it would read…

PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE YOURSELF TO AN ANIMAL. ANIMALS ARE SMARTER. THEY BELIEVE IN GOD.

by the way, when you face him one day and try to explain to him that you are too “intellectual”to believe in him…you will too.

The best intellect is wisdom. Wisdom is intellect that speaks from truth. Truth is truth, not opinion or theory. Truth is truth. And the TRUTH IS that GOD IS. PERIOD.!

None of this surprises me, look at the balckmail and extortion the Catholic Church is conducting in Washington D.C. :

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/catholic-church-wading-outright-lobbying-critics/