LAist: Atheism Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

ishXdavid

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:41:10 -0800

Any hindrance one puts on another can be construed as "censorship" by the definition in the dictionary (or wikipedia if that's what you want to source). The "censorship" being discussed here with the private signage being displayed in a public place falls under a "censorship", which falls under the auspices of our case law. There is censorship all around us, but good luck getting the courts to recognize it. The only censorship the courts will recognize is an overt government/public sanctioned denial of the first amendment. The sign company is within their rights ti remove a sign if it is afforded to them in the contract. I'm not privy to the language of the contract, but I'm sure any advertising company worth anything would be be sure to cover this in the fine print.

mrfnk

Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:40:40 -0800

the sign should have read, "Stop lying to yourself. There is no god."

greenblood

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:31:26 -0800

fair enough.

Hindinwood

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:30:54 -0800

Ah, well a quick visit to the org's website revealed that they are atheists/agnostics, hence the headline...

greenblood

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:21:51 -0800

The title of this, for one, certainly implies that the two are synonymous.

Hindinwood

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:38:16 -0800

^^^^ True, but who said otherwise?

greenblood

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:47:18 -0800

being a non-religious person and being an atheist are two very different things.

NannyState

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:53:27 -0800

I'm in disbelief over this....literally.

Hindinwood

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:23:12 -0800

Re. #30 Fyi, a boycott/protest is not the same as censorship. Similarly, a billboard advocating freedom from religion is not the same as shutting down churchs and prohibiting religious observance. And while were at it, voting is not the same as exercising (sp?) your right to free speech, as speech and action are two different things. Just though you should know because you seem confused.

jrb

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:37:19 -0800

@LaLive, (aka liespeaker), I am not "calling" it censorship. It is censorship. From dictionary.com; cen⋅sor [sen-ser] Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. 2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others. 3. an adverse critic; faultfinder. 4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals. 5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms. –verb (used with object) 6. to examine and act upon as a censor. 7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor. So what's with the new nom de plume LaLiar? Are you afraid of someone?

karoshisan

Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:44:50 -0800

The City asked for the removal of the billboards because they received 90 phone calls of complaint. Whether or not the 90 callers were residents of the City, or people who heard about the billboard, I dunno. But it was definitely pressure from the City that resulted in the removal of the billboards. So, if the purpose of this campaign is to encourage debate about the separation of church and state... I guess it is accomplishing that. What good will come of it is uncertain. Let's just start complaining about all religious billboards and advertising. Get Father Joe off my TV and off billboards. The Catholics can complain about Jewish billboards, Muslims can complain about Christians and the Scientologists can complain about everyone. That'll leave more room for billboards about how cool it is to smoke.

LaLive

Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:50:57 -0800

If not religion, let's try science. But, what does on eof the greatest scientist say. Albert Einstein, surely his beliefs are purely secular. "The higghest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward trtuh and understanding. This source of feeling, however springs from the SPHERE OF RELIGION. While it is true that scientific results ar entirely independent from religious or moral consideration, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were ALL OF THEM imbued with the truly religious conviction that this unviverse of ours is something perfect and susceptible to rational striving for knowledge."- Albert Einstein.

LaLive

Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:49:20 -0800

INTERNET SIGN AD: NAMBLA BACKS NO ON 8 CAMPAIGN AND DONATES MILLIONS. READ ABOUT THERE AGENDA AT www.nambla.org NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by: building understanding and support for such relationships; educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love; cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements; supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was founded in December 1978 and is an activist homosexual and pedophilia coalition group. Their primary aim is stated to be the overturn of statutory rape laws and reduction of “age of consent” laws that require a child be of a certain age (which varies by state) before they can agree to sexual intercourse. CPUSA member Harry Hay, who is widely accredited as one of the founders of the gay rights activist movement in the United States, in his lifetime was a frequent speaker at NAMBLA conferences. Poet Allen Ginsberg was another famous members of NAMBLA. The International Gay & Lesbian Archives, the world's largest research collection on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered activism, has recognized several NAMBLA members for their contributions to the gay rights movement. Harry Hay, a perverted pedophile activist in the cause of personal liberation, founded the first lasting gay group in North America, the Mattachine Society, in 1950. He also founded the Radical Faeries, inspired by ideas and rituals of Native American peoples. Recalling his own experiences as a gay boy growing up in California, Hay spoke out on issues of man/boy love. Harry, founder in 1950 of the first American gay group to survive, the Mattachine Society, cofounder of the Gay Liberation Front, Southern California chapter, in 1969, cofounder of the Radical Faeries in 1979, father of the U.S. gay movement, and grandfatherly icon of gay liberation, died on October 24, 2002, at the age of ninety. Harry was a vocal and courageous supporter of NAMBLA and intergenerational sexual relationships.

LaLive

Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:46:52 -0800

By ishXdavid;"What's being missed here is that the Great Outdoor sign company was making business decision, not a political statement. The company understood that it would hurt their bottom line to be in the middle of a political maelstrom. As previous people have stated, it's not censorship if it isn't the government usurping your freedom of speech." It is obvious that either those people calling it censorship are just obtuse or hypocrites. When the No on 8 people were boycotting restaurants, hotels, and churches because those individual people expressed their free speech in the form of a vote, they felt righteous and did not call it censorship. These numbskulls were even compelled to fire people they employeed who supported prop 8. THIS IS THE DEFINTION OF THINNED-SKIN, WHICH FITS THE BIGOTED HATE-MONGERS WHO TRY TO INFRINGE UPON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

jrb

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:27:40 -0800

"As previous people have stated, it's not censorship if it isn't the government usurping your freedom of speech." Bullshit; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship "Are religionists so thin-skinned they must squelch free debate?" They obviously have some major issues about their own belief system if they have to suppress a dissenting viewpoint like that.

ishXdavid

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:47:52 -0800

What's being missed here is that the Great Outdoor sign company was making business decision, not a political statement. The company understood that it would hurt their bottom line to be in the middle of a political maelstrom. As previous people have stated, it's not censorship if it isn't the government usurping your freedom of speech.

BingosDingo

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:15:00 -0800

"Are religionists so thin-skinned they must squelch free debate?" The most vocal are, certainly.

field

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:21:09 -0800

i agree with this billboard

grendel20

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:46:32 -0800

Suppose we had this same exact billboard in Silverlake..... But, instead, it was an electronic billboard. The hippies would be pissed. The religionites would be pissed. It'd be tantamount to Marty McFly seeing his future-self in 2015.

ccrider

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:22:13 -0800

posted to digg. Please digg up! http://digg.com/arts_culture/Atheism_Only_Lasts_a_Few_Days_in_Rancho_Cucamonga

The Ugly American

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:26:30 -0800

Granted, I'm biased, but is it really that much of a threat? Not for me. Frankly, I find it rather innocuous.

queequeg

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:05:52 -0800

mjo: Oh, totally. Especially when the elementary school kids practice and practice and then finally sing it during the holiday show. Ahhhh, the happiness of subtle subversiveness.

BRATMix

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:31:30 -0800

If people can put "pro-religion" billboards, they can put alternative billboards! http://bratproductions.com/gr/splashes_new/67.jpg Oh how I wish this was more than just a Photoshop hack I did. :)

mjo

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:27:37 -0800

queequeq: i was thinking the same thing about the song "Imagine." that's basically all about atheism, and much more effective than a billboard if you think about it.

polaroidgirl

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:17:21 -0800

Ah, good ol' lanoverbaptist... I forgot about them!

jrb

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:47:26 -0800

If the Gawd fearin' folks of Rancho Cucamonga want to get offended, they need to check out this website... http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ I think it's put together by a bunch 'o Gawdless liberals, who like pokin' fun at the faithful!

queequeg

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:34:14 -0800

The Ugly does have a point - if the corporation is the one that removed it, then there is no state action and hence, no censorship. In this case, the organization's only recourse may be a breach of contract claim against the company (depending on the terms of the contract). If, however, it can be shown the it did so as result of direct pressure and/or direction of the city (and we don't know enough about the facts to know either way), then there's probably a viable argument there. Beyond this, do the residents also complain to their local radio stations when "Imagine" (i.e., "Imagine ... no religion too") is played?

hisprincecharming

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:22:37 -0800

This incident might actually get the organization more coverage. lol

panasonicyouth

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:22:10 -0800

The Ugly, shouldn't this be a different process because the billboard was paid for, as opposed to the effigies in West Hollywood? Either way, of course it's censorship. This discussion is about whether that censorship (based on only 90 complaints?!?!?!?!) is acceptable. I don't see how this billboard is offensive to anyone. Granted, I'm biased, but is it really that much of a threat?

jackjood

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:14:13 -0800

*needs

jackjood

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:13:56 -0800

absolutely wrong. FFRF need lawyers, and this needs to be taken to trial!

The Ugly American

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:01:39 -0800

If you want to get technical, The General Outdoor sign company removed the sign... Then blame should be placed squarely at the feet of General Outdoor. That is unless their contract stipulates the right to remove any billboard at their discretion. When the City of WeHo asked Morrisette and Aviles to remove their Palin effigy, was that censorship? For instance -- let's say the Mormon Church decides to have a billboard placed at the corner of Santa Monica and San Vicente. Residents begin flooding City Hall with complaints and they in turn pressure the billboard company into removing and it complies. Who, if anyone, would be guilty of censorship? The answer of course is no one.

PantheonZeus

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:51:42 -0800

polaroidgirl- Julia had 3 solo shows 1st was is about her cancer battle: "God said Ha!" (filmed) 2nd one was about adoption "In the family way" (CD) 3rd was "Letting go of god" (on dvd and CD now) When Bush was elected a second time, I jokingly called this country 'The United States of Christ'. Even with Obama coming to office, we are still one nutball country. Atheists Rise Up! Be Proud and Loud.

Hindinwood

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:44:40 -0800

You know, that really pisses me off. As someone who was raised (and remains) athiest, I have gone through my life respectfully tolerating all manor of religious imagery and messages in public spaces. This includes things like admonishing church marquis and "repent or you'll burn in hell" typed signs. It' too bad that there is such a double-standard on this issue, and the freedom OF religion is considered more important than freedom FROM it.

db

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:43:55 -0800

Maybe we can all pick one billboard-per-week and all complain about it until they are removed. I say we start with those Bolt ads.

polaroidgirl

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:35:27 -0800

You can make tax deductible donations to FFRF's billboard fund: http://ffrf.org/action/2008/billboard.php This link is for Ross: http://ffrf.org/foxholes/

Ross A. Lincoln

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:22:12 -0800

Hmm, someone must have put a foxhole in Rancho Cucamonga. Get it? GET IT? /anyone there?>

polaroidgirl

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:19:36 -0800

I've heard that Julia Sweeney show is AMAZING. I believe it also has to do with her battle with cancer (?). RE: the billboard. I can't believe it took only 90 complaints for them to cave and take it down. I don't even have the words to describe how it angers me! FFRF.org has this image and many that I think are much more effective as bumper stickers (and t-shirts)for sale on their site. Although I am not the bumper sticker type it might be time. http://ffrf.org/shop/products/

Purp

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:17:43 -0800

The "thin-skinned, insecure religionists" did not have this billboard removed. The City of Rancho Cucamonga did. If you want to get technical, The General Outdoor sign company removed the sign, but it was under pressure from the city, which was in turn under pressure from thin-skinned, insecure religionists. Since when does expressing your disapproval on something amount to censorship It doesn't. People can complain all they want. It when the sign is censored that it amounts to censorship, which is precisely what happened. As far as I'm concerned they could put one up on every street corner in the valley, but it would still do nothing to diminish my faith. More power to you, if only more people could be religious and tolerant, Prop 8's passing shows us this is unfortunately not the case.

PantheonZeus

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:11:52 -0800

LIKEMINDED ATHEISTS or those close to "letting go of god" can order Julia Sweeney's fabulous DVD of her solo show LETTING GO OF GOD. It's a funny and fascinating look at her personal journey from catholicsm to atheism, which began when two mormon missionaries came to her door in Los Angeles. http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/index.html

The Ugly American

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:57:37 -0800

"Are religionists so thin-skinned they must squelch free debate? One small freethought billboard in the immense state of California is such a threat to insecure religious egos that it must be censored?" The "thin-skinned, insecure religionists" did not have this billboard removed. The City of Rancho Cucamonga did. Since when does expressing your disapproval on something amount to censorship? If that was the case, No on Prop 8 folks would have a lot of soul searching to do. Personally, I don't like the billboard either but my right to free speech does not include the right to not be offended. As far as I'm concerned they could put one up on every street corner in the valley, but it would still do nothing to diminish my faith.

msmerymac

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:56:33 -0800

Complained about its message? That you don't have to worship some made up sky-fairie whose followers tend to kill and maim and do hateful things in His name if you don't want to? Except the billboard didn't even get into any of those thorny issues. It's really quite respectful. There's a whole atheistic ad campaign currently running on the DC metro system just in time for the holidays!

timmay

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:43:57 -0800

goddamn motherfuckers!