Christianist Group's Billboard Compares Atheism To Murder

[and-justice-for-all]

By Nicole Belle Tuesday Jun 02, 2009 3:00pm



A group calling themselves "Answers in Genesis" recently took out a billboard in Texas depicting a young boy holding a gun.

Here’s how Answers in Genesis describes themselves:

An apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively…we also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

<..>Personally, I can’t believe they are implying that non-believers, or to whom God “doesn’t matter,” are going to take a gun and shoot someone in the face.

Striking yes; thoughtful, absolutely not.

Although supposedly their beef is with evolution, I don’t see how that point is conveyed with this picture. So, according to them, believing what Darwin had to say means a person is lawless and will go on a killing rampage?

They were so enamored of this image, they used it in a TV ad as well:

Given the rising violence we're seeing lately, I hope that Answers in Genesis remove the ad and rethink the campaign altogether, before someone interprets it as a way to prove their faith.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/christianist-groups-billboard-compare

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh joy! another brainless religious cult organization seeding more delusional ideas of nonsense and ignorance. Its the Law Of Evolution you fucking morons; empirical evidence trumps bronze age desert dogma.

[AnOhioan]

1. The American Taliban at work

[Soylent Brice]

66. i've been staring at this for a while, and i can't think of a better comment than yours.

[Chemisse]

2. I don't even see any logic to the ad

What does one have to do with the other?

[NeedleCast]

I don't get it either

Just seems like ramblings of the Talibaptists to me. I guess the implication is that if you don't bring up your children to be good 'ol gawd fearing Christians that they'll become murderers.

[Howardx]

3. god neednt worry about me

any time he might spend on me could be better used helping pro athletes.

[Xipe Totec]

4. If you believe in God, why fear the afterlife? n/t

[MineralMan]

7. True enough. The guy with the rifle's just going to send you to

Jebus a little early.

[MineralMan]

5. Cretins, not Christians.

They may not have noticed who killed Tiller. I'm quite certain he was a Cretin, too.

Answers in Genesis is a creationist outfit, and Young Earth to boot. Morons abound.

[jody]

6. Several polarizing political issues have fringe supporters who would harm their opposites. Freedom

of speech allows them to express themselves, a position the ACLU defends.

[CatholicEdHead]

8. And this is coming so soon after the Tiller murder in Whichita

The irony is thick.

[Lorien]

9. They didn't read their Bibles

which say that God loves all of His creation. Seems like they're trying to justify violence, saying that victims of violence deserved it because "God didn't matter" enough to them. :eyes:

[kestrel91316]

10. That's just hysterical, because gun nuts are pretty overwhelmingly

"CHRISTIAN" in the US, from what I can tell.

[jody]

12. Do you mean that people who support the Second Amendment are "pretty overwhelmingly 'CHRISTIAN'"? nt

[Howardx]

13. he said gun nut didnt he? n/t

[jody]

17. I'll wait for kestrel91316's answer. Thanks for your interest. n/t

[Howardx]

19. dont shoot me

im just the piano player

[Snazzy]

31. funny how you can never find a well regulated militia when you need one n/t

[jody]

32. Those who believe the 2nd protects a collective right and not an individual right ignore the law of

the land.

But you knew that of course and your post was purely in jest not in abysmal ignorance -- wasn't it?

[Snazzy]

35. I just find it funny that those who frequently invoke the 2nd

really mean 14 words out of 27.

[jody]

36. Suggest you read SCOTUS on the 2nd protecting an individual right in Heller, link below.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[Snazzy]

37. I'll go with Stevens Souter Ginsburg Breyer, thanks

Scalia tend to make me ill.

[jody]

39. Read dissents by Stevens and Breyer. Both recognize individual RKBA is an inalienable/unalienable

right but disagreed with the majority on the Court's imposed question "Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

The four dissenting justices said the 2nd did not protect an individual RKBA as an enumerated right but they did not discuss whether an individual RKBA was protected by the 9th Amendment as an unenumerated right which it logically would be after the four dissenting justices accepted the declarations of PA (1776) and VT (1777) in their constitutions.

In 1776 and 1777, an inalienable/unalienable right could not be given away by a piece of paper even our Constitution and as SCOTUS said,

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all ofthese textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

Individual RKBA is protected by the 2nd explicitly per 5 justices and by the 9th implicitly per 4 justices.

[Snazzy]

47. You are of course quoting Scalia

Who I just mentioned I tend to greet with extreme skepticism, and it will be interesting to see what the next few years bring.

Stevens concluding, on the key word regulate, which Scalia is so happy to dismiss as an entirely seperate issue:

The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.

Nothing implicit there, although I'm a fan of the 9th too.

(edit format)

[jody]

54. Critical part of the quote is from United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) .

several years before Scalia

In addition, "JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting" said:

The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state,” 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that “the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed,” id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed “{t}hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.” Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.

The dissent acknowledged PA and VT constitutions that said:
A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA - 28 Sept. 1776 "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT- July 8, 1777
“I. THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

NOTE PA and VT statements differ only in the use of “inalienable” versus “unalienable”, a difference that occurred when the Declaration of Independence was written with Jefferson using “inalienable” and Adams using “unalienable”. Apparently Adams had the final say and the DOI used “unalienable”.

PA and VT declared in their Constitutions:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

As natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights it is impossible for PA citizens to have given away the right of self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense when they ratified our Constitution (1787) or when they ratified the BOR (1790) or VT (1791) to have given the same rights away when they accepted the amended constitution.

Note PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

The history is indisputable, PA and VT both recognized the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, i.e. an individual, is an inalienable/unalienable right as SCOTUS recognized in Cruikshank.

[booley]

49. Yeah you can

It's called the national guard.

Why don't people ever read the rest of the constitution?

The 2nd amendment is not the only place where militias are discussed.

[jody]

55. Don't forget the unorganized militia some of which are organized, see some members at:

State Guard Association

[booley]

58. Don't know if those qualify

Accordign to the constitution in the enumerated powers..

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

IF these guys can be described as above then sure. I can't say either way if they are.

Though I think militia is too often misused for political purposes.

[jody]

59. Each of the units at the SAGUS site are part of each state's unorganized militia per state law and

part of the nation's unorganized militia defined in 10 USC 311.

Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 41, Military Forces, Section 41.050 says

State militia, members.

41.050. The militia of the state shall include all able-bodied citizens and all other able-bodied residents, who, in the case of the unorganized militia and the Missouri reserve military force, shall be more than seventeen years of age and not more than sixty-four, and such other persons as may upon their own application be enrolled or commissioned therein, and who, in the case of the organized militia, shall be within the age limits and possess the physical and mental qualifications prescribed by law or regulations for the reserve components of the armed forces of the United States, except that this section shall not be construed to require militia service of any persons specifically exempted by the laws of the United States or the state of Missouri.

Reserve military force--powers of governor.

41.490. The governor shall have the power to organize from the unorganized militia of Missouri a reserve military force for duty within or without the state to supplement the Missouri national guard or replace it when it is mobilized in federal service. The Missouri reserve military force may be used to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, repel invasion, suppress lawlessness, and provide emergency relief to distressed areas in the event of earthquake, flood, tornado, or actual or threatened enemy attack or public catastrophe creating conditions of distress or hazard to public health and safety beyond the capacity of local or established agencies. The force shall consist of such organized troops, auxiliary troops, staff corps and departments as the governor deems necessary. The governor shall prescribe the strength and composition of the various units of the same, uniform and insignia and the qualifications of its members, and shall have the power to grant a discharge therefrom for any reason deemed by him sufficient.

I believe MO's group is under Acie T. Angel, Colonel (OH), MO Military Reserve (Provisional)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. I know people who support the Second Amendment. And I know gun nuts.

You're the latter, not the former.

[Vickers]

16. I'm a gun nut, and I'm not Christian.

:eyes:

[Towlie]

11. Now watch the corresponding YouTube video from the same people.

It's the same kid pointing the same gun, but the spoken message at the end is not "If God doesn't matter to him, do you", it's "If you don't matter to God, you don't matter to anyone." Please study those two messages carefully and notice that they are very different. The message of the video seems to be a warning to atheists that they're liable to get shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miULdI-qocg

I think what probably happened is that the narrator of the YouTube video meant to say something more in harmony with the billboard, like "If you don't care about God, you don't care about anyone", but he blew his lines. It's interesting how his words actually came out. Could it be that he was influenced by an inner desire to kill atheists and no one else at Answers In Genesis noticed the error he made?

[gcomeau]

14. Freaking AiG morons...

Like they haven't caused me enough headaches over the years with their infantile anti-evolution crap... I have lost track of how many hours I've had to spend smacking down someone who bursts into a discussion of evolution waving around one of their hilariously absurd little tracts like they just found the holy grail of "scientific proof" that the world was created 6000 years ago or something... and now they come up with this. Joy.

[Kievan Rus]

15. More typical fundie asshattery

[Oeditpus Rex]

18. Interesting — the billboard and the video say different things

Video: "If you don't matter to (g)od, you don't matter to anyone."

http://www.bravenewtraveler.com/2009/06/01/bizarre-christian-billboard-compares-atheism-to-murder/

(Scroll down a tad.)



One could easily interpret the video to mean the little bastard picked up a gun because his god forsake him.

[create.peace]

26. i noticed that, too....nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Interestingly, it is a rabid believer who has committed the most

notorious murder in the country in recent weeks.

And BTW - the earth is not millions of years old. It is approximately 4.6 billion years old.

[and-justice-for-all]

21. It is always a religious fundi psycho who comments the most hanis crimes

then they try to pass off their criminal behavior on to others so they can continue to get away with it.
AiG is just another domestic terrorist organization.

[Cha]

22. Like I read earlier around here..

"Too bad christians aren't Christ like".

[and-justice-for-all]

27. haha...brilliant. nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. A paraphrase of Gandhi. -nt

[ismnotwasm]

23. Um

Classic projection. I mean, all kinds of God sanctioned death and murder in the bible.

[Ikonoklast]

24. Funny how the prisons are full of Jeebus-loving murderers.

[Seldona]

25. So children of athiests want to kill their parents?

At least that is the message I get from the billboard. Without the 'godly' raising of children, they couldn't possibly have any morals.

:puke:

[Fumesucker]

28. A classic case of projection..

The only thing keeping a lot of Christianists from going out and committing wholesale murder is their fear of punishment.

So they think everyone is just like them when in reality they are the freaks.

[jody]

Interesting assertion. Do you believe "fear of punishment" prevents "wholesale murder" more among

Christians or non-Christians?

[Fumesucker]

65. I meant punishment by their God ..

I've met many a fundie who is a former hell raiser, alcoholic, drug abuser, etc and "got saved", it's a very common trope among them.

[jody]

68. Thanks. You say they are "former" so at least they got their lives together and became a useful

member of society even though you apparently don't accept their religious views.

[Fumesucker]

69. Define "useful"..

I think a lot of the systemic problems with our society can be laid at the feet of the fundies, eight years of GW Bush being only the most visible tip of the iceberg.

Also, I'm not impressed with people who are only good because they fear punishment if they are not.

And no, I'm not a fundie.

[BlooInBloo]

29. Irony alert.

[Swamp Rat]

38. yep

morans

[JNelson6563]

30. Without fear of bible-god, people cannot be decent.

And if you've read the bible you'd know there is much to fear from bible-god. This book that supposedly represents the all-knowing, all-loving god of the bible is a veritable how to on all things horrible that people can do to each other with this enlightened being's seal of approval.

Yes, be very afraid.

Julie

[cagesoulman]

33. Clovis, Charlemagne, the Spanish Inquisition, Witch Trials..Christianity is all about the gun, sword

torture rack, murder of innocents.

When the atheists start dealing in mass murder like the Catholic church, then we can talk.

[Stellabella]

53. There you go! That's the answer.

[JuliantheApostate]

34. The billboard doesn't even make sense

The reason God "doesn't matter" to an atheist is because he isn't real, just like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Human beings are quite real and do matter. I tend to think atheist would value human life even more, since they don't believe in an afterlife. Then again, I guess you really shouldn't expect much from a group which seeks to dispel the ridicules "myth" that the Earth has been around longer than 5,000 years.

[B Calm]

40. Here I thought God and guns were the now thing. . .

[Solly Mack]

42. I knew it was pointless to fix my irony meter

[Touchdown]

43. Why didn't Europe send the criminals to America and the crazies to Australia?

:cry:

[burning rain]

44. Well, it makes sense that they' d do this.

When you want to justify oppressing people, or using mob violence against them, a good approach is to convince others that they're brutal savages deserving of no sympathy.

[Iggo]

45. Never heard of anybody murdering for atheism.

I assume it's happened. I just can't think of when I've heard of it happening.

I've heard of people killing for god a bunch of times, though.

[mrs_p]

46. it seems that they are implying

if you don't believe you should be murdered?? what a bunch of crazies....

[varkam]

50. So the only thing that keeps AiG from blowing people away is their faith?

Pretty scary, if you ask me.

[Mari333]

51. That looks like Scott Roeder! nt

[Rob H.]

52. I don't get it

:shrug:

[New Dawn]

56. Fascism in the US would take the form of a Christian theocracy.

[DearAbby]

57. Wonder if they would like it...

if we took the exact same billboard, and it read instead.."You don't believe in God Do you? Why should I believe in you?"

I get so tired of the same bullshit, over and over...does my lack of faith in your God, somehow weakens your faith? Why does it matter?

[Starry Messenger]

60. That's really psycho.

Who the hell gets all worked up about what some people don't believe in??

[MellowDem]

61. It's the idea that as an atheist...

you must therefore believe there is no real point to life and no consequences after death, so why not do what you want, like shooting people in the face? Pretty bad logic, to say the least.

[sofa king]

63. It's a bit telling, isn't it?

There is an implicit assumption in there, that because atheists are not constrained by fear of reprisal beyond the grave, they are free to do terrible things.

So, um, is that what's holding most of them back from doing those things? Is the only thing between me and Fraidy Churchoer's buck shot the fear of gwin' ta hayul?

If that's the case, then by all means, please remember that your ten percent tithe comes off the net, not the gross.

[sofa king]

62. Here, I fixed it.

[Dramarama]

64. They keep on embarrassing us.

[RedCappedBandit]

67. I'm not the one using God to justify endless war

fucking idiots

[armyowalgreens]

70. I find that ironic.

Because the people who believe in a god are the ones that put the will of god above human life (ie they are willing to kill simply because a voice in their head said to).

IT's atheists and agnostics that truly care about humanity. They don't try to seek a higher power for justification. They look to humans.