Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/atheist-slavery-billboard-pennsylvania-raises-tempers_n_1342268.html

By Diana Fishlock
Religion News Service

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- The billboard is down, but the issue's not gone.

A billboard erected in one of the city's most racially diverse neighborhoods featured an African slave with the biblical quote, "Slaves, obey your masters." It lasted less than a day before someone tore it down.

Now, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission is investigating and is meeting with both the atheists who sponsored it as well as leaders of the NAACP who found it offensive and racially charged.

The atheists behind the sign said they were trying to draw attention to the state House's recent designation of 2012 as "The Year of the Bible" -- an action by lawmakers that the atheists have called offensive.

But there were concerns that erecting such a billboard is playing with fire.

"If this had been Detroit, there would have been a riot," said Aaron Selvey of Harrisburg, who visited the billboard site last Wednesday (March 7), the day after the sign was put up and later torn down.

"We don't want things to escalate into violence or community tension, so we try to address situations like that right away," added Shannon Powers, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. "We would not recommend tearing down because it could lead to escalation. It hasn't, and we're tremendously thankful for that."

The billboard was quickly replaced with an ad for the Harrisburg Symphony Orchestra.

Ernest Perce V, the Pennsylvania state director of American Atheists, said he won't press charges against whoever damaged the billboard he designed, and said he, too, is a victim after receiving death threats.

"We hope people can see just a little bit of discrimination we get," said Perce, who offended local Muslims last year when he dressed as a "Zombie Muhammad" in a Halloween parade.

Perce and the atheist sponsors of the billboard said they are dismayed that people were offended by the image instead of what he called injustices in the Bible and legislators naming 2012 "The Year of the Bible."

Perce said he will proceed with a 25-billboard statewide campaign against the Bible and the legislation.

"We ask that you turn your anger toward the (state) House of Representatives," he said, adding that his group does not support or condone slavery while the Bible, which he called "evil," does.

Brian Fields, president of the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, understands the image was provocative.

"I want to say that I'm truly sorry that many people have misunderstood this billboard. It was never our intention to use race as our message itself," Fields said.

"I don't know if that would have had the impact, the same meaning if it wasn't tied into something visceral. The picture shows the consequences of the statement that the Bible makes."

Andrew Rebuck, general manager of the Lemar Advertising office in Lemoyne, Pa., said his firm will review all images from the atheists before posting any new billboards.

"We don't endorse the message," he said. "That is not my intent to have the community upset."

Stanley Lawson, president of the Greater Harrisburg Branch of the NAACP, said his group didn't advocate taking the sign down, "but, boy, was I pleased it was done."

"It caused a lot of hurt and a lot of pain in the community. I've gotten more phone calls about this than I have about any issues in the past three or four years. It wasn't just elderly people, it was young people, across the board."

Selvey, the man who visited the billboard site and made the comparison to Detroit, called the billboard a hit to his soul.

"That image, that was my ancestors. That represents their struggle and all the pain they went through," he said. "I don't think a lot of people understood how offensive that is. Schoolchildren will just see that black face and the words. They don't understand the context."

Diana Fishlock writes for The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. Staff writer Matthew Kemeny contributed to this report.

enjoy

GG

I think it's more likely that it was intended to be racist, and they're just covering their tracks.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:I think it's more likely that it was intended to be racist, and they're just covering their tracks.

It isn't more likely nor was it what the poster was about. Some Atheists see Christianity in the African American community as a result of it being imposed on them as slaves, and that by continuing to follow their slave masters religion that they are still in bondage.

I think this proves that athiests arent immune to not having common sense.
god who thought this was a good idea. Yeah there is a slave bit in the bible but jeez man have some class.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I think this proves that athiests arent immune to not having common sense.

Well, yeah.

hotsauceman1 wrote:god who thought this was a good idea.

Not sure if that is funny on purpose or accident.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Yeah there is a slave bit in the bible but jeez man have some class.

It isn't about the 'slave bit' in the Bible, but that Christianity is seen as being hoisted upon the African-American community by the slave masters in the past.

Its quoted from the bible!

An exact quote.

Surely people that are complaining and saying that they find it offensive should be more offended by the bible than the billboard?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:god who thought this was a good idea.

Not sure if that is funny on purpose or accident.

Accident, but funny nonetheless.

Ahtman wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:I think it's more likely that it was intended to be racist, and they're just covering their tracks.

It isn't more likely nor was it what the poster was about. Some Atheists see Christianity in the African American community as a result of it being imposed on them as slaves, and that by continuing to follow their slave masters religion that they are still in bondage.

Ahtman not sure if you believe that or just reporting here..but I hope you see the incredible irony of that belief.

It's also quite insulting and patronizing to Black Christians..It's tantamount to saying..."You blacks don't know any better due to your history of slavery, and can't help your selves... we know better than you do so..let us help you get better you poor poor people."

GG

generalgrog wrote:Ahtman not sure if you believe that

What part would make you think I believe that? Was it the part where I didn't say "these are my personal beliefs"? I didn't accidentally leave that off.

generalgrog wrote:or just reporting here..but I hope you see the incredible irony of that belief.

Being hypocritical and ironic are not the same thing, but yes, I do see why it is problematic to try and refute a religious belief by also making a claim of absolute knowledge.

They aren't wrong that Christianity was forced on African slaves, becuase it was. Where they are wrong is the assumption that they would only still be Christians becuase it was hoisted on some of their ancestors.

Ernest Perce V, the Pennsylvania state director of American Atheists, said he won't press charges against whoever damaged the billboard he designed, and said he, too, is a victim after receiving death threats.

"We hope people can see just a little bit of discrimination we get," said Perce, who offended local Muslims last year when he dressed as a "Zombie Muhammad" in a Halloween parade.

Yep, those are the same.

IRL trolls, gotta love 'em.

Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Directly quoting someone/something is an attack?

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Directly quoting someone/something is an attack?

It is when you use things that they actually said / done to make them look bad... Get on with the times CT!

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Directly quoting someone/something is an attack?

You can't be that dense. Here I know. Go to Compton. Break out the phrase and start shouting it out. Let me start the stopwatch on your remaining life span. I give it 1.37.

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

They would have endorsed the billboard.

generalgrog wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/atheist-slavery-billboard-pennsylvania-raises-tempers_n_1342268.html


The atheists behind the sign said they were trying to draw attention to the state House's recent designation of 2012 as "The Year of the Bible" -- an action by lawmakers that the atheists have called offensive.

Unconstitutional what?

PhantomViper wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Directly quoting someone/something is an attack?

It is when you use things that they actually said(OUT OF CONTEXT) / done to make them look bad... Get on with the times CT!

Fixed that for ya.

GG

I'm glad that radical atheists are just as annoying as any other form of zealot. It says a lot about athiesism as a religion that it has it's own evangelism and sense of superiority.

That said, an attack on the Bible isn't the same as an attack on christianity. Especially when the attack isn't so much an attack, as it was an offensive reminder that the Bible's got some nasty bits to it.

But, it does support my theory that the underlying tenent behind all organized religions is that one should be offended by the actions of others as much as possible.

Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position. Just because there's one crazy atheist doesn't automatically mean we're all a bunch of zealots launching crusades and writing holy scripture with quotes from Dawkins and Darwin.

I think the Image gives it a bit more context.

The Year of the Bible apparently.

In the United States, 1983 was designated as the national Year of the Bible by President Ronald Reagan by Proclamation 5018, made on February 3, 1983 at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. President Reagan was authorized and requested to so designate 1983 by Public Law 97-280 (Senate Joint Resolution 165], 96 Stat. 1211) passed by Congress and approved on October 4, 1982.

The law recited that the Bible "has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people" and that, quoting President Jackson, the Bible is "the rock on which our Republic rests". It also acknowledged a “national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” “Can we resolve to reach, learn and try to heed the greatest message ever written, God’s Word, and the Holy Bible?” Reagan asked. “Inside its pages lie all the answers to all the problems that man has ever known.”

On January 30, 2012, Pennsylvania state lawmakers declared 2012 the "Year of the Bible". The Resolution passed by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, HR 535, has faced resistance from atheist groups. In response, an atheist group, American Atheists, paid for the placement of a billboard in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania that protests the bill.

LoneLictor wrote:Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position. Just because there's one crazy atheist doesn't automatically mean we're all a bunch of zealots launching crusades and writing holy scripture with quotes from Dawkins and Darwin.

Well according to Southpark...

LoneLictor wrote:Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position. Just because there's one crazy atheist doesn't automatically mean we're all a bunch of zealots launching crusades and writing holy scripture with quotes from Dawkins and Darwin.

I buy contraception in bulk, but Santorum and I are both practicing catholics. I"m no more painting all atheists with the same brush than I'd want people to paint all Catholics with the same brush.

Athiests have a shared faith, and apparently some sort of organization. You can quibble all you want, but I'm not sure what makes it not a religion at that point.

Polonius wrote:I'm glad that radical atheists are just as annoying as any other form of zealot. It says a lot about athiesism as a religion that it has it's own evangelism and sense of superiority.

My thought is that this movement actually loves religion -- I mean, the aspects of imperialistic posture, political mobilization, and dogmatic thinking, which aren't even inherently religious characteristics. Yes, the inevitable response to your post that "atheism is not a religion" is true. But then again this atheistic movement isn't really primarily about atheism, anyway.

I suppose I'd more generally call it a creed than a religion.

AustonT wrote:

generalgrog wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/atheist-slavery-billboard-pennsylvania-raises-tempers_n_1342268.html


The atheists behind the sign said they were trying to draw attention to the state House's recent designation of 2012 as "The Year of the Bible" -- an action by lawmakers that the atheists have called offensive.

Unconstitutional what?

Not only, but it would be mildly offensive to non-Christians, just not so much that they would pay for a billboard. Most would just shake their head and move about their day. There are degrees of being offended, after all. Have they had a Year of the Koran? Year of the Heart Sutra? or more importantly, Year of the Kama Sutra?

@Polonius: That'll do very well.

Polonius wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position. Just because there's one crazy atheist doesn't automatically mean we're all a bunch of zealots launching crusades and writing holy scripture with quotes from Dawkins and Darwin.

I buy contraception in bulk, but Santorum and I are both practicing catholics. I"m no more painting all atheists with the same brush than I'd want people to paint all Catholics with the same brush.

Athiests have a shared faith, and apparently some sort of organization. You can quibble all you want, but I'm not sure what makes it not a religion at that point.

Haven't gotten to use this one in weeks:
Papist.

Polonius wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position. Just because there's one crazy atheist doesn't automatically mean we're all a bunch of zealots launching crusades and writing holy scripture with quotes from Dawkins and Darwin.

I buy contraception in bulk, but Santorum and I are both practicing catholics. I"m no more painting all atheists with the same brush than I'd want people to paint all Catholics with the same brush.

Athiests have a shared faith, and apparently some sort of organization. You can quibble all you want, but I'm not sure what makes it not a religion at that point.

No atheists don't have one major organization. They have very small, insignificant groups of people, but not one big organization (like Catholics and the Catholic Church). And, if people stereotype your religion, you should just do what I do and get all uppity until everyone stops talking to you. Don't just take it lying down and then use it as an excuse to stereotype others later.

PhantomViper wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Directly quoting someone/something is an attack?

It is when you use things that they actually said / done to make them look bad... Get on with the times CT!

If you have said or do e something bad (or continue to support someone/something bad) then it is YOU that have made yourself look bad.

It is not my responsibility to hide your badness.

As for you ludicrous example Frazz, it is flawed because doing so would be largely perceived as a statement of belief on my part as opposed to an illumination of an existing thingwhich the billboard was.


Regardless my question was asking if quoting someone is an attacking principile?

@LoneLictor:

You don't need one major organization to have a religion.

And, if people stereotype your religion, you should just do what I do and get all uppity until everyone stops talking to you.

Oops, I just foiled your plan.

LoneLictor wrote:

Polonius wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position. Just because there's one crazy atheist doesn't automatically mean we're all a bunch of zealots launching crusades and writing holy scripture with quotes from Dawkins and Darwin.

I buy contraception in bulk, but Santorum and I are both practicing catholics. I"m no more painting all atheists with the same brush than I'd want people to paint all Catholics with the same brush.

Athiests have a shared faith, and apparently some sort of organization. You can quibble all you want, but I'm not sure what makes it not a religion at that point.

No atheists don't have one major organization. They have very small, insignificant groups of people, but not one big organization (like Catholics and the Catholic Church). And, if people stereotype your religion, you should just do what I do and get all uppity until everyone stops talking to you. Don't just take it lying down and then use it as an excuse to stereotype others later.

I'm not stereotyping anything. I'm calling annoying zealots annoying zealots.

I wasn't making a generalization about atheists, I'm saying that there are now atheists at the annoying zealot table in the big inter-faith cafeteria.

There is clearly some organizaiton, more than you'd see in some evangelical churches. Somebody raised the money to buy the billboard.

And frankly, I don't care much if people stereotype my religion. I mean, I don't wnat them to stereotype me, but few people that have met me in person have relied on stereotypes, so I'm not worried about that.