Humanist Billboard Vandalized in Moscow, Idaho

[Ian David]

Humanist Billboard Vandalized in Moscow, Idaho

Press Release:

Humanist Billboard Vandalized in Moscow, Idaho

Washington, D.C -- Vandals have blacked out—apparently with spray paint—part of a billboard in Moscow, Idaho that reads "Millions are good without God" so that the word "without" is unreadable. The billboard, which was placed by the American Humanist Association in mid-September, is part of an AHA advertising campaign to spread awareness about being good without God. It's the third billboard the organization has displayed in the Moscow area and similar advertisements have been put up around the country.

"We're disappointed that someone felt the need to sabotage our message," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "We don't see the billboard as being controversial or an attack on religion; we see it as just stating a point of fact. It's saddening that some people react with such antagonism to the mere statement you can be good without a belief in God."

"I knew there would be some disagreement with the billboard's slogan, but I do wish that those who objected would have opened a dialogue with us rather than trying to stifle our message and damaging property," continued Speckhardt. "A phone call would have been much nicer."

The American Humanist Association has filed a police report with the Moscow Police Department. In addition, it has alerted the billboard company they contracted with, Lamar Outdoor, who said they will assess whether or not the billboard can be cleaned. If not, the American Humanist Association will pay to have the billboard replaced.

"If we replace the billboard our next slogan might read 'Being good without God clearly not for everybody'," Speckhardt joked.

The billboard can be found on Highway 95, just south of Moscow near the Sweet Avenue cross street, facing northbound traffic. Lamar Outdoor said that occasionally billboards are vandalized, but it hasn't happened in several years. This is the first American Humanist Association advertisement that has been defaced to the organization's knowledge.

"We have had a few complaints about our advertisements, but most have been respectful of our right to speak our minds," said Speckhardt.

The American Humanist Association (www.americanhumanist.org ) advocates for the rights and viewpoints of humanists. Founded in 1941 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., its work is extended through more than 100 local chapters and affiliates across the United States.

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity.
###

More:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/news/details/2009-10-humanist-billboard-vandalized-in-moscow-idaho

[Chulanowa]

1. What shitty vandals

"Millions are good god?" What the hell does that say?

Maybe they're making an interjective exclamative statement? "Millions are... GOOD GOD!"

[Ian David]

3. If they'd at least added a comma or something, it might have made sense.

I would argue that it is harder to be good WITH god than without.

[jemelanson]

26. That is a very true statement.

[niyad]

6. unfortunately, people like that are lacking in grammar skills

[DeSwiss]

9. Good gawd!?!?!

[ZombieHorde]

2. 'Being good without God clearly not for everybody' = funny! nt

[SidneyCarton]

4. I find vandalism of this sort to be pathetic.

But that said, I find their shock at these actions to be a bit disingenuous. These billboards were meant to spark a reaction (much like the Atheist bus ads) and they have. Mission accomplished.

[darkstar3]

8. The same could be said about the Gay Pride Parade.

Would you say that people shouldn't be shocked if violence erupts during a Gay Pride Parade?

It's all about raising awareness. It's not about starting a fight. If it were, the billboard could have read 'God, Santa, what's the difference?'

[SidneyCarton]

12. A movement worth following is a movement worth suffering persecution for.

And one man's raising awareness is another man's waving the red flag. Doesn't make the ones who feel challenged right, but after enough experience with this, should anyone really be surprised?

[darkstar3]

13. Ah, I see.

'She was asking for it.' :eyes:

[SidneyCarton]

14. .

You're right, your position is so self-evidently correct that no-one, no matter how bigoted, prejudiced or misanthropic could but help keep silent in the face of such self-evident truth.

Give me a break, the vandalism of a billboard =/= rape.

[darkstar3]

15. No, it doesn't.

But your attitude that the atheists should have expected it because they were trying to get attention is nothing more or less than the attitude of a rape apologist who says that the woman should have expected it because she was wearing a short skirt.

In other words, vandalism =/= rape, but your attitude still stinks like a midden heap.

[SidneyCarton]

19. What makes your movement so special that it should expect to advance without opposition?

[darkstar3]

20. There are so many things wrong with that single sentence.

1. Who said atheism was a movement? :wtf:
2. I never asked for special consideration, I just find it highly suspect that you think atheists should EXPECT to get their signs vandalized, like it's a foregone conclusion and we shouldn't even object.
3. When we're talking about equality, opposition to it in any form is sickening. By stating that all we're trying to do is get attention and that this vandalism is deserved, you are part of that opposition.

Again, your attitude stinks.

Edit: grammar

[SidneyCarton]

21. You take a stand, and you expect everyone to either fall in line or hold their peace?

1. When you put up billboards "raising consciousness" for a position, you're a movement, get over it.

2. When you put up billboards "raising consciousness" on what is admittedly a controversial topic, having them vandalized is par for the course.

3. Opposition to equality is certainly sickening in any form, but it is also to be expected. Woman's Rights, Civil Rights, Gay Rights, etc. have all had to fight, face persecution and have gained their victories at the cost of blood, sweat toil and tears, what makes the effort to gain moral equality for atheism any different. Disrupting the status quo, no matter how necessary and justifiable that disruption is, will garner a reaction, and most often that reaction is unpleasant. The way humanists reacted to that reaction displays either a striking naivete, (this was Moscow, ID after all) or a disingenuousness worthy of Karl Rove. (Wave the red flag, provoke an attack, play the victim)

You want to upset the applecart, get ready to piss people off. You don't like that, stay home. The only way to avoid persecution is to chuck out one's own personal beliefs (or the lack thereof) and play the role of the absolute conformist. Otherwise one pays one's money and one takes one's chances.

[darkstar3]

22. And your entire post is an attempt to excuse that persecution.

You're saying it's OK for people to vandalize property because we were asking for it.

[SidneyCarton]

23. No, it's not ok, but it is to be expected.

I don't support the actions of the vandals (Which was in my original response to the OP, which you have seemed to have overlooked.) but I criticize the response of the organization that put up the board in the first place.

There is no excuse for persecution, but it is irrational to expect that it won't happen. I thought the whole point of secular humanism was it's inherent rationality.

[darkstar3]

24. It is completely rational to expect people to follow the law.

It is also completely rational to expect common human decency from everyone.

As was stated in the article, the AHA expected that people would complain, and that they would get phone calls, but they certainly didn't expect that someone would violate the law and damage property just because they had a problem with the message. That seems rational to me. So what exactly in their response to this incident forces you to criticism?

[SidneyCarton]

25. Then they are naive.

Where have they been for the past few years, the rhetoric between fundies (Which I assume are in force in Moscow, as well as Mormons) and Athiests such as Dr. Dawkins and Sam Harris (who, whether you like it or not, have been the most public faces of Atheism in the past few years) have been characterized by anything but civility, decency and respect.

The rhetoric has moved far beyond civil discourse and rational discussion, it is a visceral, and highly charged emotional debate between two groups who alternately find the other to be either delusional idiots or amoral heretics, either way, in the midst of such an atmosphere, I think a little more than complaints ought to have been expected, particularly in rural Idaho, which is not known for its broadmindedness.

[darkstar3]

27. So we're allowed our free speech,

just not the right to be offended when someone shits all over that free speech.

So here's where I have a problem:
Believers in the Moscow area HAVE the right to be offended by a peaceful message, but the AHA does NOT have the right be shocked or offended by unlawful property damage and suppression of free speech on the part of believers in the Moscow area.

That's EXACTLY like saying that religious people have the right to be offended by people being gay in public, but gays do NOT have the right to be offended when religious people shout 'you're gonna burn in hell ya faggots' and throw things at them.

After all, they were just asking for attention, and they got it. Mission accomplished. :puke:

[SidneyCarton]

28. You got any more false analogies to throw in there.

I think the only one we haven't broached yet is Godwins' law, but I'm sure you could work some Nazis in between puking smilies.

You are indeed allowed your free speech, the morons who "shit" all over your free speech were wrong to do what they did, rights to be offended aside. The AHA has the right to feel shocked and offended by the actions, and I have the right to consider them naive or disingenuous for the manner of their reaction. You then have the right to feel enraged at my opinion and respond to it in the manner that you have demonstrably done throughout this sub-thread, with me disagreeing the whole way. Ain't free speech grand, we don't have to agree! In fact, we can each think the other is full of shit and no one can make us think otherwise.

One billboard, thousands of churches, temples, etc across Eastern Europe, Russia and Asia in the past century, cry me a river, we're all jerks, and we all have a fair amount of real blood on our hands. The argument that between theists and atheists one side has a greater moral position is baloney, we both share beliefs with monsters.

[darkstar3]

29. You sicken me

You are certainly allowed your free speech, but your attitude is still shitty, and I think people with your attitude are part of the problem.

And your point on Stalin, Mao, and the rest (oh, you thought I wouldn't notice, huh?) is still ad hom, and you still don't have proof that any of them killed because of their atheism, and the only reason you and the rest of the atheist-bashing believers on this board continue to bring it up is because you are desperate to paint atheism as more morally bankrupt than your own faith. And I just LOVE how you managed to drag that whole debate into this COMPLETELY unrelated sub-thread. I wonder why you felt the need to do that? I think it's time to expand Godwin's law...

[SidneyCarton]

30. If I hadn't intended you to notice it, I wouldn't have put it in the post.

Believe it or not Shitty attitudes are protected by the first amendment, and frankly sunshine, your attitude ain't smelling like roses either these days.

Kill because of their atheism? No proof? Gee, I suppose that the thousands of priests in the gulags, and the numerous bulldozed, and dynamited churches, etc. throughout the "officially atheist" parts of the world during the last century were just a fluke.

I sicken you? How exactly do you reconcile your profession of rationalism with such immense cognitive dissonance?

I don't have to paint Atheism as morally bankrupt, any more than you have to do so with Theism, the evidence is there. The immediate and vehement tenor of your response merely proves my point for me, this is the sticking point that you can't get over, and it drives you nuts. Neither of us have moral superiority in the issue of persecution, the difference is I'm being intellectually honest enough to admit it.

[darkstar3]

31. Oh, you're honest, allright.

Honest about the fact that you hate atheism and will use any excuse or opportunity to attack it, even when your attacks are baseless. That's the real reason why you feel that the AHA is disingenuous in its response when it was a completely rational and calm statement.

As for the 'immediate and vehement tenor' of my response, it is nothing more or less than disgust at your infinitely repeated use of a false ad hom attack to demean someone who disagrees with you. And to answer a previous point of yours, you may call my analogies are false, but that's only because you know that you'd never get away with backing gay-bashing.

As my wife has said in the past, it seems that atheists and women are the only two minorities left that it's OK to hate in public, and you demonstrate atheist-hating nicely.

[iris27]

34. Uh, let's not start Oppression Olympics, please.

"atheists and women are the only two minorities left that it's OK to hate in public"

um...and fat people, and Arabs, and trans people, and....

[Warren DeMontague]

37. How about trans fat people?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Ian David]

32. Stalin and Mao weren't truly Atheist. In their system, Communism was a religion.

They were leaders of a cult of Communism. Their "god" was The State (or more specifically, The Party).

Just because you don't worship and pray to something, doesn't mean it's not a religion.

[rd_kent]

16. Are they meant to spark a reaction anymore than the signs in front of churches?

The one with the clever saying........why is it that stating a fact should cause such a reaction. Funny how you seem to be on the side of the vandals....

[iris27]

33. No one's "shocked"...they just said they wish

those who disagree with them would engage in discussion instead of simply try to shut them up. Nothing disingenuous about that.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. The same kind of pathetic, reactionary, small-minded fucks who are frightened of homosexuality

are also the types likely to blow a gasket when someone openly states "We don't believe in God".

So I take it the point of your "blame the victim" claptrap here is to encourage Atheists (and gays, too?) to get back in the closet--- so as to avoid upsetting the knuckle-draggers?

[Boojatta]

5. No surprise: Moscow has commies. They don't respect private property.

;-)

[iris27]

35. Hahahaha....

:rofl:

[Canuckistanian]

7. WBWJV?

Whose Billboard Would Jesus Vandalize?

[DeSwiss]

10. See how afraid they are?

Their message ultimately then is that their god is such a weak little pussy. So much so, that they just can't stand the idea of someone who won't kowtow to him. When they find the miscreant who did this, they'll also no doubt find a large cache of weapons and some kind of material that explodes.

- Oh, and he'll have a very, very tiny penis.....



on edit: spelling

[Sal316]

11. Inexcusable. eom

[Better Today]

17. Okay, so in Moscow Idaho one whould know this would happen,

why didn't they post a camera or something to catch the perps. Seems with todays inexpensive stuff that would be easy enough to do and to monitor from an offsite computer.

It is pretty screwed that anyone would do it, but in Moscow Idaho, ie podunk redneck drunk college students USA, one could see it coming.

[Soylent Brice]

18. was it a DUer?

lol