When I'm not writing about my experiences in this journey called 'life', I'm singing and uploading my own interpretations of modern music. Click on "Cover Songs" to hear them, or on the YouTube logo on the right to see my YouTube channel.
While I'm sure none of my readers would find this worthy of a post, and in fact, most would find this highly amusing (it is quite clever isn't it?), my question is:
Well looking at it from their point of view. I suppose all the mangers and nativity scenes during the season must really get to them. Definitely not in the best of taste because some people might be offended by the message it portrays.
why is it unnecessary? because they have the audacity to be atheists? why is it that we respect only the religious (for lack of a better word) beliefs of those who belong to an organised religion.
the chances of running into a board or a sign or a sticker saying "the buddha's way is the path to freedom", "meya budunge deshayai", "jesus is coming soon", "jesus is my saviour" etc even in the streets of sl ( i say this because this sign is obviously not from here) is pretty high. how is that ok and the atheists putting up a board not?
What's the big deal? If religious institutions feel free to display their beliefs in public, why can't atheists do the same?
I really have no issue with religion despite its inherent inanity, but people should either keep those beliefs private or let everyone including those who do not believe to express their opinions.
There's nothing wrong with atheists putting up a board. But there's no reason to directly attack something that's sacred to others. I would disagree with the attack on the Nativity in this board regardless of who commissioned it. If, for argument's sake, a group of Christians put up a board saying that 'this season, nothing good will happen to those who don't believe in God', I'd disagree with that too.
I think there's a difference between stating your opinion and belittling others' opinions, and I think it's possible to state your case without causing offence.
I think I agree with PR, considering this is a direct attack on Christians _during_ christmas. If it was a billboard ridiculing all religions across the board (since that's their primary belief), that would have made more sense. This just seems spiteful and well.. not very merry :)
personally, i'm no more atheist than i am catholic. that said, i feel people don't somehow afford the atheists as much respect as they do to other forms of religious belief.
if the atheists putting up a board saying the nativity is a myth and calling for a celebration of reason is offensive to christians, then should not the christians proclaiming the birth of christ be offensive to atheists? why is that not considered a direct attack on atheists and what is sacred to them?
i think people need to chill out about religion (all of them, not just christians and atheists) and not take it, or themselves, so seriously.
@PP- Why should an atheist be offended by proclamations of other beliefs?
I'm a Muslim but I'm not offended when I see signs that read "the Buddha's way is the path to Freedom", "Jesus is coming soon", "Jesus is my Saviour" and so on. And I wouldn't be angered if atheists were to construct a hoarding that claimed God does not exist.
It's just wrong of them to point out a particular belief and attack it.
How exactly is this an 'attack?' It's not a statement making a broad generalization such as all catholics are child abusers? It's simply stating a fact. I'm not sure how stating facts is ridiculing?
It's simple really, if you don't want people to have an opinion about it, don't have it in the public domain. Keep what is sacred personal. Else its all about free speech.
@PP: I agree that overly religious types tend to disrespect atheists - that's why I said I would disagree with a board damning non-believers. It's not the 'celebration of reason' that's disrespectful, it's the ridiculing of the Nativity at Christmas time that I disagree with. It's just in bad taste and like T said, it seems spiteful.
@n - As far as I'm aware, there's no proof either way that Jesus was (or was not) born in a manger and three kings did (or didn't) visit bearing gifts. So how can the claim that the Nativity is a myth be a 'fact'? It's an opinion. And while we're all entitled to our opinions, there's no reason to rub other people's noses in it. Just because we all have an inalienable right to cause offence, I don't think it means that we should.
@PR - my bad, wrong word, opinion. I don't think the Nativity is the sole point of this billboard, they are talking about the bible. Which is largely a myth despite some historical evidence for some events. Same goes for pretty much all the 'holy' texts from other religions.
I still don't see how this is an attack. It is an informed opinion. Again, if people are going to be offended by such an opinion, they should keep everything with regard to their respective faiths out of the public domain.
late to the party. apologies, i was off the net for a few days.
PR - i suppose i'm one of those not very merry people because i honestly can't find anything wrong with the hoarding. which is why i initially asked why people (in this case G, cause he posted) thought it was unnecessary. personally i feel people take religion (and non-religion as far as atheists are concerned) far too seriously and that we walk on too many egg shells as far as religion is concerned, but that's a different topic i suppose.
puppeteer - i think you've read a bit of my first comment and a bit of my second comment and gotten yourself confused in the process. i asked why an atheist cannot claim offence at annoucement of the nativity if a christian can claim offence at a denouncement of it. i didn't say that atheists get offended when they encounter "the Buddha's way is the path to Freedom", "Jesus is coming soon", "Jesus is my Saviour" and so on. i asked if those who believe in them are free to announce them to the world, why the atheists are not. it was two different questions, meant to be read separately. but how is the hoarding in question any different from someone claiming "God does not exist" ?
g - question. was there any context to this hoarding? i checked out that atheist.org site, and according to it, some of these hoardings were in response to the government spending on religious messages of one religion which the atheists thought were unfair (which i think is a valid reason). if there was such a context behind this hoarding, then putting up just the picture of this particular not convey the same message as the hoarding imho.
i found it really surprising that this garnered so much interest and sparked such an 'animated' debate. this was just meant as a 'filler post', but i'm glad it developed into this. it's made for an interesting little study.
im not gnna sit and address each person because, quite frankly, that wasnt the intent. many of you have lost the question in the post and made ur assumptions about it. the question was, simply, 'was this necessary?' ..
not "is this allowed, is this wrong, is this within their rights, is this justified" etc..
PP and N made some interesting points (though i'm not sure what N's stand on 'holy texts' has to do with this at all), some which i agree on and some which i dont.
PP, with regards to the 'context', ur right i just saw the image while looking for something else. however, whether or not what u say is true, the question i asked still stands, and the discussion is still relevant. im not sure how the american government putting up christmas hoardings during christmas is an anomaly of sorts, but again, i'll let that slide.
the question of sensitivity is basically what this is all about, and clearly people have different views about it. the phrase about 'walking on egg shells' around religion is, again, interesting, because surely we shouldnt base those things on what an individual feels they should tolerate but what that community at large deems tolerable. just because someone says "oh this is alright, they should be ok with it" doesnt make it so. i think thats common sense.
another assumption has been that this is insulting. i beg to differ. to say this was insulting would be rather laughable really. i am a bible believing, church going, i-believe-in-creation-and-noahs-ark christian, and i am used to the snide comments and insults that most people use about my 'holy text' being a fairy tale and about how i should just keep 'my Jesus' to myself and only 'take him out' on sundays. trust me, the jokes are done to death, so this is nothing new. i am not labelling this billboard as some form of assault on the christian faith by the evil atheist army.. everyone, calm down.
this day and age has become rather drunk on this concept of free speech and as a result, perhaps we've lost something along the way. i really didnt want to comment on this post, but this little back and forth of 'who gets the last word' was getting rather silly. i believe u shouldnt get into a debate with someone unless ur willing to concede something. if not, then dont bother discussing.
in conclusion, i'd like all of you who wasted ur time and energy checking back on this page every half hour to see what the other person had said, to see this video as a way to end the debate. im closing the comments after this because, well, im an ass, and i want to have the final word.
17 comments:
hmm interesting question. no i don't think it was.
Well looking at it from their point of view. I suppose all the mangers and nativity scenes during the season must really get to them. Definitely not in the best of taste because some people might be offended by the message it portrays.
i don't see why not, but i'd like to hear your reasons for why it is unnecessary.
very Unnecessary!
For someone with a superiority complex who thrives on belittling other people and their beliefs, I guess it was necessary.
It has less to do with religious affiliation and more to do with a lack of respect for others.
why is it unnecessary? because they have the audacity to be atheists? why is it that we respect only the religious (for lack of a better word) beliefs of those who belong to an organised religion.
the chances of running into a board or a sign or a sticker saying "the buddha's way is the path to freedom", "meya budunge deshayai", "jesus is coming soon", "jesus is my saviour" etc even in the streets of sl ( i say this because this sign is obviously not from here) is pretty high. how is that ok and the atheists putting up a board not?
What's the big deal? If religious institutions feel free to display their beliefs in public, why can't atheists do the same?
I really have no issue with religion despite its inherent inanity, but people should either keep those beliefs private or let everyone including those who do not believe to express their opinions.
There's nothing wrong with atheists putting up a board. But there's no reason to directly attack something that's sacred to others. I would disagree with the attack on the Nativity in this board regardless of who commissioned it. If, for argument's sake, a group of Christians put up a board saying that 'this season, nothing good will happen to those who don't believe in God', I'd disagree with that too.
I think there's a difference between stating your opinion and belittling others' opinions, and I think it's possible to state your case without causing offence.
I think I agree with PR, considering this is a direct attack on Christians _during_ christmas. If it was a billboard ridiculing all religions across the board (since that's their primary belief), that would have made more sense. This just seems spiteful and well.. not very merry :)
personally, i'm no more atheist than i am catholic. that said, i feel people don't somehow afford the atheists as much respect as they do to other forms of religious belief.
if the atheists putting up a board saying the nativity is a myth and calling for a celebration of reason is offensive to christians, then should not the christians proclaiming the birth of christ be offensive to atheists? why is that not considered a direct attack on atheists and what is sacred to them?
i think people need to chill out about religion (all of them, not just christians and atheists) and not take it, or themselves, so seriously.
In response to N's question and PP, while everyone is free to display their beliefs, ridiculing the beliefs of others is insensitive and hurtful.
Live and let live, right?
@PP- Why should an atheist be offended by proclamations of other beliefs?
I'm a Muslim but I'm not offended when I see signs that read "the Buddha's way is the path to Freedom", "Jesus is coming soon", "Jesus is my Saviour" and so on. And I wouldn't be angered if atheists were to construct a hoarding that claimed God does not exist.
It's just wrong of them to point out a particular belief and attack it.
How exactly is this an 'attack?' It's not a statement making a broad generalization such as all catholics are child abusers? It's simply stating a fact. I'm not sure how stating facts is ridiculing?
It's simple really, if you don't want people to have an opinion about it, don't have it in the public domain. Keep what is sacred personal. Else its all about free speech.
@PP: I agree that overly religious types tend to disrespect atheists - that's why I said I would disagree with a board damning non-believers. It's not the 'celebration of reason' that's disrespectful, it's the ridiculing of the Nativity at Christmas time that I disagree with. It's just in bad taste and like T said, it seems spiteful.
@n - As far as I'm aware, there's no proof either way that Jesus was (or was not) born in a manger and three kings did (or didn't) visit bearing gifts. So how can the claim that the Nativity is a myth be a 'fact'? It's an opinion. And while we're all entitled to our opinions, there's no reason to rub other people's noses in it. Just because we all have an inalienable right to cause offence, I don't think it means that we should.
@PR - my bad, wrong word, opinion. I don't think the Nativity is the sole point of this billboard, they are talking about the bible. Which is largely a myth despite some historical evidence for some events. Same goes for pretty much all the 'holy' texts from other religions.
I still don't see how this is an attack. It is an informed opinion. Again, if people are going to be offended by such an opinion, they should keep everything with regard to their respective faiths out of the public domain.
late to the party. apologies, i was off the net for a few days.
PR - i suppose i'm one of those not very merry people because i honestly can't find anything wrong with the hoarding. which is why i initially asked why people (in this case G, cause he posted) thought it was unnecessary. personally i feel people take religion (and non-religion as far as atheists are concerned) far too seriously and that we walk on too many egg shells as far as religion is concerned, but that's a different topic i suppose.
puppeteer - i think you've read a bit of my first comment and a bit of my second comment and gotten yourself confused in the process. i asked why an atheist cannot claim offence at annoucement of the nativity if a christian can claim offence at a denouncement of it. i didn't say that atheists get offended when they encounter "the Buddha's way is the path to Freedom", "Jesus is coming soon", "Jesus is my Saviour" and so on. i asked if those who believe in them are free to announce them to the world, why the atheists are not. it was two different questions, meant to be read separately. but how is the hoarding in question any different from someone claiming "God does not exist" ?
g - question. was there any context to this hoarding? i checked out that atheist.org site, and according to it, some of these hoardings were in response to the government spending on religious messages of one religion which the atheists thought were unfair (which i think is a valid reason). if there was such a context behind this hoarding, then putting up just the picture of this particular not convey the same message as the hoarding imho.
wow. look at all these comments!
i found it really surprising that this garnered so much interest and sparked such an 'animated' debate. this was just meant as a 'filler post', but i'm glad it developed into this. it's made for an interesting little study.
im not gnna sit and address each person because, quite frankly, that wasnt the intent. many of you have lost the question in the post and made ur assumptions about it. the question was, simply, 'was this necessary?' ..
not "is this allowed, is this wrong, is this within their rights, is this justified" etc..
PP and N made some interesting points (though i'm not sure what N's stand on 'holy texts' has to do with this at all), some which i agree on and some which i dont.
PP, with regards to the 'context', ur right i just saw the image while looking for something else. however, whether or not what u say is true, the question i asked still stands, and the discussion is still relevant. im not sure how the american government putting up christmas hoardings during christmas is an anomaly of sorts, but again, i'll let that slide.
the question of sensitivity is basically what this is all about, and clearly people have different views about it. the phrase about 'walking on egg shells' around religion is, again, interesting, because surely we shouldnt base those things on what an individual feels they should tolerate but what that community at large deems tolerable. just because someone says "oh this is alright, they should be ok with it" doesnt make it so. i think thats common sense.
another assumption has been that this is insulting. i beg to differ. to say this was insulting would be rather laughable really. i am a bible believing, church going, i-believe-in-creation-and-noahs-ark christian, and i am used to the snide comments and insults that most people use about my 'holy text' being a fairy tale and about how i should just keep 'my Jesus' to myself and only 'take him out' on sundays. trust me, the jokes are done to death, so this is nothing new. i am not labelling this billboard as some form of assault on the christian faith by the evil atheist army.. everyone, calm down.
this day and age has become rather drunk on this concept of free speech and as a result, perhaps we've lost something along the way. i really didnt want to comment on this post, but this little back and forth of 'who gets the last word' was getting rather silly. i believe u shouldnt get into a debate with someone unless ur willing to concede something. if not, then dont bother discussing.
in conclusion, i'd like all of you who wasted ur time and energy checking back on this page every half hour to see what the other person had said, to see this video as a way to end the debate. im closing the comments after this because, well, im an ass, and i want to have the final word.
cheers! and MERRY CHRISTMAS! :D
Post a Comment