Atheist Billboards Rejected by LIND Media Company in Ohio

[WillParkinson]

It's OK to tell strangers they're going to hell, but it's SO not OK to tell them they aren't. So says a billboard company in Ohio.

The inflammatory nature of the proposed displays would no doubt be considered offensive to much of the community and would be harmful to Lind’s community reputation and goodwill. Lind has always and will continue to reserve the right not to publish advertisements which, in its sole opinion, are obscene, unnecessarily offensive and/or not in the best interests of the community at large.



www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/11/22/atheist-billboards-rejected-by-lind-media-company-in-ohio/

[Ezlivin]

1. When do we buy our own damned billboard company?

This is a widespread problem: The billboard companies control what messages get through.

I'd love to see more atheist messages on billboards!

[MineralMan]

4. Now, there's a good idea. Owning our own media outlets

is always a good idea. It's odd that we haven't done that already, really.

[Quartermass]

2. Isn't it funny how one group

says it's okay for them to be inflammatory but it isn't okay to question them? Funny, that.

[Goblinmonger]

3. I didn't know that a Lind Sr Executive posted on DU? n/t

[CrispyQ]

5. Man, we have a long way to go.

Atheists, & their message, are "not in the best interests of the community at large."

[_ed_]

14. "Be skeptical and require evidence for all claims"

Yes, such messages are WAY too offensive for modern America. Better to cling to Bronze Age myths.

[CrispyQ]

16. When I read that the company thought the messages were offensive,

I clicked on the link, expecting to find something similar to Richard Dawkin's comment about God being the most mean-spirited character in all of fiction, which I love by the way! But no, the offensive signs read:

Don't believe in God? Neither do we!

There is no God. Don't believe everything you hear.

If these are offensive, then there are a whole lotta people who are not as confident of their faith as they thought they were.

[NMMNG]

6. More of the double standard

Religious people can put up whatever vile, hateful messages they want and it's OK because they're religious. However merely saying you're a non-believer is so offensive it can't be touched. :wtf:

[_ed_]

12. Amazing, isn't it?

People who still believe in fairy tales in 2011 are given deference, but skepticism is "offensive."

Their "god" must be a weak, powerless little baby if "he" is so threatened by a billboard.

[dmallind]

7. Sensible move on their part

Why subject their property to the inevitable vandalism and destruction that Christians always wreak on statements of disagreement?

[saras]

8. Because it won't protect them.

[dmallind]

9. Sorry - missing something - what won't protect whom? nt

[humblebum]

10. Sometimes I wonder if atheists are purposely trying to make themselves more unpopular.

If they are, then they are on the right track.

[_ed_]

11. We really don't care about being popular

Being logically consistent and reasonable is enough for me.

[NMMNG]

27. But you should

You should care about making the majority group happy so they'll keep pretending they like you. It's all about making them happy, not about you being honest, content or living an authentic life. That's why they go into a frenzy any time somebody dare question or challenge them. Dissenters must be brought back into compliance by any means possible. Any disruption in the Status Quo is intolerable.

[Goblinmonger]

13. They used the SAME WORDS

as a religious billboard with different organizational graphics.

HOW FUCKING DARE THEY!!!!

[Tesha]

15. We understand that we'll never be popular with you.

Still, I'm pretty sure our message has just as much
right to be heard as the "Where are you going? Heaven
or Hell" giant billboard that Mr. Tesha drives by every
day and that I had to drive the grandkids by just this
morning.

Tesha

[humblebum]

17. Bigotry never is. nt

[Tesha]

18. Bigotry? You seem to be confused about what that word means.

By the way, such an accusation is a personal attack and
against the rules here.

Tesha

[MarkCharles]

19. That person seems to be confused about the meanings of a lot of words, I have...

found.

I have decided not to deal with what I imagine to be a less than honest and less than well-informed individual.

I'm sure that, in that individual's mind, I'm a baby Pol Pot or Stalin.

So be it. I think the one singular aim of that individual is to make us atheists look bad, however and in whatever way possible, including lying about us.

[humblebum]

20. Gee, I hope you find that person. nt

[Goblinmonger]

22. ........

[humblebum]

23. "the one singular aim of that individual is to make us atheists look bad"-

Atheists are doing a good enough job on their of making themselves look bad without my help. And when have I ever compared you to Pol Pot or Stalin?

[humblebum]

21. How so?nt

[Tesha]

24. You, in a roundabout way, stated that my post is bigoted.

Since my post clearly isn't, you must be confused
about what the word means.

Tesha

[humblebum]

25. I believe the subject is the billboard, not you. that I do consider bigoted.nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

26. What is bigoted about the billboard?

Seriously, what is bigoted about it?

[_ed_]

31. Here is the text:

Don't believe in God? Neither do we!
There is no God. Don't believe everything you hear.

Very, very offensive stuff. Evidently, pointing out that religious people have no evidence for their "god(s)" is offensive.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

38. Yea, I read the billboard text

With all the real bigotry out there, HB finds this offensive? Un-freaking-believable.

[cleanhippie]

36. Humblebum will NEVER answer that question. EVER!

He knows its not bigoted, but he says it is just to get a response. Its dishonesty at its worst.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

39. And yet I continue asking the question

without any answers.

I think that humblebum is a closet atheist who's too scared to admit it and tilts way to the other side to compensate.

[_ed_]

30. Is it bigotry to criticize astrology, water divining, or alchemy?

How is asking people who make fantastic claims to provide evidence for them bigotry? You seem to have no idea what bigotry is.

[humblebum]

33. When the very definition of the word fits the action, it's appropriate. nt

[Major Nikon]

46. Many made similar statements during the Memphis sanitation strike

[Odin2005]

28. I bet they are afraid of being boycotted by the religious nuts.

[NMMNG]

29. Boycotted or targeted for vandalism

Those are the usual reactions when atheist billboards go up. People filled with Christ's love just have to let it out, apparently.

[_ed_]

32. Yes, but those pesky atheists are being "offensive"

so they must deserve to have their property damaged by the faithful.

[NMMNG]

37. Anybody who reacts to mere offense

by vandalizing property and/or threatening to harm others needs therapy, if not incarceration. They're not moral, righteous or decent. They're potentially dangerous bullies.

[Enthusiast]

34. Truly pathetic......nt

[Sal316]

35. Umm...ok

LIND is a private company, it's completely their choice.

Isn't that what atheists say when fundies whine about not being allowed to "Godify" everything?

Now that the shoe's on the other foot, the complaints sound strikingly familiar.


....as for me, I'm as outraged over this as I'd be if Fundy billboards were rejected.....which is to say not at all.

[NMMNG]

40. You have it backwards

Atheists don't give a hoot about private companies or individuals putting up religious messages. It's when our tax dollars are used to promote religion, and/or religious messages are put on public property that we have a problem. We also tend to have a problem with hypocrisy, such as when a company refuses to carry an atheist message by claiming the atheist message is "too offensive" when they've previously carried messages as offensive as (if not more than) the one they rejected, or when they claim they don't do "religious messages" when they obviously have.


Christians, on the other hand, are the ones who insist private corporations and individuals should be able to pick and choose what they do and who they do it with regardless of any anti-discrimination or other laws. Then they play the persecution card when it backfires on them, like when gay people choose not to give their money to anti-gay bigots. Maybe they should stop throwing stones from their glass houses.

[Sal316]

41. If you didn't care...

Then why care about the billboards LIND put up previously which are, agreed, ignorant and offensive?

They're a private company. Sounds like a bunch of whining to me.

So they rejected the atheist message, it's their right. Find someone else to do business with.

Hell, why even this thread?

As far as your last paragraph about "Christians", you might want to define who you're talking about. Broadbrushing like that is a sign of intellectual immaturity.

[NMMNG]

42. It's the hypocrisy, silly

LIND has put up religious billboards that are just as "offensive" as the one they rejected as "offensive". Yes they're a private company but there should be some consistency. Otherwise they deserve to be called on their hypocrisy.


As far as your last paragraph about "Christians", you might want to define who you're talking about.

People who call themselves "Christians". Said people who preach about the right of private enterprise to do as they please, then whine when they're they reap as they sow.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. "its completely their choice" actually it might not be, they might have run afoul of the....

The Civil Rights Act, you know, the law that made your argument for the discrimination of blacks by private businesses invalid(and illegal) in the 1960s. It depends on how the law views these type of companies, as public accessible or not.

As far as comparisons of complaints, you really are dishonest, aren't you? Lying for the Lord, as it were.

[Major Nikon]

44. So was Woolworth’s lunch counter

[darkstar3]

45. +1

[Deep13]

47. Fundy billboards are never rejected. That's the point.

And by the way, "private company" is purely a capitalist, bourgeois construction and has no basis in reality beyond that. Our legal system that distinguishes between public and private, a distinction that did not exist before the industrial revolution, is merely a reflection of capitalist culture. I'm surprised that you as a Christian would try to naturalize such an artificial distinction.