Is this sign offensive

This billboard ran on Des Moines buses for three days and in that time, the transit authority received numerous of angry phone calls and people refused to board buses with the sign.


image taken from www.iowaatheists.org

Link to article about the matter: http://www.kcci.com/news/20298174/detail.html

both groups deserve the same voice, even if whiny xians don't like it.

or banner. It is private. I am no more or less offended by this than some of the others. I just think it is strange to put your most personal beliefs on a billboard.

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable posting my beliefs on a billboard. They are, as you say, a personal matter.

Lots of different religions don't believe in the Abrahamic god. Lots of people who don't believe in that same god don't even belong to a religion.

If the sign read, "Don't believe in Ahura Mazda? You're not alone" what religion is that?

Its an advertisement. And atheists dont have "beliefs" about a god.

religious organizations. I don't mind those. Why do they mind this one? I don't get it.

And I don't see how it could be "offensive" to anyone.

"Offensive" meaning vulgar.

Of course, there would people who disagree with the sentiment of such a sign, but it is simply not "offensive" as in bad taste or using 'four letter words' or grotesque images.

Frankly, I don't see how this sign could be considered anymore offensive that the kinds of intolerant messages often found on the marquees of lots of local churches.

I hope the Iowa Atheists sue the pants off of the Des Moines transit authority. If any churches have ever been permited to purchase such advertising space in the past, the atheists will win ... no contest.

Unlike some at DU.

It's an affirmation of atheists and it's quite telling that some theists find that offensive. It definitely jives with my experience of religious people considering my very existence an affront to them.

I was walking and listening to one of the (many, many) RW hate shows here in Iowa. I heard this guy ranting about these people should go elsewhere balh, blah, blah...

It's basically saying that only atheists are "freethinkers," which is probably unfair.

The sign, however, definitely not offensive.

Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers...

They also include agnostics and secular humanists, and other nonreligious types.

You wrote:


I wrote that the organization name doesn't say at all that only atheists are freethinkers because "Atheists and Freethinkers" indicates that there are both atheists and freethinkers.

How is that not the point of what you said?

Religious people, and xtians in particular, are not allowed to freethink. Doing so puts one in opposition to the teachings of that religion.

If that bus service is taxpayer subsidized then that ad is as inappropriate as a publicly funded traveling version of the 10 Commandments. Government ought not appear to advocate (even through the acceptance of paid advertising) for or against any religious or political views. Most private businesses would be well advised to do the same IMHO.

any more than a religious version.

All it does is state an empirical fact that that there are people who don't believe in God.

If it read, "Gay? You're not alone" would you say that it advocated homosexuality?

The Establishment CLause would seem to mandate that government ought not be involved in such conduct with respect to matters of religious faith. I could care less about a private ad placed on privately owned property. However, it would appear that these signs were displayed on public transportation which was taxpayer subsidized. FWIW, I think that ads for churchs also are inappropriate in this environment.

Last I checked there wasn't a Constitutional mandate regarding sexual preference. And if there were I would hope that it would be one that keeps government out of the bedroom and mandates they keep their hands off. Just like the Establishment Clause tells government to stay the hell out of religious matters.

Advocate ad⋅vo⋅cate  /v. ˈædvəˌkeɪt; n. ˈædvəkɪt, -ˌkeɪt/ , -cat⋅ed, -cat⋅ing, noun

–verb (used with object)
1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly.

The ads don't argue for anything or make any recommendations. They state a fact. The Establishment Clause doesn't prohibit advertisements that say, "atheists exist" or advertisements that say, "Christians exist." The Census says that atheists exist and that Christians exist. Does distributing that part of the census advocate anything religious?

Additionally, Iowa Atheists isn't a religious organization, so advertisements soliciting membership don't run afoul of the Establishment Clause. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, but there's no law or court precedent against soliciting membership in a non-religious organization.

edit: typo

this Calvin Klein ad isn't selling anything either by your standard:




Really, there wasn't any reason to spend the money to buy the ad space if the sign wasn't an effort to sell something - an idea, a possible affiliation, some kind of widget, some event, a belief.

Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers is a non-religious, non-political organization with open membership. Is your argument that they shouldn't be allowed to purchase ad space to promote their organization despite it being a legal activity?

you failed to read my earlier posts in this thread:

My post 12:
If that bus service is taxpayer subsidized then that ad is as inappropriate as a publicly funded traveling version of the 10 Commandments. Government ought not appear to advocate (even through the acceptance of paid advertising) for or against any religious or political views. Most private businesses would be well advised to do the same IMHO.

My post 21:
It advocates and solicits affiliation. The Establishment CLause would seem to mandate that government ought not be involved in such conduct with respect to matters of religious faith. I could care less about a private ad placed on privately owned property. However, it would appear that these signs were displayed on public transportation which was taxpayer subsidized. FWIW, I think that ads for churchs also are inappropriate in this environment.

Last I checked there wasn't a Constitutional mandate regarding sexual preference. And if there were I would hope that it would be one that keeps government out of the bedroom and mandates they keep their hands off. Just like the Establishment Clause tells government to stay the hell out of religious matters.




I don't give a damn what faith you (or anyone else) does or does not hold. Nor do I feel compelled to suggest to you (or anyone else) that my beliefs with respect to faith are right and ought to supplant theirs. I respect those who hold beliefs that I do not. I believe that the Establishmet Clause of the US Constitution requires that government ought to take a similar approach to matters of faith.

Atheism (and disctionary.com includes atheist as a synonym for freethinker) is a doctrine or belief regarding the existence of God.

Religion according to dictionary.com is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

You think atheism is a fact. People of faith also think their beliefs are fact. Both are religious views. Neither should be represented or permitted to advertise on public government owned property. This appears to be a sign that advocats and solicits a position regarding religious faith on taxpayer subsidized public transportation.

Atheism may or may not be a fact - but it is certain that atheism advocates a position regarding religion - and it is not tolerant of differing views. Government ought not appear to advocate for or against any religious belief - and that includes atheism.

you didn't read what I wrote either, but I'll give it one last try.

"Government ought not appear to advocate (even through the acceptance of paid advertising) for or against any religious or political views."

As I pointed out multiple times before, the advertisements aren't advocating for or against any religious or political views. They simply stated that there are people who don't believe in God. Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers is a non-religious, non-political organization.

"It advocates and solicits affiliation. The Establishment CLause would seem to mandate that government ought not be involved in such conduct with respect to matters of religious faith. I could care less about a private ad placed on privately owned property. However, it would appear that these signs were displayed on public transportation which was taxpayer subsidized. FWIW, I think that ads for churchs also are inappropriate in this environment.

Last I checked there wasn't a Constitutional mandate regarding sexual preference. And if there were I would hope that it would be one that keeps government out of the bedroom and mandates they keep their hands off. Just like the Establishment Clause tells government to stay the hell out of religious matters."

Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers is a non-religious organization. The Establishment Clause doesn't prohibit non-religious organizations from soliciting membership. A fairly consistent interpretation of the Establishment Clause has been that no Government action can support one religion over another or religion over irreligion or vice versa. A sign stating that people don't believe in God does neither since 1) it doesn't support one religion over another, 2)it doesn't promote or attack non-belief, and 3)the group it solicits membership for is a non-religious organization.

"You think atheism is a fact. People of faith also think their beliefs are fact. Both are religious views."

I never said that "atheism is a fact." I said that "atheists exist" is a fact. "Christians exist" is also a fact. Saying so doesn't advocate either position, nor is it a religious statement. It's no different than saying that any group of people exist. That's where the "Gay? You're not alone," line came in. "Don't believe in God? You're not alone" is as much a religious statement as "Gay? You're not alone" or "Read books? You're not alone."

Since you missed that in every response so far, I'll repeat it again. The advertisement read, "Don't believe in God? You're not alone." This is not a religious statement. This is not an anti-religious statement. This isn't a statement promoting belief in God. This isn't a statement promoting disbelief in God.

It is a statement of fact. That fact is that there are people who don't believe in God. It is a demographic statement.

that it appears on taxpayer subsidized property.

Implied speech is a form of expression. That Calvin Klein ad doesn't say anything about getting laid if you wear their jeans - but it is certainly implied. Ads regarding religious faith on taxpayer subsidized property are inappropriate. They are often understood to suggest government favor toward certain views at the exclusion of others. You don't have to take my word, of course. Go take a communications class. You'll learn a lot about implied speech.

IMHO, anybody who thinks this ad is appropriate to display on taxpayer subsidized public property ought not complain about Ten Commandment displays on similar property - including courtrooms. Or church advertisements. Or Bible verses being displayed by the National Park Service at scenic overlloks in the Grand Canyon. It is a fact that the Ten Commandments exist and so do those Bible verses and those churches who are advertising do in fact have services. The mere fact of their existence doesn't justify the government posting religious materials. Who gives a fuck whether they actually exist? That's not the issue. The issue is that government is showing favor toward one view as opposed to many alternate views.

Atheism is a religious view - regardless of whether you care to acknowledge it. It is more than a demographic. Would you have a problem if that bus listed the demographics of religious affiliation (perhaps as measured by Census reporting) across the US? Those crazy Christians would be a clear majority and those athiests would be a much smaller demographic. It would be a very different message wouldn't it?

-You say the signs advocate a religion.
-I refute that with an explanation.
-You say the signs advocate and solicit membership in a religious group.
-I refute that with an explanation.
-You make a comparison to Calvin Klein ads.
-I say that IAF is a secular organization.
-You say the signs advocate and solicit membership in a religious group.
-I refute that with an explanation.
-You make a comparison to religious ads.

And here we are.

Your stated opposition is that IAF, a secular organization, is actually a religious organization and that the ads secretly advocate a religious viewpoint.

I have addressed those points repeatedly and in response you continue repeating your original charge. If you want to continue insisting that IAF, a secular organization, is a religious group and their bus ads, which state a demographic fact, advocate a religious viewpoint go right ahead. I'm done here.

not everyone sees the same things you see from your window. Must be a small world just looking out your tiny tinted window.

You refuse to even consider that someone else might see what you don't. How enlightened and progressive. Kind of reminds me of the dogmatism of some fundies I know.

Welcome to my list of less than progeressive DUers.

Even if it's a commerical product?

There are two legal approaches or theories regarding how the Establishment Clause ought to be implemented. The first says the governemnt should operate separate from religion and give it no aid. The second says that government should not prefer or accommodate one religious belief over another - an interpretation which does not preclude government entry into the religious domain.

Government property ought not be used to advertise or advocate for or against any relgious view. Atheism is a religious view. Atheism does express views regarding religion which dictionary.com defines as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Religious speech and commercial speech are not the same. With respect to government there are prohibitions regarding religious speech.

Its an advert to join a group.

I don't think they should be offended. Not anymore than I should be offended by a 'Jesus Lives' billboard (or other such.)

So I chose option 3.

So it's a simple statement of fact, and it's hard to see how anyone could be offended by it, unless they were scared by the prospect of their god smiting those buses - that could explain why some refused to board.

This situation might be a win for IAF, though. The controversy gets them a lot of free publicity, and they probably won't have to pay for the aborted ad campaign.

What's the old saying? No such thing as bad PR?

perfectly fine, I think.

This is a good example of advertising what they think is good about their view - without turning it into a bashing of others' views.

Simply states a fact--that there's more than one atheist, even in Iowa. :-)

who is disturbed about a sign that sends that message that there actually are atheists in the world. No claims about whether god actually does or doesn't exist, just that there are people out there that think the latter and that you don't need to feel like you are the only one.

And I am very happy that there are no yes votes on the poll. Nicely done, DU.

someone's different beliefs are offensive? Unless they're advocating harm to someone, how can that be?

Many Christians have doubts about God, and don't want to be exposed to ideas which might increase those doubts. Since it's difficult to walk around in a blindfold and ear plugs, they would like the rest of us to shut up instead.

to find someone's non-belief threatening at all.

I find people who want to strip me as a woman or gay and lesbian people of rights using their religion as a cover threatening. A threat in a civic sense, and a threat in a religious sense, as that sort of hate is poisonous.

But someone who simply doesn't believe in God? There's nothing hurtful or harmful there.

There's a billboard here for a local megachurch that has the slogan A Family of Friends and, judging by the few times I've seen their pastor on TV, it should carry a disclaimer that reads Warning: Does not apply to gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people, atheists, the scientifically literate, the politically liberal, or women. I find that billboard much more offensive because their slogan is such obvious bullshit.

But I'd like to state the following:

The sign as posted here is in no way offensive. It attacks no one, it advocates no particular position by itself, and it uses exactly zero "charged" language. All it says is "hey everybody, we exist!" To take offense at a sign like this is to take offense at the mere existence of atheists in general. (At least, that's the way I see it.)

With regard to positioning, a poster upthread has already gone off on the fact that these signs, along with their christian counterparts, have no place on taxpayer-subsidized buses. Were this a perfect world, I would agree 110%. But this is not a perfect world, and the christian signs find their way onto buses all over this nation, including my home town, so it's nice to see that SOME equal time is allowed, even if it doesn't make it to my unenlightened neck of the woods.

Speaking of those "other" signs, I wish the christians would take a page out of the IAF playbook. Sometimes, people, less is more. There's no need to bombard people with your message. As my mother used to say, "remember, honey, about flies and vinegar..." I can't be too offended by a sign that simply says "Come to a place where HOPE abides." Oh I don't agree with their message (since I think you can find hope elsewhere), but at least it's a simple, inoffensive, and above all NEUTRAL (ie, non-attack) ad. We could use a few more of those...

But you know what I'm really waiting for? The day they start using sex to sell church on billboards. C'mon people, it's the final frontier!!

And welcome to DU!

I've actually been lurking since at least 2004, but most of the time my thoughts are posted by others before I get the chance to register. Lately, though, I've decided to start throwing in my $.02. Believe it or not, this is actually the first message board I'll have been a member of since...1996, I think. So you should beware of bad writing, poorly expressed thought trains, and general bad behavior such as overused commas, run-on sentences, and far too many ... :)

It'd be nice to see an explanation.