Atheist Billboard Offends Some African-Americans

[rug]

Harrisburg Sign Vandalized, Replaced With Another Billboard

POSTED: 10:40 pm EST March 6, 2012
UPDATED: 3:08 pm EST March 7, 2012

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A billboard designed to criticize the Bible instead offended many African-Americans in the Harrisburg area. The sign was vandalized overnight, and the president of one of the groups that funded it issued an apology.

On Wednesday morning, a Harrisburg Symphony billboard replaced the controversial atheist sign. Lamar Advertising officials said they had to replace the original billboard because of the vandalism.

"I take the concerns of the community seriously. However, we also have to support the First Amendment right for advertisers," Lamar's general manager said.

People at the billboard site on Wednesday said they are happy it has been replaced. But they said the message the atheist sign left behind was so offensive to African-Americans that they are protesting to send a message to everyone that it was a hate crime and is not acceptable.

http://www.wgal.com/news/30624435/detail.html?source=LAN

Video at link.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Just proves that...

it is entirely possible for atheists to be bigger dumbasses than the believers they mock.

[skepticscott]

2. So they were mocking believers

by quoting directly from the Bible? And depicting exactly what the Bible calls for?

[laconicsax]

3. C'mon, scott. Everyone knows that quotation is the crudest form of mockery.

[skepticscott]

14. But also one of the most effective

Since it basically lets people's own beliefs mock them...

[rug]

8. Your Bible must come with pictures.

[rug]

19. The picture, which is the offense, did not come from the Bible.

It was consciously selected and designed into the poster. The selection of the location was then made and paid for by this group. You can not, credibly, blame this stupidity on the Bible.

As to the personal remarks, that's all you.

[ZombieHorde]

59. Are you saying the pro-slavery quote is not offensive? nt

[rug]

61. Your characterization is wrong.

Read the entire passage.

[Deep13]

117. I see, this exerpt is directed toward some other kind of slavery. nt

Last edited Mon Mar 12, 2012, 08:33 PM - Edit history (1)

[rug]

118. It was writte 1800 years before Jamestown.

So yeah.

[Deep13]

120. Wait, really?

The eternal word of God doesn't count anymore? Is it a holy book or not? If not, then what is the problem here? If it is, again, what is the problem here?

And it was written around 60 c.e. Jamestown was founded in 1607, so more like 1550 years.

[rug]

123. "what is the problem here?"

If you think of picture of a 19th century slave is a good way to make superficial and ignorant snark on a billboard, you're going to need a lot more question marks.

[humblebum]

15. Well 2000 years ago, when the book was written, slavery

was common virtually everywhere. And chances are that your ancestors and my ancestors going back to those times were either slave owners, slaves themselves, or directly knew someone involved. To them it was probably quite socially acceptable. So, guess what? You probably have relatives who approved of the practice.

The black community has every right to be offended. The Bible also speaks about setting the captives free. And if you knew anything about American history, you would also know that religion was a major driving force for the abolition movement.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Missing entirely the point...

that if you want to get someone to see things your way (like some local black folks) don't rub their noses into something nasty (like slavery).

If they weren't such dumbasses, they might have guessed that this billboard would have about the same effect on the neighbors as sticking a crucifix up your ass would have on you.

[Warpy]

4. 'Scuse me?

I know people don't like to be reminded what's really in that book they're flogging and using as an idol to symbolize god, but it's often necessary.

I do prefer the educational "good without god" billboards to the confrontational "look at what we found in your holy book" variety, but honestly, I don't see how this could possibly be construed as a slam to anyone but the slaveholders who wrote it.

In any case, the right to go through life unoffended is not a guaranteed right.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Explain that to the people who were offended by it...

it not only brought up the specter of slavery, which no Christian sect supports now, and few did even in Roman times since they often were slaves, but insulted the very people they were trying to convert.

Hence-- dumbasses.

[Warpy]

22. It was less tactful than I would have done

I'd have quoted better parts, like the admonition to kill any of your children who sass you.

However, I've often found that the people most offended by bible quotes are exactly the people who have never read it all the way through.

[Kalidurga]

5. I dare anyone to find a non offensive bible verse.

3/4 of the bible is offensive.

[cbayer]

7. 1 Corinthians 13, 4-7

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

[rug]

9. Matthew 5

3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.

5Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

6Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.

7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.

9Blesses are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God.

[ellisonz]

23. Sure.

Exodus 3 : 7-12

And the LORD said: 'I have surely seen the affliction of My people that are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their pains; 8 and I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. 9 And now, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto Me; moreover I have seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. 10 Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth My people the children of Israel out of Egypt.' 11 And Moses said unto God: 'Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?' 12 And He said: 'Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be the token unto thee, that I have sent thee: when thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.'

[kwassa]

6. O course they were offended.

Put this up in a black neighborhood. Do you think anyone will get past the image used and the title?

[saras]

10. They're not SUPPOSED to GET PAST it. They're supposed to GET it.

That's what the Bible says. That's what people who read the Bible behave like. The fact that there are small numbers of exceptions doesn't stop either generalization from being true AS A GENERALIZATION.

you cannot take the STORIES of the Bible seriously without accepting authoritarian government, up to and including slavery, as legitimate - to do that you have to cherry-pick verses out of context.

I would imagine they used the verse and image for the same reason you'd use the Bible's justifications of mass rape if you were talking about atheism to a feminist.

[kwassa]

11. You don't win people to your cause by insulting them.

If you, as an atheist put up this billboard, you have done a very poor job of achieving your purpose. It shows you have zero sensitivity to the history or feelings of African-Americans.

Some atheists really feel a need to be jerks. I don't know what they expect to get from this, except perhaps greater unpopularity.

[skepticscott]

12. So recognizing and pointing out

that the Bible supports slavery and always has, and that any book or any tradition relying on a book that does so is unworthy of respect, is insulting to African-Americans?

Right. Got it.

[kwassa]

18. no. you don't get it.

Not even close to getting it.

Battle on. Alienate more.

You've been successful so far.

[humblebum]

20. Well if "the Bible supports slavery and always has", then why were the slaves led

out of their bondage in Egypt? And why was it that "all the officials and people who entered into this covenant agreed that they would free their male and female slaves and no longer hold them in bondage? They agreed, and set them free." Jeremiah 34:10

[deacon_sephiroth]

26. I'll see your jerry, and raise ya

Leviticus 25:44-46
Exodus 21:2-6
Exodus 21 -11
Exodus 21:20-21

and no it's not just old testi

Ephesians 6:5
1 Timothy 6:1
Luke 12:47-48

So, you tell me why they went through the trouble of releasing some slaves there since it's advocated, everywhere else. Seems to me, you have a more isolated event, and not a trend.

[humblebum]

27. It was also the norm when the books were written and compiled 2000 or so years ago. And nowhere

did I claim that the Bible did not sanction slavery. The argument is that slavery is advocated everywhere in the Bible, and it is not. And I have shown that. Nonetheless, slavery was the norm in virtually all cultures at that time. Therefore, it is quite natural that slaves would be one of the groups addressed.

I actually know of no prominent Christian denomination that encourages slavery today. The current wave of billboard postings by organized atheist groups is very telling of their motivations and character.

[Goblinmonger]

28. So it's advocated except for Jews.

So is the bible a book of cultural norms of the time or the basis for a current religion? Why do you get to pick what is relevant.

[humblebum]

32. I don't see it as being condoned or not condoned in that era. It was the

generally accepted norm in that day by most societies. That is the simple fact, and that does not translate to today's culture. So to even imply that Christianity today supports slavery is laughable and absurd.

[Goblinmonger]

35. So what can we throw out of the bible and what can't we?

Do you have the official slide rule for that?

[humblebum]

39. You tell me. Last I knew, slavery had been abolished and Christians

are bound to live by the civil law, just like anyone else. When you find a any Christians who own slaves, let me know.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. This is attacking the PA 'Year of the Bible' resolution

It's not meant to be a comment on Christians; it's a comment on the state House of Representatives (that's why they're mentioned on the board, and not 'Christians'), and the bible.

the House of Representatives declare 2012 as the ‘Year of the Bible’ in Pennsylvania in recognition of both the formative influence of the Bible on our Commonwealth and nation and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the holy scriptures.

http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2012/02/controversy_surrounds_pennsylvania039s_year_of_the_bible

Now, I can understand someone who passes the billboard not getting the message - reading the smaller print when you're in a passing car is not easy. There isn't such an excuse when you're participating in a forum discussion, however.

The board is sarcastically pointing out that one of the teachings of the holy scriptures is that slave should obey their masters. 'Paul' (whether the real one or not, I don't know), says this more than once:

Ephesians 6:5-9

New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
Slaves and Masters
5 Slaves, obey your masters here on earth. Respect them and honor them with a heart that is true. Obey them just as you would obey Christ. 6 Don't obey them only to please them when they are watching. Do it because you are slaves of Christ. Be sure your heart does what God wants.

7 Serve your masters with all your heart. Work as if you were not serving people but the Lord. 8 You know that the Lord will give you a reward. He will give to each of you in keeping with the good you do. It doesn't matter whether you are slaves or free.

9 Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. When you warn them, don't be too hard on them. You know that the One who is their Master and yours is in heaven. And he treats everyone the same.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6%3A5-9&version=NIRV

Yes, Christians have reformed since then. But the bible has remained the same, and yet the PA House of Representatives decided to apparently break the 1st Amendment to wholeheartedly commend it to the state.

[humblebum]

84. Two words: not smart. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. The resolution looks close to breaking the 1st amendment

Are you saying the resolution is not smart, or are you saying that defending the separation of church and state is not smart?

[humblebum]

87. It's not a question of 1st amendment rights or Separation of C&S, It's

a question of racial and anti-religious bigotry.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. Why is it bigotry? (nt)

[humblebum]

89. When a very sensitive issue is directed toward a racial group and their religion is also

attacked, what else can it be called?

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. It's about what the bible says, not 'the religion of African Americans'

There isn't a single 'religion of African Americans'. Tell me why quoting the bible is 'bigotry'?

If the picture wasn't used, then it wouldn't be connected with African Americans at all. Is it really that bad to use a picture of the form of slavery that the USA practised to illustrate something that wants to say 'slavery was bad'?

[humblebum]

91. "If the picture wasn't used, then it wouldn't be connected with African Americans" - BUT

the picture WAS used. It was not unintentional. And you are correct, there is no single religion for African-Americans, but in that particular area and across much of the country, it is the majority religion of most Blacks.

So obviously the message was targeted at that specific group. The Bible really neither condones, nor condemns slavery, but portrays it as a part of the culture 2000 years ago. And I really don't know of any major Christian church or denomination that argues for slavery today.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. But you still haven't explained why you apply the term 'bigotry'

It doesn't attempt to say anything about African Americans. Targeting a message to a group (eg an ad for makeup, targeted at women) doesn't make it 'bigotry'. The problem, I think, is that pointing out the irony that the bible tells slaves to obey their masters, and PA politicians have told the state to learn from the bible, doesn't come across well on a billboard. Since you see the large message and picture first, the first (and maybe only) message you get is "'slaves' really should obey their 'masters'".

No, the bible does condone slavery. That's what this verse, and others say - it's OK. It never says it's necessary, but it does say slaves should obey their masters - 1 Timothy 6 says that's especially the case when the masters are Christians, because the masters, being Christians, love their slaves.

[humblebum]

95. It is bigotry in two ways: first, by targeting African Americans with such a

sensitive issue, and portraying the bible condoning slavery when it does not. The Bible would not encourage the freeing of slaves if it did. And there is also the anti-religious bigotry, which is all too obvious.

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. It does condone slavery; in 1 Timothy 6, it says some Christians are slave owners

and their slaves should be especially obedient to them. That is obviously condoning the practice.

I cannot see how talking to African Americans about slavery is 'bigotry'. There is no intolerance; it's agreeing with African Americans (and everyone else in the modern world) that slavery is an evil practice.

I just think you have a kneejerk reaction of 'bigotry!' to criticism that makes you uncomfortable.

[humblebum]

103. No, it is the intentional misrepresentation that makes me uncomfortable. Nowhere does

Scripture encourage slavery. It merely historically validates that it was a universally accepted station in society 2000 years ago. You are applying today's standard to conditions of society 20 centuries or more ago. That is truly disingenuous. Even the Black churches realize that fact, and that's why they take this so personally, and rightfully so. Shameful. Even atheists accepted it as normal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. Do you understand the meaning of 'condone'?

If you say that the bible "historically validates that it was a universally accepted station in society 2000 years ago", then it condones it.

1.
to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2.
to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
3.
to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.
4.
to cause the condonation of.
5.
Law . to forgive or act so as to imply forgiveness of (a violation of the marriage vow).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone

It acknowledges the existence of slavery, tells slaves to obey their masters, and accepts that good Christians owned slaves. It condones slavery.

[humblebum]

109. Nothing was being purposely overlooked at that time. Slavery was

a very normal and accepted part of virtually all cultures 2000 years ago. It was rarely given a second thought.

In the early frontier days of the Old West, scalping one's opponent, or collecting "coup," was considered normal in some Native American cultures. Fortunately today it is not. Would you then condemn observance of Native American culture because of the blood and gore associated with it that existed centuries ago? You should not impose today's standards in trying to understand ancient cultures. It's a farce and it is revisionist history. Black churches understand that and that is why the billboard is so offensive. It is a ridiculously ignorant advertisement.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. "You should not impose today's standards in trying to understand ancient cultures"

So why, as the PA House of Representatives are doing, should you impose the ancient standards of the bible, such as the acceptance of slavery, on today's culture?

[humblebum]

111. I wasn't aware that they were trying to force the acceptance of slavery on anyone.

Last I knew, it was still illegal.

[cleanhippie]

112. Your intentional obtuseness has become very boorish.

Please, just stop.

[humblebum]

113. Excuse me!? You seem to be engaged in exactly that. However,

the question was not directed at you, and such ridiculous assertions should not go unchallenged.

[cleanhippie]

114. Please, just stop.

It's embarrassing.

[deacon_sephiroth]

33. So it was OK for the time

and now it's not.

Odd, and here I didn't know that we were allowed to set aside even one iota of the laws in the bible, but I guess we are after all.

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17

Luke does not agree with you Bummy

[humblebum]

40. So show me the law that said we are to own slaves or one against not owning slaves.

BTW, a man who calls himself deacon should know these things, but instead you seem a bit rusty on your Scripture. Tell me. Did the atheists in the Bible own slaves?

[deacon_sephiroth]

43. as ussual, you are the one making the claim

that the bible somehow pioneered the anti-slave movement in mankind, so bring your own evidence, unless that was all you had Bummy.

[humblebum]

44. Nice dodge, but no you are the one making the claim. nt

[deacon_sephiroth]

45. actually the billboard is

but I'm still not doing your research for you Bummy, if you choose to ignore what I already posted I'm not wasting more time on you, just like I said before.

[humblebum]

46. No sir. The focus of my previous response was to your assertion that a

Law was being broken. And, of course, we both know that no such law exists. It has already been established that slavery during the day was neither condemned nor promoted by Scripture, but merely acknowledged as a reality during that time period.

[deacon_sephiroth]

47. What would jesus NOT do...

condemn slavery apparently.

[humblebum]

48. Spinmaster. nt

[deacon_sephiroth]

49. you said it

"It has already been established that slavery during the day was neither condemned nor promoted by Scripture." - Bummy

[humblebum]

50. Then there would have been no reason to exhort abolition in that period,

since slavery was accepted as normal in that society and virtually all others, now would there have been, deaky?

[deacon_sephiroth]

51. no reason?

so since it was acceptable among humans, therefor why would te creator diety have any problem with it? Really? serisously?

I guess I'm assuming that your cersion of the invisible sky daddy is benevolent. That's my mistake, I guess I should ask you first.

Bummy... do you think Jesus=god and god=good, or soemthing else?

Because if you do, then the creator, who generally delight in telling his creation how to live, has no problem with slavery, only the details of slave treatment.

So it's kinda like me having 10 kids, who go around murdering all the house pets in the neighborhood, but I refuse to say anything to them about it because AMONG THEM it's apparently acceptable.

[humblebum]

53. Definitely a spinmaster, deaky.

You are now resorting to vacuous arguing. Even the the atheists of the day accepted slavery as a normal station in society.

[deacon_sephiroth]

55. a non-answer

and a completely pointless new bit of trivia. If you would like to actually stay on topic, feel free and get back to me.

[humblebum]

56. Hardly a non-answer. Completely pointless is exactly what you have resorted to. You merely

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2012, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)

translated my previous post to you, deaky. And if you care to apply 21st century mores to 1st century culture then by all means keep trying to convince yourself, because you certainly are no historian, and you are probably the only one that will take you seriously.

[deacon_sephiroth]

60. You can almost see the topic from where you've run to

let's take a trip back to the topic............................... (whew) you ran a long way Bummy, what impressive cardio.

ah, now where were we?

Are you asserting that anything acceptable among the humans of the time period is therefor of no concern (or is by default acceptable) to your diety?

[humblebum]

62. You just keep on spinning don't you? Trying to cover up and justify such

an affront to the Black community is pretty low.

[deacon_sephiroth]

96. and you keep running from the topic

yes yes yes, I get it.... I'm a "spinmaster", and I don't know my scripture, and I don't know history, and I've given you nothing but opportunity to educate me oh wise Bummy...

However you do NOTHING but change the subject and run far far away hoping I'll follow you on your latest rant.

You've stated that slavery was alright BECAUSE it was acceptable at that time.

I argued that the bible is filled with the finer points of slavery, and gave you many links you ignored, I must not know my scripture...

You then stated that it's not advocated NOR condemned in the bible.

I have asked WHY NOT, why was it not condemned? Simply because it was OK with everyone? Because the humans had no problems with it? I would argue that from the view point of the slaves, I'd think they had a bit of a problem with it. Did they not pray? Did no slaves say the right magic words, or simply not enough of them?

Your only answer is that it was acceptable to the people.

To wit I extrapolated a logical conclusion, that if "acceptable among the humans" is a criteria for acceptability with God, then why does god condemn ANYTHING? It's all got to be acceptable to someone, so why bother, and why do we need him to govern us AT ALL, if we already decide what's right and wrong?

My question, which you have avoided like the very plague, my question, which I will restate as many times as you continue to participate on the conversation, be it little more than deflections and insults from you... is this.

Why did your god, allegedly come to earth in the flesh and blood to tell us all how to live, and say NOTHING to end the practice of slavery? Why hang out with a dozen of his buddies and do magic tricks and spit on disabled people while other humans toiled to death, long before his coming and LOOOOONG after... Why was that not on his list of pet peeves?

((my thoughts on the billboard itself are already expressed in this thread so no point trying to redirect there, it's covered and I justify nothing to you.))

[cleanhippie]

97. deacon, you are using reason, logic, and critical thought. Those things do not exist for him

as a way of thinking. You can try and reason with him until you are blue in the face, provide factual evidence to support your argument until your eyes bleed, and post coherent diatribes on why his arguments are thoroughly flawed until your fingers break, but in the end, you are dealing with a true believer who will never see or admit anything unless it supports his preconceived biases. (or else he is the worlds greatest Poe, which just may be the case)

Every point you make is well-grounded in reality, supportable with facts (especially where his exact words can be pointed to) and yet he will just deny, obfuscate, and evade. It is an exercise in futility. You will have better results teaching a giraffe to fly a small plane. But I applaud your efforts. Outstanding job.

[deacon_sephiroth]

98. It's funny you mention Poe...

The more I interact with Hummy directly, the more I've come to suspect this very thing. You're right though... he's gooooood.

[cleanhippie]

99. This possibility has come up in conversation before.

Its been going on for a looong time. So long in fact, that if he IS a Poe, he deserves a lifetime achievement award for acting. At the same time, it HAS been going on so long that it seems nearly an impossible task to keep going.

In the end, who knows? Only he does. But who cares? No one. No one at all. Sure it pisses us off sometimes out of sheer frustration, but in the end, all that effort is wasted, both his AND ours. I do my best to ignore most of his taunts, but I am human, and some of the dogwhistles are just to loud to be ignored.

I have tried to put him on ignore, but I feel like at any moment, he is going to implode in spectacular fashion, and I will have missed it. Its like watching a slow-motion pile up on the freeway; its horrific to watch, but you just can't look away...

[deacon_sephiroth]

101. very insightful, thank you

Both for the compliments before and for the tips.

I'm a big fan of your posts myself.

As for Bummy, I'm still enjoying myself for now, but I suppose one can only marvel at one's own brilliant srategy at chess for so long before you admit to yourself that you're just playing the computer on ultra-easy. It's got to get boring eventually, but until then it's just killing time and getting some giggles.

[Starboard Tack]

100. The US Constitution supported slavery when written 200 years ago

American Indians had slaves. Name a culture or civilization that never had slaves or dealt in the slave trade. Most of the slaves depicted in the bible were Jews, a whole nation enslaved.
Putting up the poster was stupid and did not serve us well.
I don't think you get it at all.

[Number23]

82. Thank you, kwassa

[Ecumenist]

21. WTF??!! Atheists are supposed to be doing the right thing with this billboard??!!

They're lucky they didn't get the asses cracked..What they hell is this supposed to prove and they put this board in an area with alot of black folk?

[cleanhippie]

52. "They're lucky they didn't get the asses cracked" - WTF?

It seems that whenever you get angry and emotional over an issue, you always threaten with violence.

Is that what Jesus teaches?

[Ecumenist]

63. "I threaten with violence"?! You don't know what the hell you're talking about

I am VERY familiar with black people, being black myself and I know how they would respond to something that brought up slavery in reference to their beliefs. So, don't try to accuse me of something that I neither said nor implied. Since you know so much, why don't you take a sign with the same that was on that billboard and walk through a black neighborhood. See what happens and I will be nowhere near where the ambulance picks you up...trust me. I didn't threaten anyone and wonder what you're smoking that made you even get that from what I posted.

[cleanhippie]

66. I got it from your EXACT words that YOU posted, in quotations above.

Last edited Sat Mar 10, 2012, 11:22 AM - Edit history (1)

IIRC, you also had a post or two hidden in other threads because you got angry and made a violent statement.

You seem very angry. Please, calm down. This is just a discussion board. All we are doing is talking here. There is no need to advocate, or as in this case, to condone violence toward those with whom you disagree.

[humblebum]

67. "There is no need to advocate" - now that's rich. The topic at hand

(the subject of the billboard) wreaks of insensitivity and twisted logic.

[cleanhippie]

68. Thank you for your opinion.

Have a nice day.

[Ecumenist]

70. You know, "clean", I'm going to talk to you in a way that you MIGHT understand....

"Ain't nobody condoning anything,", as some of my people may say. Pointing out something ISN'T condoning anything. Reading also consists of C.O.M.P.R.E.N.H.E.N.S.IL.O.N. Don't get it twisted, dear. As I said, if you honestly feel I'm condoning violence. Make a copy of that sign and walk into any black neighborhood. See what happens. It will be like going to shark convention lightly basted in blood. I KNOW MY PEOPLE and this sign is insulting and racist. Trust me when I tell you that something very unpleasant would happen. That's a damn fact. Sorry if you can understand that. I didn't say, 'I WOULD CRACK AN ASS", did I ? If I meant that, I would have said it. There are remedial classes in night school for the people like you. You have problems.

[cleanhippie]

73. Ahh, more anger and personal attacks.

When your argument can't hold water, resort to insults. Jesus is proud, I'm sure.

[seabeyond]

75. it is clear what you are saying.

it is wrong to pretend otherwise. the billboard is clearly offensive. i am sorry people feel the need to offend a minority group for their agenda.

[cleanhippie]

77. A Jury Voted To Let This Post Stand.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:05 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

"They're lucky they didn't get the asses cracked" - WTF?

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Personal attack. Ecuminist did NOT threaten anyone with violence.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:17 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: I'm certainly not religious (agnostic) but the last sentence using "Jesus" was a bit over the top. It only serves to start flame wars.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: cleanhippie did NOT threaten anyone with violence either. Just stated an opinion. Why was this alerted on?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: "I'm not normally a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me, Superman!" - Homer Simpson

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I think someone is being petty and vindictive, but I will see beyond this nonsense and just chuckle at it.

[ZombieHorde]

57. So funny!

The idea of Christians being violent to those who quote the Christian Holy Bible is hilarious.

[Ecumenist]

64. Yeah, racism is so hilarious. Try walking through a black neighborhood with

a sign with the same image on it and see what happens. Let see how many laughs you get. This is a disgustingly racist sign. Don't get it twisted.

[ZombieHorde]

65. What is the sign's commentary on race?

What is the sign's specific racist message?

[cleanhippie]

71. Wow, from violence to personal attacks.

It's all anger based. Are you really as angry inside as your posts allude to or is it just an act?

[ellisonz]

24. Assholes. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

29. Yep, the Christian bible advocates slavery and that is very assholish.

That's what you meant, right?

[ellisonz]

31. No.

Without going and re-reading Corinthians, I would just point to Exodus. I don't think that is what is being advocated, nor do I particularly care. Using that image for a billboard is pure assholery.

[Goblinmonger]

36. So it's the image.

If the same text was used, not assholery?

[ellisonz]

37. Yes.

Not to mention the text is without context. The meaning in this case somewhat depends on the translation used:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Servants, obey your Masters of the body in all things, not outwardly as those who please men, but with a pure heart and in the awe of THE LORD JEHOVAH.

http://bible.cc/colossians/3-22.htm

The message is that while you may be in bondage on Earth to men, in spirit you are beholden to God. It is not an endorsement of slavery. I suggest you do some reading in black liberation theology.

The overall intent is to shock, that is assholery.

[deacon_sephiroth]

25. I'm not too happy with this one

on one hand, I understand the idea, on the other it's a bit much.

Is it indecent, yes

Is it straight from the bible, yes

Is the bible often indecent, oooh yes

Should we have to sink to the bible's level? I'd like to think not.

It reminds me of when PETA goes a little bonkers with their campaings and you get things that REEAAALLY miss the mark like "Sea Kittens".

[Goblinmonger]

30. Not a huge fan of the Sea Kittens campaign, but I get it.

We like to protect animals that we think are cute and not those that aren't.

Eating cows? Fine. Eating dogs? Not fine.

[deacon_sephiroth]

34. exactly

and I get what they're trying to do here jsut as well, but I think both attmepts are going to miss the mark pretty hard. I think the Sea Ktitens thing makes more people laugh at Peta then it makes them think, and I think this billboard is going to anger people MORE than cause them to relfect on the evils in the bible, and how we've morally matured beyond it.

I'm not worried about angering people, we're atheists, we make SOME people angry by just existing (you know who you are). It's my concern that the message is lost or going to be lost in the uproar and it's going to bring them more harm than good in the long run.

Poorly judged IMO

[humblebum]

41. Seems to be happening more often these days, too.

And God help us when we bring up atheist history. Instant bleep. But I think people are starting to see a clearer picture of organized atheism. New Atheism is not much different than old Atheism.

[deacon_sephiroth]

42. do tell

[Obamacare]

38. I agree with African Americans, this billboard is racist!!

Atheist, always manage to make themselevs look worse than the groups they are against. They should've known using blacks(one the most pro Christian demographics in America) to further their agenda wasn't going to sit well with them. And only serves to push them further away from taking atheist seriously and rightfully so. One line taken out of context, both in the passage and the time it was written is not a basis for making an informed decision. If it was written today it would say workers do what your boss tells you to do.

[ZombieHorde]

58. What is the billboard's comment on race? nt

[Ecumenist]

72. Thank you, Obamacare.. I think that certain people are dieliberately trying to be obtuse

and insulting. There are better ways to make a point. This is like using a photo of the railcars carrying the people to the camps or the stiped pajamss that the prisoners wore to push atheism to Jewish people. I'm black and upon setting eyes on this billboard, I got a visceral reaction to it and the first thought was WTF?

[moobu2]

54. It isn't an atheist billboard.

The billboard was paid for by this group called American Atheists, Inc., so to say it's an "Atheist Billboard" is offensive to me personally.

[Ecumenist]

74. Moobu, please understand what I'm about to ask..Why don't you feel that it's NOT

an "atheist billboard" if they self identify as "atheists"?

[seabeyond]

76. i think this is one of the most hurtfully offensive threads that i have seen in a very long time

some of the comments on the thread bother me so much. i am sorry for those in the AA community that have to read this crap. it is wrong. that simple. so wrong.

[Son of Gob]

78. I agree

It's pretty sickening.

[LeftishBrit]

80. I don't think it offended African-American groups because it was atheist

I think it offended them because it used slavery in a way that could at least be seen as trivializing the topic.

Discussion in a debate where you could clarify the issue would be one thing, but putting it on a billboard as a single 'sound-bite' was inviting anger and distress.

As an atheist Jew, I admit I'd be pretty upset by non-Jewish atheist activists putting up a billboard that used images of the Holocaust together with religious quotes justifying genocide - even if it was to make a point against religion, not against Jews. I imagine the reaction here is similar.

I am all in favour of atheist billboards of the 'There is probably no God' variety; but I think this one was misguided.

[Sal316]

81. I can't believe there are those defending this billboard.

I really can't.

It makes me want to

I'm reading the same types of justifications and rationalizations I've heard the last few days from those defending Rush and from those who defend equally offensive "Christian" billboards with pictures of fetuses on them.

It's just demonstrating that, for some, it's "ok when our side does it".

It's inexcusable. Period.

Those defending this billboard should be ashamed of themselves and not expect anyone to take them seriously when their sensibilities are offended.

It's easy to speak out when one is offended. The true test of an ethical and moral person is to speak out when it's your crowd that does the offending.

[Number23]

83. Thank you, Sal316

The true test of an ethical and moral person is to speak out when it's your crowd that does the offending.

Exactly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. The only explanation of why it might be offensive I can see is LeftistBrit's in #80

ie that it trivialises African-American slavery by using a picture of that to illustrate Roman Empire slavery.

But I don't see that it's that offensive. Both were true slavery; and I think the purpose was to say "remember how bad African American slavery was? Well, the bible was fine with the concept of slavery like that, and politicians are telling us to learn from the bible". I can't see any similarity to Limbaugh.

If there was a suitable picture that people would recognise as portraying Roman slavery, then it wouldn't be offensive. Can we agree on that?

[Sal316]

93. Here's the thing.

It doesn't matter that you don't see it as offensive, others do. That's what sits behind all the "I apologize if you were offended" half-hearted apologies is an inability or unwillingness to see the offensiveness of whatever.

Second, to think that the Bible was "fine with the concept of slavery like that" is to think of slavery purely in 17th Century America as being the same as in "biblical times" (for lack of a better phrase). In fact, Exodus states the punishment for someone who kidnaps another to sell them into slavery (Ex 21:16).

Moreover, what most people who make the blanket claim of "the Bible condones slavery" are missing is that while, yes, slavery did exist, and it is mentioned in the Bible, the economic realities of Ancient Near East and Roman Cultures are wildly different than 17th Century Virginia, and the rules/regulations about slaves in the OT/NT make the early American slavery experience an aberration, and not a Biblical model.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. But we need to know why it's offensive

LeftistBrit (not African American - not even American) is the only person I can see who has put forward a possible reason, and she doesn't quite seem certain. It really does help if people say "this is offensive because ...". That way, people will know how not to offend in future. Do you agree that the reason African Americans consider it offensive is that they think comparing their historical slavery to Roman Empire slavery trivialises the former?

I don't understand what your Exodus quote has to do with anything. It's not saying that is the only way someone could have become a slave, in independent Israel or the Roman Empire.

I'm surprised to see 'economic realities' put into the argument. That appears to be trying to make excuses for slaveholding in the Roman Empire. 'Economic realities' aren't an excuse for American (or British) slaveholding, after all.

[Sal316]

106. I can agree with being told why it's offensive.

There are times when the things we say/do are offensive to others, and we're unaware. So, yeah, I'll agree with you there.

The Exodus quote is to counter that the Bible endorsed the systemic slavery of the slave trade. It didn't. Plain and simple. Kidnapping and selling people into slavery, the basis of the slave trade, was forbidden by the Bible.

The economic realities isn't an attempt to justify slavery in the Roman Empire. Not in the least. Yet, to ignore that that society was the way it was and would have had influence on society's understanding of God and the interaction with humanity is to be intentionally ignorant. Humanity has come a long way, societal constructs have evolved over the last couple of millenia.

I find atheist literalist interpretation of Biblical passages to be as devoid of intellectual honesty as fundamentalists who do the same thing.

A professor of mine once said "Reading a text without context it pretext for a prooftext". To pull a verse out, strip it of any context, is intellectually lazy.

[Boojatta]

116. Did English-language Bibles from the 1860s

use the English-language word "slave"?

Translators had to decide what English-language words to use. Were they concerned about the possibility that people in North America who were familiar with one kind of slavery would misunderstand the Bible? Were they concerned enough to select some word other than "slave"?

I find atheist literalist interpretation of Biblical passages to be as devoid of intellectual honesty as fundamentalists who do the same thing.

Maybe you are judging the Bible itself, while others are more concerned about the influence of the Bible. You mentioned fundamentalists, but what about preachers who preach to large audiences. Are they devoid of intellectual honesty?

The Bible itself is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to understanding the popular culture of Christianity.

[cbayer]

104. I am having a lot of trouble understanding the current debate over this.

Even the group that put it up has apologized.

It my longstanding position that offensive language and images should be defined by those that it offends. You can tell me all day long that a I shouldn't be offended by a word aimed at me, but if I am offended, would it not be appropriate for you to consider that and respect it.

We just recently had conversations about the term "militant atheist". While there are many who do not understand why this term should be offensive, those targeted by it find it offensive. I think many, including myself, took that to heart and agreed that it should not be used if that is the case.

Here is just one report of why this was found offensive and racist:

"That image, that was my ancestors. That represents their struggle and all the pain they went through,” he said. “I don’t think a lot of people understood how offensive that is. Schoolchildren will just see that black face and the words. They don’t understand the context."

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/atheist_groups_slavery_billboa.html

Should that not be enough??

[muriel_volestrangler]

105. Well, an explanation that it's because children can't understand the context does help

I still can't see that makes it 'racist'. It makes it like the reasons given for not running next week's Doonesbury cartoons about forced transvaginal ultrasounds in papers - children will see them, and can't understand what it's against. But no-one is calling Gary Trudeau 'sexist'. And he's got a lot of support on DU - the typical DU opinion is that papers should run the cartoons.

[cbayer]

108. I suggest that it might be harder for those rarely confronted with bigotry to readily recognize it,

but it's not difficult to take the word of those that are, imo.

I think they made an unintentional error. I wonder if they got any input from African-American members in this community before they proceeded.

I feel no need to explain why this was felt to be racist and really offensive. I take the word of those who felt hurt by it.

And so, apparently, do those who made the decision to put it up. They have apologized, and I suspect they will be more thoughtful in the future.

[kwassa]

127. It might not be racist. The billboard is merely highly offensive.

It depicts an act of brutal racism,and appears to blame the Bible for it. And it is wildly ignorant of African-American sensibilities.

This is an epic fail as an act of persuasion.

[Deep13]

115. Um, were they mad because the Bible says that...

...or because someone reminded them that the Bible says that?

[rug]

119. They?

Are you referring to the African American community?

[Deep13]

121. No, I'm refering to those who claim to speak for it...

Those who expressed offense.

Nice try, though.

[cbayer]

122. Like State Rep. Ronald G. Waters, chairman of the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus?

[Deep13]

130. Bingo.

Anyway, this whole issue is just Rug's effort to change the subject by making me defensive about racism. So if it turns out that most or even all African-Americans agree with Waters, so what?

[cbayer]

131. Not sure what you are saying here.

If a leader of a marginalized group says this is offensive and racist, and members of the community says this is offensive and racist, I don't see what other information one needs to see that it is offensive and racist.

That's a big "so what", imo.

The organization that put this up has apologized and hopefully learned a valuable lesson regarding getting a sense of the community they are targeting for their message. That's a good thing, imo.

[rug]

124. Oh they must not be true Scotsmen.

[kwassa]

125. At least not true African-American Scotsmen.

Tee hee.

[Deep13]

129. Do you even know what that means?

African-Americans is a big group. Those who claim to be offended by the billboard are a smaller group. The small group is probably mostly within the bigger group, though not necessarily. Even if the small group is a subset of the big group, we cannot assume the small group represents the feelings or attitudes of the big group. It's kind of like how the most outspoken American Roman Catholics do not represent the views of average American Catholics.

I did not claim that African-Americans who are complaining about this are not really African-Americans.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with your clumsy attempt to make me look like a racist.

[kwassa]

133. What baseless supposition.

You have no actual knowledge of African-Americans, do you? How many are in your social circle? How many can you sit down and discuss race with?

You present your little logic puzzle as proof of something, I don't what, but it is as oblivious to the actual opinions of African-Americans as the atheists who put up this clueless and offensive billboard.

You assume those that complain about this billboard are a small group not representative of larger African-American opinion. Based on what, exactly? Do you have anything at all to back you up?

I won't hold my breath.

[Boojatta]

135. What do you assume?

You wrote:

You assume those that complain about this billboard are a small group not representative of larger African-American opinion.

Here's what you were responding to:

we cannot assume the small group represents the feelings or attitudes of the big group.

Let's use the label C to refer to whatever claim you wish to make. When somebody seeks clarification of your reasoning, you aren't entitled make, on behalf of your opponent, the claim that C is false. There are plenty of unknowns in the world. One of the things that you claim to know might happen to be something that your opponent classifies as unknown.

[kwassa]

126. and who would "they" be?

[Deep13]

128. Asked and answered.

Anyway, look at the title of this thread, Einstein.

[kwassa]

132. No, you haven't.

You made a supposition about the views of an ethnic group you clearly know very little about.

Einstein, indeed.

[Deep13]

134. So, any answer?

The Bible does in fact in tell slaves to obey their masters. How does that square with those who are both the descendants of slaves--many of whom escaped or openly rebelled by joining the Union army--and believers in the Bible?

[Boojatta]

136. Given that the billboard was

defaced, I conclude that it was the reminder of what is in the Bible, and not necessarily the Bible itself, that offended.

How does it square? I think that the decision to include in the Bible a command for slaves to obey their masters was based on tactical rather than moral considerations. After all, there are marketing issues to consider. Authorities of the past wouldn't have chosen a religion that openly calls for revolutionary change to be the official religion.

The solution would be to update the Bible. The mere fact of updating the Bible will inevitably offend plenty of people, but it's more important to provide moral guidance than it is to try to avoid offending people.

[Deep13]

137. But if the Bible can be improved or updated...

...then it cannot be the word of God who would have presumably made sure it was written right the first time. What you say is probably true, but that only explains a man-made set of instructions, not holy writ.