NYC Christian Ads… A New Version January 22, 2010

NYC Christian Ads… A New Version

A couple days ago, I mentioned the Christian ad now up everywhere in New York City:

Vixen Strangely made a few alterations to it to make it more amenable to atheists.

I like the new look!


Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Hehe!

  • I think the most interesting additions are the names of other gods besides just “God is Jesus.”

  • The new version is much more accurate.

  • Love it! I’m particularly fond of “overhyped” and “no excuse for judgementalism.”

  • “A tool of the patriarchy”??

    WTF?

  • TheOnlyChristianOnThisThread

    Is this not vandalism too??

  • Dave B.

    They had me until the “IN UR HEAD” one. There’s plenty of space for the word “your” there. Why can’t people limit these abbreviations to situations where characters are costly in terms of time or space?

    Otherwise, awesome job!

    And OneSTDV – You might not be aware of this, but Christianity is often used to place women in submissive roles. In Islamic nations, women are forced to wear Burqas. Your personal religion may not include a god as a patriarchal tool, but it’s a fact of the world.

  • Dave B.

    TheOnlyChristianOnThisThread –

    It’s not vandalism, as this was done to a digital copy of the ad. None of the physical ads were altered, nor were any online displays of the original image affected.

  • WK

    @TheOnlyChristianOnThisThread:

    If someone downloads a digital copy of the ad then goes into photoshop and alters it for the purpose of parody, that’s fair use and legal.

    If someone spraypaints the above additions onto one of the subway ads, that’s obviously vandalism and illegal.

    There’s a big difference between the two actions.

  • Joseph

    The entire premise of biblical Christianity holds that Eve was created as a “helpmate,” that she is not her own person but intended to aid Man through men only. Talk to evangelicals. You’ll hear all sorts of distasteful quotes like, “Man is the head of the house like Jesus is the head of the church” and so on. Why would ANYONE disagree that religion IS a tool of the patriarchy? For the men uninterested in gender equality, religion is a brilliant scapegoat: the father in the sky with absolute power only shares that with other men.

    Look at how the Roman Catholic Church treats nuns, hiding them away, how so many other Christian denominations restrict women from any sort of church leadership (except something absurd like youth ministry). The Bible is chock full of male insecurity. A lot of its so-called morality was mostly to take back the power of birth, which was previously used by women to secure matriarchal pagan traditions and feminine tribal leadership. The Bible has numerous rules to secure male heirs, whether its determining the property value of women, instructing fathers how to sell their daughters into sexual slavery, or proscribing rapists to marry their victims or for the victims themselves to be stoned. Come on.

  • Hilary

    Dave B, I totally agree about the use of “UR”… excessive and unneeded use of web/text abbreviations is a pet peeve of mine.

    “Hung up on sex” was my favorite addition. It made me giggle…

  • My favorite was the “hung up on sex”, too! Haha!

    And yes, if you want to (try to) control a woman, God is the way to do it. 😛

  • @ Joseph–you are absolutely right. Thanks for having the balls to say it!

  • Sorry about the “IN UR HEAD” part–which is egregiously |33+ of me–I think what I had in mind with that flourish was “I’m in ur head–makings ur moralitees” in a LOLGOD-ish way. But it doesn’t necessarily go with the formality of the other type-faces. And Joseph nails what my “Tool of the Patriarchy” is about–if religion is a human construct, which I definitely think it is, then a lot of it has been used to put down women. “God” is used as a sockpuppet for male authority. I think the double-standard began with it. And also–yeah, this is parody, with a purpose. I don’t mean disrespect, only diversion. I don’t want to insult believers, only have them reexamine their belief (is the unexamined belief worth having?)

  • Dave B.

    The IN UR HEAD thing might be my favorite one now with that explanation.

  • John L.

    Hilarious and the original is still extremely creepy.

  • Matt

    @joseph Well said

  • I think that “Incredible” is the best one. It is there in both images and one meaning is “Too implausible to be credible; beyond belief; unbelievable”.

    well it amused me anyway.

  • Eliza

    The original includes [God is] “Husband to the widow”.

    *head scratch* What is that supposed to mean? God is a strong spiritual support to widows? (Just like husbands are to wives, *snort*?)

    Moving into blasphemous territory which the original ad simply BEGS for, let’s assume that the couple had a stereotypical “traditional marriage” that’s probably prevalent among older Christian couples, does that mean god will be taking care of finances for the widow? Doing the handiwork around the house? Bringing home the paycheck? Expecting dinner on the table at 6pm, meat & potatoes? Having a few beers? Putting his feet up & reading the paper & passing gas while she vacuums under his feet? Taking viagra then wanting sex?

    You know, that is just NOT how I pictured god. This ad has really opened my eyes. 😉

    For anyone interested in Biblical support for misogeny, see 1 Timothy 5, which includes these gems:

    No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

    As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry….Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to….Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.
    …The elders [men, obviously] who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

    But you know who really should be taking care of a widow, Biblically: her brother-in-law, obviously! See Deuteronomy 25 for these gems:

    If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

    However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

    As a side note, Deuteronomy 25 then follows with this even-handed advice:

    If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

    /biblecitationmode

  • littlejohn

    In New York, there’s only one “e” in judgmental. Sorry.