I don’t think the Freedom from Religion Foundation ever sleeps. One of the group’s recent activities has been the placement of a new billboard in Grand Junction, Colorado, where the foundation “is working with area members and Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers, to ask local government officials to stop praying on government time.” Sounds like a reasonable request to me.
The organization’s newest billboard looks like this:
As you can see, this billboard is a variation on a previous one with a similar message:
Some past FFRF billboards have included these:
I haven’t always agreed with FFRF’s tactics. For instance, I thought the sign they posted in a Christmas display last year was rather morbid:
I would have preferred an uplifting message for a festive season. Nevertheless, I’m glad that the FFRF is campaigning and pursuing legal action on behalf of nonbelievers. I’m sorry to report that I haven’t seen any of these billboards myself. Have you?
– the chaplain
mikespeir
October 17, 2009 at 9:56 pm
I don’t line the Praise Darwin one. It’s hard to be convincing that we’re opposed to religion when we take the Christian’s line (“Praise God”) and substitute “Darwin” for “God.” They already think we worship Darwin. Why play into their hands?
BrightBlueLizard
October 18, 2009 at 12:02 am
On the one hand, I agree with mikespeir…on the other hand, I think now and then letting off some steam through sarcasm is sanity saving
Besides, if I’m not mistaken, much of FFRF’s advertising targets non-believers more than believers as part of a three-pronged approach to raising awareness:
One prong raises awareness about the many inconsistencies and moral failures of religious dogma.
Another prong raises awareness of the fact that there are many people utterly unconvinced of the supposedly undeniable proof for the validity of religious dogma (which goes a long way to hack off bits of the foundation upon which religion rests).
Another prong (which I think is the most essential, actually, to keeping freethinker momentum and to spread the 1st two memes as far as possible) informs other freethinkers that they are not alone and encourages them to come out of the closet. I don’t think that the recent flourishing of freethinker groups is any accident.
Eshu
October 18, 2009 at 8:23 am
Me too.
Although I broadly agree with what the FFRF does, I think some of these posters are unhelpful. mikespeir made a good point re. Darwin. I think a similar thing applies wrt “Imagine No Religion”. I’d be willing to bet that many believers will read that and think it means, “Atheists want to ban religion”. That is absolutely not secularism. Secularism is freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I think we should educate people about what Secularism/Atheism/Humanism is, not allow them to continue to build harmful misconceptions about it.
the chaplain
October 18, 2009 at 9:08 am
Mike, Lizard and Eshu:
Thanks for your comments. You’ve all made good points. The things you’ve noted are some of the reasons I have questions about some of the FFRF’s tactics.
ildi
October 18, 2009 at 11:02 am
Which is the whole point, maybe? There’s nothing inherently festive about the darkest time of year. However, we don’t have to perform any magic rituals to get the days to lengthen again. So, let’s just party like it’s 1999 because we want to?
I think that FFRF performs the same function as Richard Dawkins or PZ in many ways. They are the lightning rod that allows conversations between believers and non-believers to start.
Ebonmuse
October 18, 2009 at 1:15 pm
An important thing that’s often overlooked about the winter solstice sign is that it was deliberately intended as offensive – because we atheists find it offensive when governments endorse religious beliefs in public spaces. The FFRF sign was intended to communicate a similar sentiment to religious believers and to show why it’s wrong for government to favor one religious belief over the alternatives.
I didn’t care for the “Praise Darwin” sign, truth be told, but I see nothing wrong with “Imagine No Religion”. If anything, the meaning is intended to be a hopeful and positive one. And in any case, plenty of believers will take offense no matter what we say, so I see little point in trying too hard to spare their feelings.
the chaplain
October 18, 2009 at 1:26 pm
ildi and Ebonmuse:
Thanks for the reminder that the offense of the winter solstice sign was intended. I agree that many believers will be offended regardless of how carefully atheists speak and write, so there’s no point in trying to tiptoe around their oversensitive feelings. Some of them can dish it out, but they can’t take it.
Eshu
October 18, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Ebonmuse said:
Agreed, the fundamentalist fruitcakes are all about knee-jerk taking of offence and outrage. I’m not saying we should bother trying to appease them. In many cases I’m sure it’s not even possible to appease them and still express a differing opinion.
But this isn’t about them; most people are neither fundies nor atheists. I’d like agnostics and liberal believers to see atheists (and “The New Atheists”) as a reasonable group fighting for their rights. A group worthy of respect and support.
I think provocative statements have their place, but broad insulting statements aimed at groups of people just make us look like mean-spirited whiners. I’d like it if we differentiated ourselves from religious protesters and evangelists by being more reasonable, by appealing to common sense rather than flinging rhetoric.
An action deliberately intended to cause offence may be worthwhile in cases like infringements of church-state separation. However, it should make a clear and accurate point. With the exception of the top two, I don’t think the signs above do that. Perhaps it should be a more direct and obvious parody of religious signs with a clear message.
Please don’t misunderestimate (sic) me; I’m all for us sending a strong message as non-believers. However, I’d like the message to be “We will respect your freedoms on the condition that you respect ours”, rather than, “You’re all wrong and we can’t wait to see the back of you and your ridiculous beliefs”.
My gripe with “Imagine No Religion” is that it can be too easily used to misrepresent us. I’m not sure it’s worth being misunderstood by many in order to grab a headline and create a story read by only a few.
Cephus
October 18, 2009 at 3:36 pm
The two new ones are fine, the Praise Darwin one is reprehensible, I am sick and tired of idiot atheists treating Darwin with religious reverence. He was just a man, sheesh!
Sabio Lantz
October 18, 2009 at 3:41 pm
To me, keeping government out of preferences and out of morality is a priority, I certainly don’t want religion to use government to try and influences my preferences but I don’t want you secular folks to use government to do it either.
Cleaning up government of religion alone if far from suffice.
ildi
October 18, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Could you elaborate on that? I must be old enough that first I thing I start to do is hum Lennon’s song – which also has socialist and one world government lyrics, now that I think about it, so if you mean atheism =/ socialism, I can see your point.
All together now…
Eshu
October 18, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Your point about socialism is a good one, but I had the following issue in mind:
This is not a very clear message. Is it saying:-
1. Imagine a world without religion and how much better/worse that would be.
2. Imagine your life without religion and how much better/worse it would be.
3. We dream of a world in the future where religion is only history.
4. The aim of atheists is/should be to eliminate religion from the world by reasoned argument and persuasion.
5. The aim of atheists is/should be to eliminate religion from the world by any means necessary.
6. Have yourself a daydream about a world with no religious strife and conflict (probably Lennon’s intent).
If you’re paying for an advert, surely you at least want a clear an unambiguous message?
Sabio Lantz
October 18, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I want the bad parts of religion out of religion. Religion as a whole can stay around until we also get the bad parts of secularism too.
Let me decide what my aim is ! It is that sort of top down thinking I don’t like from theists or atheists.
Lorena
October 18, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I agree. Some signs could be better thought out. But organized atheism is in its infancy, and there is much to be learned. We can always hope that with experience, more funding, more volunteers, and all the feedback, the signs will improve throughout the years.
ildi
October 18, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I would say, Eshu, that ANY statement about religion being an option is read to mean “atheists are trying to get rid of my option to practice my religion” by many religious. Given that, I think the slogan is successfully ambiguous because it makes people think on potentially so many different levels, as you point out. It accurately captures the concept that atheism is a starting point.
Eshu
October 18, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Good point! I hadn’t thought about it that way.
PhillyChief
October 18, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Eshu, you’ve missed the entire fucking point behind the Solstice display. Your objection to it is like objecting to using the FSM because FSM is silly and we atheists shouldn’t appear silly. The point is to show the absurdity of wanting a nod to religion in science classes by demanding every religion, the sillier the better, get nods as well, including the FSM. Likewise, if you’re trying to show how a religiously themed display on government property is not just provocative but inflammatory and divisive, then you present something that will be to others inflammatory and divisive, not something to show how charming and enlightened we are.
Now as for preferring “We will respect your freedoms…” over “You’re all wrong…”, well that’s purely a subjective preference, and as such, my preference goes the other way.
As for messages being easily misunderstood, well, I have two responses. One, they’ll deliberately misunderstand any atheist message anyway (or conveniently have the correct understanding realigned by their local church to be “right”). Two, we’re generally not dealing with those who esteem reading and thinking, so messages will be misunderstood regardless of what we write.
As for FFRF’s signs in general, I just feel they fail graphically. Conceptionally, I don’t too many gripes, but I’m not a big fan of the Darwin ones. One would hope it’s sarcasm, but I don’t know. Furthermore, it perpetuates the mistaken idea that evolution = progress by saying “evolve beyond religion” when we all know (hopefully) that evolution is merely change.
First, there are no good parts outside the communal aspect, but then that’s not really religion.
Second, it really doesn’t matter whether one filters it or not. What matters is what one does with it. Smoke your Pall Malls, just not around me or anyone else. Drink your Jameson’s, just not right before you decide to drive. Drop your acid, just not before you have to perform surgery. Suggesting the problem with religious belief is that it needs to be sanitized is nothing short of stupid, and misses the damn point. It’s that extremist perversion of liberalism, the kind which allows blasphemy laws and other nonsense under some delusion of tolerance as if it’s the damn height of enlightenment to not offend. Well guess what? Some things are inherently offensive, and it’s just and good to point that out and call a spade a spade.
I think there are some atheists who would prefer a “Praise Chamberlain” billboard.
Sabio Lantz
October 18, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Interestingly — just as we can clearly see a large variety of theists, atheists exhibit the same diversity. Isn’t it beautiful ! It shows that there is more than one way to perform taxonomy — some more meaningful than others.
PhillyChief
October 18, 2009 at 8:54 pm
You know Sabio, shit wrapped in gold is still shit. Is that meaningful enough for you?
Sabio Lantz
October 18, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Indeed, PhillyChief, that is meaningful.
I see it when people change from being religious to atheist and they keep their same disposition.
PhillyChief
October 18, 2009 at 9:58 pm
You mean like holding on to that feigned politeness and smugly flaunting it as some evidence of superiority?
It must be hard being a former believer. I mean, it’s hard enough to give up the delusion, but all that horrid learned behavior must be very hard to expunge. Perhaps even harder. I’m not completely unsympathetic to that but still, a spade is a spade.
Sabio Lantz
October 18, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Moral and intellectual superiority is only graced upon the chieftains. The rest of us just wallow in our stupidity, impurity, confusion and pride.
PhillyChief
October 18, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Honor is a gift one gives to one’s self, Sabio. There’s no need to envy someone for having something you could so easily have, too.
You should be embarrassed to try and turn a criticism into a claim of egotistical superiority by the critic. An honorable man would face the criticism directly, not behave so childishly. Again, old learned behaviors are difficult to shed, but not impossible.
Mark
October 19, 2009 at 12:25 am
Sabio..
The longer I stay away from Christianity…the less stupid I feel, the more moral I am and the road I’m on is much clearer and less confusing.
Mark
October 19, 2009 at 12:30 am
PhillyChief..
An excellent point. Basically, their moral superiority is just a front. They have the “Jesus, Forgive Me” card and they play it without hesitation.
Sabio Lantz
October 19, 2009 at 6:35 am
@ Mark
Mark, I am sure you realize I am an atheist, though my “smug, feigned politeness” may reek of previous sanctified self-righteousness.
There are many benefits of moral disciplines available to religious believers that are often thrown out with the wash when people leave their faith. Often they leave so they can embrace these without guilt.
And likewise, their are great hiding tools inside religions to protect and nurture perversions.
But I don’t think one helps more than another.
I do agree about the confusion issue — that does help !
PhillyChief
October 19, 2009 at 8:33 am
Basically Mark there are people, religious and on-religious, who have this notion that the most important thing is to appear polite and mannerly. Such a notion is all the more ridiculous when although appearing as such, they are anything but, and it’s merely a veil to conceal dishonorable behavior such as passive aggressiveness.
Yes, because everyone knows atheists “often” become atheists so they can sin against god without guilt.
Strength of will, good character, and overall honorable behavior are not dependent upon a religion. If anything, religion undermines these things, in some cases forcing members to ignore their human empathy. It can throw some for a loop leaving religion because religion claims its morals are from a god, so without that god, morals and adherence to morals may seem to not exist and not be required, when that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Imo, you’ll probably realize that most of your morals didn’t come from your religion. Whether inherent or learned from parents, friends and other social interactions, your sense of morality is not dependent upon a belief in the supernatural. During this ‘long, dark, tea time of the soul’ as Douglas Adams put it, you can reflect on what matters and what doesn’t, what you feel is right and wrong, honor and dishonor. It is the responsibility of everyone to have their moment of revaluation of all values, and to perpetually return to this estimation for continued revaluation.
Lorena
October 19, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Indeed, PhillyChief, that is meaningful.
I see it when people change from being religious to atheist and they keep their same disposition.
Sabio, I’m going to disagree with you here. The attitude you allude to I have observed in lifetime atheists more than in ex-Christians. The person you’ve been interacting with is an example.
PhillyChief
October 19, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Ever stop to think how if your assessment of a statement is influenced by either the person making it or the attitude in which it’s delivered, then perhaps your objectivity isn’t nearly as great as you’d like to believe?
Lorena
October 19, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Did I say I was objective at all?
I am not into arguing with anyone, PhillyChief. Hate it. So, if you need an apology, you can have it.
But I will say again that I’ve found your personality type highly prevalent in LIFETIME atheists, and that I don’t like it. I don’t need to be objective to say whether I like something or not.
PhillyChief
October 19, 2009 at 3:50 pm
No, you absolutely don’t, but that wasn’t my point. My point was some people who claim to be rational will dismiss comments because of the “colorful” adjectives within them or due to who is making them. If you can’t see how that is no different than the people who will willfully misunderstand a billboard because it’s from a group of atheists, then I’m not sure how else to explain it.
PS – What I find in a lot of deconverts is both an annoying victim mentality and some sort of need to apologize or make excuses to others for becoming atheists, often trying hard not to ruffle believers’ feathers. I find that nauseating, both subjectively and objectively, for objectively, I think it’s counter-productive and undermines any sort of progressive, atheist and/or secular movement.
Hell, that kind of behavior could undermine just about anything you hope to achieve. Look at the Democrats with a damn majority still kow-towing to Republican pressure and caving in on healthcare. Did FDR and the Dems worry about the Republicans in ’33? We wouldn’t have Social Security today, among other things, if they had. Likewise, sitting and playing nice and making excuses and pleas to the religious to stop imposing on us and others is foolhardy.
Let ye who doesn’t currently keep secret their atheism from even just one person cast the first stone in reply to me. For the rest of you, I suggest a ‘long, dark, tea time of the soul’.
ildi
October 19, 2009 at 6:33 pm
What personality type is that? How do LIFETIME atheists differ from other atheists? Did you conduct a survey and MMPI, or are you just blowing smoke out of your, um, you know… (nether regions)?
Inquiring minds want to know.
PhillyChief
October 19, 2009 at 7:05 pm
A friend sent me an image the other day of a tobacco enema kit. It seems that in the 19th century, it was a medicinal thing, often used to resuscitate. Eventually it was proven to be not the least bit helpful, and potentially harmful, so it fell out of favor, but one thing remains from the practice – the phrase “blowing smoke up my ass” when hearing what seems to be bullshit.
Modusoperandi
October 19, 2009 at 11:18 pm
It’s not that it didn’t work. The problem was all the burning bum hair. Cleaning the pipe afterwards was pretty gross, as well.
cl
October 20, 2009 at 7:12 am
To think, me and Cephus agreed that the first two were neat, and “Praise Darwin” reprehensible. I dig the first two, too, but “Praise Darwin” really exposes the materialist cult for what it is – ironically above another sign ostensibly in promotion of “freethought” that proclaims “Beware of dogma.”
Modusoperandi
October 21, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Well, technically they probably meant definition #1 of “praise”. Practically though, def #2 ends up being what it’s interpreted to be, making ita loaded word, and a poor choice. I would’ve used “kudos” or “huzzah!”. I do that, sometimes.
Jim F
October 29, 2009 at 1:57 pm
The discussion about what the phrase “Imagine No Religion” means is inadvertently validating the intent of that phrase – it gets people to think. It means different things to different people and makes them all think about it.
As for theists having complaints about the message, they will find a way to complain about any message.
cl
October 29, 2009 at 2:42 pm
To be clear, as a theist, I really don’t have any complaints about the sign I criticized. In fact, it’s rather useful in sorting things out.