Political/Religious bumper stickers, etc.

[yosemite]

Hmmm...this has been something I've been wanting to ask about for a while.

I have as many political/religious views as the next person, but I am paranoid about sharing them on my car. My car is a "no political zone". It is crammed full of Yosemite and travel bumper stickers, and a few goofy bumper stickers, but I am careful about anything too "political". I guess I was influenced by my dad, who was a paranoid soul, and worried that a political bumper sticker could piss someone off enough to deface your car. He might be right, I don't know. (I did have someone scratch off part of a Wyoming bumper sticker off of my car once - though I think they were just jealous that my little crappy car had been to so many neat places! ;))

I guess my some of my questions/comments sare - do you find political/religous bumper stickers to be effective? Do you feel that there is some "risk" to your car if you have a sticker on it? Are there different "levels" of political intensity? Which "level" do you think is most comfortable for you, or do you think it makes no difference?

For instance, I might dare to put a bumper sticker on my car that said "Vegetarians are sprouting up all over" (since I am a vegetarian) but I would NOT put a sticker up that said something like "Meat is Murder". The second one is "in your face", connecting "meat" and "murder", and bound to piss someone off. The first one is cheery and happy, all about "sprouting" vegetarians - no mention of murder there.

And there is the "Darwin Fish" thing - this is an obvious take-off on the "Christian Fish", something that I have seen on cars for years. Now, I know I am probably out of the loop with the Christian Fish/Darwin fish thing, but the fish symbol has been symbolizing Christianity for years now. The "Darwin Fish" seems to be a more recent thing, and is an obvious attempt to kind of parody the "Christian Fish", which will (alas) piss some people off. (A friend of mine had her Darwin Fish peeled off her car several times.) I suspect that if my friend had chosen some other sticker/symbol to show her atheism/belief in Evolution, one that did not directly parody a long-held symbol, she might not have gotten it ripped off her car. (It is sad that we have to worry about these things, though, isn't it? Why can't we put what we damned well want on cars, and never have to worry about someone taking them off?)

I guess I'm just senstitive or paranoid about this. I get a little ruffled and want to cringe when I see an "in your face" bumper sticker, whether it be about vegetarianism, abortion (either side) religion/evolution, whatever. I think the happy "I'm for this thing!" bumper sticker is OK, (even if the "thing" is something controversial to some). But I am not comfortable with the obvious parody of someone else's belief, attack on someone else's belief, what have you, on a bumper sticker.

But, like I said before, it is sad that we have to worry about what we put on our cars, and gague whether it is innocous enough to be allowed to remain on our cars!

Well, that was my ramble. Any thoughts or opinions, input?

[Guinastasia]

Actually, I seem to recall dopers saying that they have wanted to slap pro-choice bumper stickers over pro-life ones. I guess that sorta goes along with what you're saying.

[Renton_lvr]

This is pretty sad. I have wanted to put a Canadian flag license plate on the front of my truck for a while but I have been cautioned against it because it could be viewed as political and my car could get defaced. I live in Quebec. I think I'm going to do it anyways.

[Podkayne]

I have a "science" Evolve-fish--it's a Christian-fish that says "SCIENCE" in it and it has fins on it like a rocket. I think it's real cool, since I don't consider myself pro-Darwin or pro-evolution, but rather pro-science--though I worry that someone might confuse it for a statement in favor of Christian science.

Nobody's ever molested my pickup or tried to pry it off. I've never been rear-ended--though I admit that if I see a Christian-fish on a car gives me a greater urge to hit 'em if they're driving like an idiot.

I think the political-bumper-sticker thing taps into the anonymity one feels in traffic. You know how you catch people singing along with there radio while gesturing grandly, or picking their nose like the windows of their car magically let them see out but don't let anybody else see in? Same thing that seems to encourage expressions of extremist sentiment on the internet.

Sometimes bumper stickers annoy me, but just as often I find myself thinking, "Right on, brother or sister!" when I see one I agree with. I get a huge laugh out of combos that either don't make much sense or are somehow seem more profound than the vehicle owner intended--like one time I saw a whole bunch of cheesy Christian-themed bumper stickers on a car that had mud flaps with that anatomically-impossible lewdly-posed woman in chrome sillouete. Huh? Is that how Jesus wants you to think about women?

[yosemite]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Actually, I seem to recall dopers saying that they have wanted to slap pro-choice bumper stickers over pro-life ones. I guess that sorta goes along with what you're saying.



This disturbs me. I think people should be able to restrain themselves, no matter how offended they are by someone else's sticker. (But dopers were merely tempted to cover up the pro-life sticker, so that doesn't count since they didn't do anything!)

I saw lots and lots of Bush/Cheney yard signs on my recent trip up the CA coast, and several of them were defaced. Why? Isn't someone entitled to put a sign up on their lawn without it getting defaced? I recall reading on this board about how some dopers bragged about how they removed "offensive" (read, expressing an opposing view) signs off of other people's lawns. Why? I think this is so tacky.

I see a Bush/Cheney sign as being a happy "I'm for this thing!" sign. It's not the same as slamming Gore, or calling anyone unpleasant or insulting names. I think people should be able to deal with that, the way they should be able to deal with Renton having a Canadian Flag license plate.

Of course, I also think people should be able to deal with a Darwin Fish or "Meat is Murder", or whatever. But I do feel that these are more "in your face", and they make me cringe a little.

[Podkayne]

Stealing or defacing a sign or bumpersticker is just so unbelievably immature. Do people have a right to disagree with you or not? If not, who died and made you Hitler? Cripes.

[barton]

Poor Jack E. Robinson - the doomed Republician challenger to Ted Kennedy here in Mass - sent me a big bumper sticker in the mail a month or so ago (I signed up on his site out of pity).

As much as I don't like Kennedy, I'm not sure putting such a 'I'm a loser' sticker on my car is going to enlighten the body politic, or improve my social life.

Still, I might stick on my microwave.

[divemaster]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Actually, I seem to recall dopers saying that they have wanted to slap pro-choice bumper stickers over pro-life ones. I guess that sorta goes along with what you're saying.

In one of the threads a couple of weeks ago, a poster said that she was always tempted to heave a brick through the window of a car with a pro-life bumper sticker. My, my, where's the tolerant attitude? Someone has serious issues.

[BlackKnight]

How dare people express their political or religious views publicly!

;)

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by barton
Poor Jack E. Robinson - the doomed Republician challenger to Ted Kennedy here in Mass - sent me a big bumper sticker in the mail a month or so ago (I signed up on his site out of pity).

Don't you think "challeger" is a very strong word? :D

I'm still pissed that he's so obviously trying to attract the "I kinda like baseball, support civil rights, and think what the Dodgers did back in the 50s was great but I'm too stupid to realize that the real Jackie Robinson is long dead and this guy is no relation to him."

The "E." is so unnecessary here, and just reeks of shameless vote grabbing that it pisses me off.

[WiredGuy]

I've had a Darwin fish emblem and a "Support America, Buy A Congresman" bumper sticker on my car while going through high school and college and never had anyone deface it. Unfortunatly I can't put one on now because I lease.

[yosemite]

This is ironic---my mom put a political lawn sign up in her yard yesterday, today it is conspicuously MISSING!!!

What a bunch of twits some people are...

[David B]

Yosemitebabe said:
A friend of mine had her Darwin Fish peeled off her car several times.I had a Darwin Fish sticker on my car at one time, and it was also peeled off (or, I should say, half-off; it was stuck on there rather well).

I find it amazing what "good Christians" who are against evolution will do...

(Yes, I know, it's an assumption. But who else would target Darwin fish stickers?)

Incidentally, I was also manning a booth at the Illinois Science Teachers Association conference one year, and selling Darwin fish stickers and pins and the like (mostly, we were there to distribute information, but we sold those on the side). Most folks were thrilled to find them. But a couple were royally pissed that we would "make fun of Christianity."

Eh. F*** 'em if they can't take a joke. :)

[yosemite]

I had a Darwin Fish sticker on my car at one time, and it was also peeled off (or, I should say, half-off; it was stuck on there rather well).

I find it amazing what "good Christians" who are against evolution will do...

I don't understand why someone would go to the bother of peeling a Darwin Fish sticker off someone's car. And I don't see why someone would deface a Bush/Cheney sign on someone's lawn. Or, as some dopers have confessed, be tempted to cover up a "Pro-Life" sticker, either. I also have seen dopers gleefully admit that they removed Conservative political signs off of neighbors' lawns. So I think it's obvious that this sort of intolerance goes both ways.

I think in the case of the Darwin Fish (or another example I gave, "Meat is Murder") there is an obvious attempt to parody or in some way "tweak" people who have an opposing view. (I do think the "Meat is Murder" sticker is more "in your face" than the Darwin Fish, though.) It's a different thing that to merely profess your admiration or support for something (as in "Vegetarians are sprouting up all over"!)

Which is why I, as a vegetarian, won't put a "Meat is Murder" sticker on my car, because I personally see it as an attempt to piss people off. I see no need to "tweak" anyone with things on my car. (But that's just me!) Now, even though I am a Christian, I am not all that offended by the Darwin Fish. (And, I am as annoyed as anyone else that my friend had her Darwin Fish removed several times. That's just tacky.) But I admit that it does make me roll my eyes a bit. It is an obvious take-off on the Christian Fish. I ask myself, "Why didn't they design an original symbol designed to express this belief, instead of parodying someone elses' symbol?" (But that obviously was the whole point -- to parody.) These things I just don't get. If you are "for" something, can't you just express that? Do you have to express what you are "for" by making a point to show how you are "against" something else? (If you follow that?)

I also roll my eyes about those lame "In case of rapture, this car will be unnoccupied" stickers too. Sigh. I guess I am just picky... Well, I'm starting to ramble now. One of my original thoughts was that we should all be tolerant of each others' bumper stickers. At least enough so that we don't want to cover them up or pry them off!

[David B]

Yosemitebabe said:
I don't understand why someone would go to the bother of peeling a Darwin Fish sticker off someone's car. And I don't see why someone would deface a Bush/Cheney sign on someone's lawn.Some people can't bear to see opposing viewpoints, I guess.
Or, as some dopers have confessed, be tempted to cover up a "Pro-Life" sticker, either. Oh, I can understand being tempted (especially with some of the more insipid ones), just not actually doing it.
I also have seen dopers gleefully admit that they removed Conservative political signs off of neighbors' lawns. Well, I haven't seen it. If I had, I would have given them a stern talking-to! ;)
So I think it's obvious that this sort of intolerance goes both ways. No doubt. But, of course, if you are so "Christian" that you believe in the literal truth of the Bible and all, one might think that you might recognize vandalism to be a sin...

I think in the case of the Darwin Fish ... there is an obvious attempt to parody or in some way "tweak" people who have an opposing view.Sure there is. Same with all the pro-life stickers (other than the simplest that says something like, "I'm pro-life and I vote!").

You want in-your-face? There is one making the rounds where I live that just says: "A. Hitler, J. Stalin, G. Ryan" (George Ryan is Illinois' governor -- he apparently has some policies that gun nuts don't like). To make it worse, when a local Rabbi wrote an opinion piece in the paper criticizing that type of idiocy, somebody actually wrote back a letter to defend comparing George Ryan to men who murdered millions!
Now, even though I am a Christian, I am not all that offended by the Darwin Fish. (And, I am as annoyed as anyone else that my friend had her Darwin Fish removed several times. That's just tacky.) But I admit that it does make me roll my eyes a bit. It is an obvious take-off on the Christian Fish. I ask myself, "Why didn't they design an original symbol designed to express this belief, instead of parodying someone elses' symbol?" (But that obviously was the whole point -- to parody.)Exactly. It attracted attention.

What's funny is that I have a friend who won't put it on his car because it's too easy to mistake it for a Jesus fish from a distance (and I've had people make that mistake when I wore a Darwin pin a few times).
These things I just don't get. If you are "for" something, can't you just express that? Do you have to express what you are "for" by making a point to show how you are "against" something else? (If you follow that?) Well, the Darwin fish shows you're for evolution. It's not like the anti-Darwin stickers that followed them, showing a dead Darwin fish, or a Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish, or any other variant.
I also roll my eyes about those lame "In case of rapture, this car will be unnoccupied" stickers too. Sigh. Yeah. Me, too. But probably for a different reason. ;)

Incidentally, I current have no bumper stickers, but my license plate is a variant of "SKEPTIC." :)

[yosemite]

David, we basically agree, I guess! I do not deny that some these bumper stickers (on both sides of the political/religious spectrum) are "in your face", and I personally choose not to display any of them on my car. Too contentious for my taste. Hell, since someone wanted to scratch a WYOMING bumper sticker off of my car, imagine what they'd do with "Meat is Murder"!!! Yikes!

But, of course, if you are so "Christian" that you believe in the literal truth of the Bible and all, one might think that you might recognize vandalism to be a sin..

So, what's your point here? What do the atheists/non-Christians think when they are vandalizing someone's yard or car?

[David B]

I have no idea. No matter who does it, it's wrong. But it seems extra hypocritical coming from somebody like I described.

[yosemite]

I guess it seems extra hypocritical to you, as a non-Christian. (As a Christian, it seems hypocritical to me, sure. Just not extra hypocritical.)

I could just as easily say that it would see extra hypocritical for any person who considers themselves "tolerant", "free-thinking" or "open-minded" to go around defacing signs and bumper stickers that they don't agree with. But I don't actually think that.

I think that it's just hypocritical, and tacky, plain and simple. No matter who is doing it.

[Guinastasia]

When I eventually get my license and a car, I plan on having an MST3K sticker on it. Nice and simple!

[yosemite]

It occurs to me to respond to this:
Well, the Darwin fish shows you're for evolution. It's not like the anti-Darwin stickers that followed them, showing a dead Darwin fish, or a Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish, or any other variant.

The Darwin fish certainly does more than merely show you are "for" evolution. It shows you are for evolution while simultaniously parodying a Christian symbol. That was my original point - the Darwin fish was designed to (in part) "tweak" other people.


And the subsequent Dead Darwin fish, etc., are just following the lead of the Darwin fish, IMO. It starts a slippery slope, of "making fun of them because they made fun of us first", and on and on...

Yikes. Too contentious for me. I'll stick with my Yosemite stickers!

[writefetus]

...back when those "I (heart) my dog" or "I (heart)N.Y." bumperstickers were so popular there was for sale a little book of self adhesive stickers that carried an illustration of a SCREW that fit exactly over the heart icon on most bumperstickers, thereby changing the sticker to read ...well you get the idea.:eek:

[RickJay]

It is crammed full of Yosemite and travel bumper stickers, and a few goofy bumper stickers, but I am careful about anything too "political". I guess I was influenced by my dad, who was a paranoid soul, and worried that a political bumper sticker could piss someone off enough to deface your car.

Not to be too obtuse, but if you've plastered your car with stickers, isn't it already defaced? :)

[Suo Na]

Maybe the people stealing the Darwin fish want them for their own cars and don't know where to buy them!

I don't like most bumper stickers. I'm too easily distracted by language, and there are enough distractions on the road.

I did see one amusing bumper sticker recently, though. It was a red sticker with three lines of text:
VOTE (in blue)
FOR IDIOCY (in yellow) (this wasn't exactly what it said, but it was Bush-bashing nonetheless)
BUSH (in blue)

The yellow and red had faded to about the same tone, so all that stuck out from a distance was the blue "VOTE BUSH".

[Ptahlis]

I never put stickers on a car other than university parking stickers, until the whole Kansas/evolution issue. Then I did indeed go out and get a Darwin fish. It lasted up until two weeks ago, when it disappeared off the back of my car. Later I found out that a friend's boyfriend (fairly religious guy) had done it. He says that it was meant as a joke, and that he was going to turn it upside down and put it back, but that it wouldn't stick once he pried it off. It took a week before I found any of this out though. Any way I forgave him-- Told him "It's the Christian thing to do after all" :D-- but I was still a bit pissed that he did it.

As to the idea that the Darwin Fish parodies the unadorned Christian fish symbol, of course it does, and why not? For years many Christians have not only claimed to have a lock on Truth, but also the moral high ground over us benighted heathens. Bible passages, "WWJD?" stickers, "Well, GOD believes in YOU!" stickers, other "inspirational" messages meant to chide us for our nonbelief or assert the owner's moral superiority ("rapture" stickers and the like) get tiresome. I bought the Darwin fish because I support evolution, but if the Darwin fish symbol gives off the message that I think there's nothing to their beliefs what of that? I've been getting the same treatment for years after all, and the Darwin fish is no more "in your face" than the unadorned version. In fact, it's a rather low-key pronunciation when compared to sermons I have been subjected to in traffic, and besides, the legged fish is a perfect visual for evolution.

[yosemite]

Bible passages, "WWJD?" stickers, "Well, GOD believes in YOU!" stickers, other "inspirational" messages meant to chide us for our nonbelief or assert the owner's moral superiority ("rapture" stickers and the like) get tiresome.

Speaking as a Christian who NEVER would put one of these stickers on her car, I agree. Especially the Rapture ones (not all Christians believe in the Rapture, you know...) However, some of the "inspirational" stickers may not be actively meant to chide you. I always took them as messages that other Christians would appreciate, and others could ignore. The way I ignore the "Pro Bass" stickers. (I am a vegetarian, I certainly DON'T fish, so I manage to ignore these stickers.)

I bought the Darwin fish because I support evolution, but if the Darwin fish symbol gives off the message that I think there's nothing to their beliefs what of that?

I think this is where we differ. I believe that it's possible that there could be a "pro" evolution sticker/symbol created that would not have to simultaniously mock someone else's long-held symbol. I see the Fish as something akin to the Christian Cross, or a nationality flag, or some other symbol that shows a person is a "member" of something. It is not actually expressing that it is "against" something else, and I don't see how it's mere presence on the back of a car is not actually chiding anyone for anything. I think that you just suppose that it does, but there's no real way to know that that was the intent of the car's owner. The other bumper stickers, though - they are a little more "in your face", I can see why they could be considered obnoxious. But the Fish is just an image - a symbol, for Christians. A lot of groups have such symbols. Big whoop.

If you wanted to tell someone that "there's nothing to their beliefs", perhaps mocking one of the more obvious "in your face" stickers would have been more fitting. (They were obnoxious first, after all.) But I don't see how a mere fish is sending you the message that "there's nothing to your beliefs", so why the need to parody it?

I guess this is why I like my car to stay out of these bumper sticker issues. Someone mocks someone, or someone supposes that they are being chided or mocked. And then someone else mocks back, everyone gets their feathers ruffled... And then I get to see a lot of OBNOXIOUS bumper stickers on both sides, and roll my eyes. Sigh.

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
I believe that it's possible that there could be a "pro" evolution sticker/symbol created that would not have to simultaniously mock someone else's long-held symbol.

Obviously it's possible. The same company that makes evolve-fish also makes bumper stickers that say "Honk if you understand punctuated equilibria!" and "Oh, Evolve!" and "Evolutionists do it . . . with increasing complexity!" and "I give evolution two opposable thumbs up!" Check out: http://www.evolvefish.com . None of those, in my opinion, has the impact that the homely Darwin fish does.

In any case, why do people have pro-evolution bumper stickers in the first place? I don't see many "germ-theory" or "general relativity" bumper stickers. People feel the need to make a pro-evolution statement because the theory of evolution is under assualt by the sort of people who put Christian fishes on their cars. Plus, like Ptahlis said, a footed-fish is a visual joke too good to pass up. It attracts the eye, and it makes a memorable statement.

If a non-creationist Christian sees an evolve-fish sticker, I hope they don't see it as an assault on Christianty, but rather as an assault on creationism. It doesn't have to be interpreted as a slam on all Christianity. A pro-evolution Christian might think of it as a positive statement, too, saying that religion has to evolve in light of science. But I can't control what people think.



But I don't see how a mere fish is sending you the message that "there's nothing to your beliefs", so why the need to parody it?

Well, I get tweaked at fishes on cars. It's not "a mere fish." It's saying, "I'm Christian. Not only am I Christian, but I feel a need to put a fish on my car so that you know that I'm Christian and you'll think about Christ and you'll feel included if you're a Christian and excluded if you're not a Christian." Anybody who puts a fish on their car and expects people not to have any emotional reaction to it is naive. Like you said, it's a long-standing symbol of a religion--and it's impossible to make an emotionally null statement about religion.

Of course, I have a science fish on my car which says, "Not only am I pro-science, but I feel the need to put a science fish on my car so you know it, and if you're a creationist I hope you're ashamed of yourself." It's supposed to tweak people. That's why it's there. It's not intended to deeply offend anyone, but I can't guarantee that nobody's deeply offended by it, just like a bass fisherman can't guarantee that a vegetarian more militant than yourself won't be extremely angry at a bumper sticker that glorifies the slow torture of another living creature as a sport.

Bumper stickers are supposed to attract attention and be witty and memorable. It's hard to imagine a good one that won't offend anybody. As mentioned above, even a completely boring bumper sticker promoting a common hobby might be offensive to someone. Where you draw the line at what's offensive and what's not, or what's appropriate and what's not, is a matter personal opinion. No matter where you draw those lines, there will be people who disagree with you.

[Saint Zero]

I won't tolerate any bumper stickers on my car. I get tired of the "Fish War" between the Darwin/Christian fish. Political ones get old. (Though I'm tempted to get a Cthulhu for President one.)

[Sterra]

Heh Podkayne do you expect christans to be on a morally higher ground than you?:) Because that seems to be how your defending yourself.

Heh David B your like your owns statement "Some people can't bear to see opposing viewpoints, I guess." Do you expect christans to be on a morally higher ground than you? Well actually obviouisly you do from your own statement:)

For myself going through all the extensive trouble of putting a bumpersticker on your car is waaay too much trouble.

[David B]

Asmodean said:
Heh David B your like your owns statement "Some people can't bear to see opposing viewpoints, I guess." Want to try that again in English?

[Guinastasia]

I like the fish. It reminds me of Pepperidge Farm Goldfish Crackers.
I love fishes cuz they're so delicious...gotta go fishin'!

[Badtz Maru]

I had the 'Cthulhu in '96 - Why settle for the lesser evil?' bumper sticker. I got nothing but complements on it, several times people would get out of their cars and walk up to mine in the drive-thru to tell me that they liked my bumper sticker. Unfortunately, I had to have that bumper re-painted. 8^(

[yosemite]

Well, I get tweaked at fishes on cars. It's not "a mere fish."

It's "not a mere fish" to you. It does not necessarily follow that everyone who puts it on their car is trying to tell you anything profound, or actually trying to tweak you. Anymore than a fisherman who puts a "Pro Bass" sticker on his car is trying to tweak me or tell me (or all vegetarians) anything. Maybe he just likes fishing. He's a fisherman, and he doesn't think any further than that. And a Christian who puts a fish on their car is a Christian. I like Yosemite, I put a Yosemite sticker on my car. It may actually (at least in some cases) be as simple as that.

It's saying, "I'm Christian. Not only am I Christian, but I feel a need to put a fish on my car so that you know that I'm Christian and you'll think about Christ and you'll feel included if you're a Christian and excluded if you're not a Christian."


I'm sure you are correct in some cases, but I doubt in all cases. That's a whole lot of message to put into a simple little fish. You assume that every person who puts a symbol of their belief, (or pastime, as in the Pro Bass fish) is simultaniously trying to tell everyone else of their superiority, or trying to "convert" them. And I don't think that always follows. I would also say that anyone who interpreted a whole lot of stuff about a "Pro Bass" sticker is thinking way too much about someone else's sticker. But that's just me, I guess.

Also, if a mere fish is going to tweak you, what about a Christian cross? What about when a person wears a cross around their neck? Is that tweaking you too? Do you feel that every person who wears a cross is trying to tell you all these things as well? (If so, you must spend a lot of time feeling tweaked!)


Anybody who puts a fish on their car and expects people not to have any emotional reaction to it is naive. Like you said, it's a long-standing symbol of a religion--and it's impossible to make an emotionally null statement about religion.

Then I guess it's impossible to make an emotionally null statement about anything, then. A flag, a Pro Bass fish, a peace symbol, anything. The question is, how much of an emotional reaction is required for some of these old, well-established symbols? They've been around forever, they are seen everywhere. I think they lose some of their punch over time. They hold a lot less power or emotional punch than some of the more "obnoxious" bumper stickers.

Hey, it's just me...I am not going to pry anyone's Darwin fish off their car, it doesn't bother me that much. But I do see the symbol as mocking something that never really rose to the level of insufferable obnoxiousness. I do think there are plenty of pro-Christian bumper stickers that are cloying and smug and irritating. They REALLY make me cringe. But the fish isn't one of them. It's pretty bland, IMO. And I think it is not as easy to attribute a whole lot of smug self-righteousness to it, unless you are looking for it. But with the "In case of rapture", well...arggh. That's too obviously smug, as far as I'm concerned.

[Palm Cove]

I used to have a "LAND RIGHTS FOR GAY WHALES" sticker (made it myself) on my car.

It used to make most people laugh, even if they didn't know where I was really coming from.

[Guinastasia]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe


Also, if a mere fish is going to tweak you, what about a Christian cross? What about when a person wears a cross around their neck? Is that tweaking you too? Do you feel that every person who wears a cross is trying to tell you all these things as well? (If so, you must spend a lot of time feeling tweaked!)





Can I get an AMEN?

I was just about to say that. Hell, what if someone put a Jewish Star of David on their car?
If they're Christian, why should they feel they have to hide it? What's so bad about being a Christian?

[Podkayne]

Some people seem to be saying (some more eloquently than others) that I don't think people should express their religious leanings. Apologies if that is the impression I have given. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think all people should feel free to express themselves.

My point is this: when you give your viewpoint you must be aware that some people may react negatively to it, and sometimes no amount of telling them how wrong you think their reaction is will make them feel good about what you're saying.

I used the slangy word "tweaked", which probably lead to much of the misunderstanding. By "tweaked" I mean that I get a strong emotional reaction, a jolt--I sit up and take notice, I think about what is being said. Let me emphasize, this is a good thing. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints; if everybody agreed with me, I'd be bored to death.

To address some of Yosemitebabe's points:


That's a whole lot of message to put into a simple little fish.

So is "Jesus Christ died for your sins, and worshipping Him is the path to salvation." But that's the heavy burden the little fishie must swim with.

You can't have it both ways. Either putting a fish on your car is a strong statement of faith, or people have no grounds to be offended when the fish is parodied.

You assume that every person who puts a symbol of their belief, (or pastime, as in the Pro Bass fish) is simultaniously trying to tell everyone else of their superiority, or trying to "convert" them.

No, I do not. I didn't say any such thing in my post. Also, since I did not use the word convert, I feel that it is inappropriate for you to put in quotes.

My point is that displaying a Christian symbol (be it a fish on your car or a cross around your neck) is identifying with a group. To another Christian, you're saying, "We have something in common." To a non-Christian, you're saying, "We are different." As a Christian in a largely Christian society, you probably feel that saying "I'm a Christian," is a pretty neutral statement--you are likely to encounter amny more Christians than non-Christians, and your statement of group identity is more likely to reinforce relationships than cause alienation. However, put yourself in the shoes of a non-Christian for a moment. Why don't we see a lot of Stars of David on cars, as Guinastasia mentioned? What do you think a Jewish person feels when they see a Christian fish on a car?

Now, it's perfectly valid for you to say that my reaction to a Christian fish is unimportant because that I am a member of a thin-skinned atheist minority, so in your opinion the Christian fish remains innocuous. However, please recognize that this does not change my feelings about Christian fish, and it doesn't change the way I'll react, e.g. by displaying a parody of the fish without feeling that I'm escalating some sort of obnoxious-bumper-sticker war.

What's so bad about being a Christian?

That, I think, is another question for another time. :)

[yosemite]

Originally posted by Podkayne


My point is this: when you give your viewpoint you must be aware that some people may react negatively to it, and sometimes no amount of telling them how wrong you think their reaction is will make them feel good about what you're saying.

True, but I am entitled to think that their reaction is overreacting.

So is "Jesus Christ died for your sins, and worshipping Him is the path to salvation." But that's the heavy burden the little fishie must swim with.

You can't have it both ways. Either putting a fish on your car is a strong statement of faith, or people have no grounds to be offended when the fish is parodied.

Wearing a cross is a statement of faith, does that also offend you? Does any or every symbol connected with a religious faith offend you?

As a vegetarian, I am in the minority. I am serious about my vegetarianism, and I do get grief about it. But I would be exhausted if I thought that every "In-N-Out Burger" bumper sticker, or "Pro Bass" sticker was making a STATEMENT to me, as a vegetarian. It is just a sticker slapped on a car, by a person who liked that thing. They were not thinking about how it would make a vegetarian feel. They were not trying to send a "message" to me. I could, if I chose to, decide that every Pro Bass or burger joint bumper sticker was an attempt to tell me how great meat was, and how I was "missing out". (Meat eaters frequently do this to me, personally. They say "Mmmmm...I'm eating this burger in front of you!, SEE?") I could, if I chose, decide that the same level of intensity and meaning was present in these bumper stickers. And then I coud decide to display a "Meat is Murder" bumper sticker to "mock" these meat eaters. But I've decided not to take the bumper stickers that way, or react with a "mocking" bumper sticker of my own. So I guess I cannot personally understand why other people cannot do the same thing with the Christian fish. But that's just me, I guess.



Regarding the "convert" thing - I think the sentence you wrote was (bolding mine):
Well, I get tweaked at fishes on cars. It's not "a mere fish." It's saying, "I'm Christian. Not only am I Christian, but I feel a need to put a fish on my car so that you know that I'm Christian and you'll think about Christ and you'll feel included if you're a Christian and excluded if you're not a Christian."

Pardon me if I took that to mean "convert", but I could see no other reason for someone to (in your imagination) want someone to "think" about Christ, unless there was some sly attempt for "conversion" down the road.

I could also apply your reaction to the Christian Fish to the Pro Bass fish. I could think:

"Well, I get tweaked at Pro Bass fishes on cars. It's not "a mere fish." It's saying, "I'm fisherman. Not only am I fisherman, but I feel a need to put a fish on my car so that you know that I'm fisherman and you'll think about fishing and you'll feel included if you're a fishing and excluded if you're not a fisherman."

And that would be JUST too exhausting for me to do. So I just take these stickers to be that the guy likes to fish. Big whoop. But...that's just me, I guess.

My point is that displaying a Christian symbol (be it a fish on your car or a cross around your neck) is identifying with a group. To another Christian, you're saying, "We have something in common." To a non-Christian, you're saying, "We are different."

Well, we agree. And so what? I can cope with seeing bumper stickers that tell me "We are different". I don't have to be offended by that.

As a Christian in a largely Christian society, you probably feel that saying "I'm a Christian," is a pretty neutral statement--you are likely to encounter amny more Christians than non-Christians, and your statement of group identity is more likely to reinforce relationships than cause alienation. However, put yourself in the shoes of a non-Christian for a moment. Why don't we see a lot of Stars of David on cars, as Guinastasia mentioned? What do you think a Jewish person feels when they see a Christian fish on a car?

I cannot say. But I DO know what it feels like to be a vegetarian who sees a lot of meat-related bumper stickers on cars, and I have already told you my reaction.

Now, it's perfectly valid for you to say that my reaction to a Christian fish is unimportant because that I am a member of a thin-skinned atheist minority, so in your opinion the Christian fish remains innocuous.


Well, I would not use the phrase "thin-skinned atheist minority"...

However, please recognize that this does not change my feelings about Christian fish, and it doesn't change the way I'll react, e.g. by displaying a parody of the fish without feeling that I'm escalating some sort of obnoxious-bumper-sticker war.

Well, please understand that as a "minority" (kinda sorta) who has decided to NOT react by parodying something that I see everywhere, but do not agree with (Pro Bass, etc.) I DO feel that you are starting some sort of obnoxious bumper sticker war. The fact that I avoid such activities says that I DO feel that it is obnoxious, and I don't want to start down that slippery slope.

But that's just me, I guess. ;)

[Badtz Maru]

I think that part of the reason people publicly display Christian symbols is to get preferential treatment from other Christians. I know it's the main reason many businesses will put the fish on their signs or yellow-pages ads, a devout Christian trying to decide which mechanic to take his car to will often choose the 'Christian' one.

I owned a truck that had a small sticker from some pro-police organization/charity on the windshield from a previous owner. One time when I was pulled over for speeding the highway patrolmen was about to write me a ticket when he noticed the sticker, leaned over to get a better look at it, then let me go with a warning. That was the one time I actually noticed that - perhaps other times when I was pulled over in that truck (I used to speed a LOT) that sticker helped me get off easy. I'm sure bumper stickers have helped people out similarly before.

[Podkayne]

Wearing a cross is a statement of faith, does that also offend you? Does any or every symbol connected with a religious faith offend you?

Slow down. I never said that Christian fish or other religious symbols offend me. I said that I have negative reaction to them. I consider something offensive if it is an unambiguous an undeserved insult. However, if someone disagrees with me, I can feel strongly about it without being offended. To me, if something is offensive, I really feel the person should not have said it--but as I've said, I have no objection to people expressing their religious views.

Regarding the "convert" thing - I think the sentence you wrote was (bolding mine):
Well, I get tweaked at fishes on cars. It's not "a mere fish." It's saying, "I'm Christian. Not only am I Christian, but I feel a need to put a fish on my car so that you know that I'm Christian and you'll think about Christ and you'll feel included if you're a Christian and excluded if you're not a Christian."

Pardon me if I took that to mean "convert", but I could see no other reason for someone to (in your imagination) want someone to "think" about Christ, unless there was some sly attempt for "conversion" down the road.

How about if they want other people who are already Christians to be reminded of Christ's love for them? I may be wrong, but I figure that a major reason do display a religous symbol is to create a feeling of fellowship and affirm the faith of other believers, rather than some misguided attempt to convert someone. As I said, I perceive Christian fishes as a statement of group identity, rather than a direct attack on non-Christians.


My point is that displaying a Christian symbol (be it a fish on your car or a cross around your neck) is identifying with a group. To another Christian, you're saying, "We have something in common." To a non-Christian, you're saying, "We are different."

Well, we agree. And so what? I can cope with seeing bumper stickers that tell me "We are different". I don't have to be offended by that.


Again, I am not offended, but I still feel that in that statement, "I'm part of this group and you are not," there's a certain degree of smugness. Even though you mistakenly attributed it to me, you yourself percieved an implied sense of superiority in identifying with a group. And I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with making such a display or with feeling superior, rather that you simply must realize that some people will react negatively to it.

I emphasize again, I don't have a science-fish as a direct backlash against Christian fish. It's a statement against creationism that happens to be a clever parody of a Christian symbol that I find somewhat annoying.

I am not saying that Christians shouldn't put fishes on their cars, but rather that since they do feel the need to proclaim their faith to anybody stuck behind them in traffic, they can hardly feel self-righteous when somebody else uses the same symbol. I realize that some will be offended by by my science-fish, but I think that's a reasonable price to pay for a really catchy pro-evolution statement. If they feel the need to retaliate with a Jesus-fish-eating-a-science fish, that's their choice. I'll react negatively, but I will not be offended.

But, (to coin a phrase) that's just me. :)

I'm sorry that you're a non-combatant casualty in the obnoxious-bumper-sticker war. Hopefully you can, with your apparent grace and poise, ignore us if we get too far out of hand. :)

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
I think that part of the reason people publicly display Christian symbols is to get preferential treatment from other Christians. I know it's the main reason many businesses will put the fish on their signs or yellow-pages ads, a devout Christian trying to decide which mechanic to take his car to will often choose the 'Christian' one.

That's an interesting thought. I had the worst customer service experience of my life in a shop that was loaded down with Christian symbols and playing a Christian radio station. I wouldn't have gone there in the first place, except they were the only shop I could find anywhere that even claimed they could help me out.

They deliberately lied to me, misled me, and tried to trick me, all over a matter of $40. It was sickening. I know better now--if they're trying too hard to convince you that they're good Christians, they're probably trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
However, some of the "inspirational" stickers may not be actively meant to chide you. I always took them as messages that other Christians would appreciate, and others could ignore.


I realize that, and specifically I think that the plain old fish is pretty innocuous.


I think this is where we differ. I believe that it's possible that there could be a "pro" evolution sticker/symbol created that would not have to simultaniously mock someone else's long-held symbol. I see the Fish as something akin to the Christian Cross, or a nationality flag, or some other symbol that shows a person is a "member" of something.


Really? I understand that the fish is an old symbol, but I really have never received the impression that it held any sort of sacredness within the religion, ala the cross or crucifix. It strikes me more as a sort of "fraternity pin" for Christians than anything else. I would not, for instance, put a message up to deliberately profane a cross.



If you wanted to tell someone that "there's nothing to their beliefs", perhaps mocking one of the more obvious "in your face" stickers would have been more fitting. (They were obnoxious first, after all.) But I don't see how a mere fish is sending you the message that "there's nothing to your beliefs", so why the need to parody it?


Well, as I stated before, those I would consider my "opponents" are those who are trying to foist Creation "Science" off on our society, not Christians in general. (Well, them and the ultra-fundies, which are an almost completely overlapping group.) To those people I am indeed saying specifically "There is nothing to your beliefs," specifically that Genesis is a literal account of the origins of the universe. True, other Christians may also see the Darwin fish as a refutation of their theological beliefs, but that is not my primary intent, and my reaction is still "What of that?" I don't worry that they will take offense at my Darwin fish as a refutation of their worldview just as they probably don't worry about me possibly taking offense at their plain old fish as a refutation of my own (which I don't by the way.)

As far as finding a sticker that supports evolution without incorporating a fish, I confess that I have never given it a thought. I bought the Darwin fish because I saw it advertised, realized that the people I diametrically oppose, creationists, would react both to the idea of evolution and the subtle mockery of their symbol, and also because of the incredible aptness of a legged fish as a metaphor for evolution. As such, I like it fine, and anyone that gets outraged by it is likely just the sort of person who I am targeting. The run of the mill Christian who isn't wholly consumed by his religion might think it is in poor taste, but I doubt they would think it truly offensive.

[Guinastasia]

Maybe some of us wear crosses for ourselves, and to make us feel closer to God or whathaveyou.
The Eastern Orthodox faithful wear a baptismal cross all throughout their lives and never remove it. Why is that so bad?
Excuse me for daring to have a religion you find annoying, Podkayne.
:rolleyes:

[yosemite]

Hmm...I have to say, I think there is a blurry line between "annoyed" and "offended". I confess, I don't see that huge of a difference. I can believe that some of you do not feel an intense feeling of deep, personal offense about the Christian Fish. But I don't buy the "*shrug*, I'm merely annoyed" thing. I think it goes a little deeper than that.

And, Podkayne, please, with more clear and plain language, what is the difference between "reacting negatively" and being "offended"? I understand that you think that something "offensive" should have never been done or said. Which sounds like an extreme feeling of offense. But it sounds like "reacting negatively" is just a slightly less intense feeling of "offended". You are gracious in saying that people have the right to express themselves, but am I correct that their expressions of religious faith basically piss you off? (i.e. "react negatively".) Am I guessing that correctly?

I emphasize again, I don't have a science-fish as a direct backlash against Christian fish. It's a statement against creationism that happens to be a clever parody of a Christian symbol that I find somewhat annoying.

Taking the creationist part out of it, why do you find the Christian Fish "annoying"? Why give a damn?

I am not saying that Christians shouldn't put fishes on their cars, but rather that since they do feel the need to proclaim their faith to anybody stuck behind them in traffic, they can hardly feel self-righteous when somebody else uses the same symbol.

Where did the "self-righteous" part get in here? You just assume that is their reaction. I think that more than likely, they are wondering why someone would go out of their way to mock a long-held Christian symbol. They might see it as a petty reaction to a rather innocuous symbol. And, the Christian Fish is not specifically about Creationism, you know.

I realize that some will be offended by by my science-fish, but I think that's a reasonable price to pay for a really catchy pro-evolution statement. If they feel the need to retaliate with a Jesus-fish-eating-a-science fish, that's their choice. I'll react negatively, but I will not be offended.

Sigh. "React negatively, but not be offended." Basically you will be pissed or annoyed. And you did something that you know might someone first, they react by annoying you back, and down that slippery slope. You know where it's all heading.

And, I recall you mentioned in a previous post:
it doesn't change the way I'll react, e.g. by displaying a parody of the fish without feeling that I'm escalating some sort of obnoxious-bumper-sticker war.

But it looks like that is exactly what is going to happen! You understand that some people will react to your Darwin Fish with a Jesus Fish Eating Darwin fish (but you will not be "offended", of course) and on and on! Looks like the start of an obnoxious bumper sticker war to me.


Ptahlis wrote:

I bought the Darwin fish because I saw it advertised, realized that the people I diametrically oppose, creationists, would react both to the idea of evolution and the subtle mockery of their symbol, and also because of the incredible aptness of a legged fish as a metaphor for evolution.

"Their" symbol? The fish is a Christian symbol, not specifically a Creationist symbol. I understand that the "in your face" Creationists who want Evolution taken out of school (or Creationism put in) are worthy of being "diametrically opposed" to. But I don't think I understand why anyone would give a damn if someone else believed in Creation, or that the Earth is atop a Great Giant Turtle named Phil, or whatever. (As long as they were not militant about it.) It's just a private belief. But that is definitely a topic for another thread, so I'll not go into that here.

As such, I like it fine, and anyone that gets outraged by it is likely just the sort of person who I am targeting. The run of the mill Christian who isn't wholly consumed by his religion might think it is in poor taste, but I doubt they would think it truly offensive.
True, "outrage" is too extreme of a reaction, and most Christians wouldn't feel that way, I am sure. I guess I differ with you on one other thing - I DON'T think it is necessary to display something that I KNOW would be considered in "poor taste" by many. On the other hand, I am actually amused by the cute "Honk if you understand punctuated equilibria!", "Oh, Evolve!" and "Evolutionists do it . . . with increasing complexity!" pro-evolution bumper stickers. They are funny. They do not make me roll my eyes, because there is not that element of mocking a long-held symbol. I think there is a definite increased risk of offense and annoyance when ANYONE does that. I actually do understand why you were drawn to the Darwin Fish, and it isn't like I'm ever going to be tempted to peel one of these fishes off of a car. But, in your attempt to target the aggressive Creationists, I think you are "sticking it to" a lot of other Christians as well.

[Guinastasia]

Right. I believe the fish thing was because so many of the apostles were fishermen.
BTW, I have never seen the Darwin fish-what does it look like?
Links, anyone?

[Podkayne]

Guinastasia: Well, pardon me for being annoyed at your religion. Am I indeed entitled to voice my opinion without you rolling your eyes at me?


The Eastern Orthodox faithful wear a baptismal cross all throughout their lives and never remove it. Why is that so bad?

For the umpteenth time, I am not saying that displaying a religious symbol is bad.

I'm saying that I personally don't enjoy seeing Christian symbols. I don't like Christianity. I think Christianty is erroneous and dangerous. If I could wish it away as if I never existed, I would. But since it does exist, I'm not going to tell anyone that they don't have a right to believe in it, talk about it, paint "Praise Jesus" on their house or do whatever they want. I just don't personally like to see it. Okay?

If you want to see the Darwin fish and other examples, go here: http://www.evolvefish.com

yosemitebabe:

If see something I don't agree with, I don't shrug it off. I don't ignore it. I don't "not give a damn."

Neither do I get angry, or "pissed off", or offended, or want to silence the opposing point of view. I get offended when people exploit stereotypes. I get offended when people are insulting. I get offended when people use crude language when referring to another person. If I am offended, I want the person to shut up. In my mind, they have not exercised basic courtesy, so I have no obligation to listen courteously to what they have to say. If they don't shut up, I will remove myself from earshot or ignore them. I'm not going to dignify offensive statements by dwelling on them. In my mind, if someone says, "That is offensive," it means that they find it so repugnant that they do not want to be exposed to it, that they wish they never saw it.

I do not get offended when someone simply disagrees with me. I think about what they're saying. I think about why I disagree with them. I see this as a healthy process.

I don't know, maybe I do go around "pissed off" all the time, if you consider thinking about opposing points of view instead of dismissing them without a thought "pissed off." More than once, I started off being "pissed off" at something, but in the course of thinking about it, I realized it has some merit, and it changed my feelings on an issue.

Now, I am likely to ignore a bass fishing sticker. I am neither strongly in favor or strongly opposed to bass fishing. I ignore bumper stickers like "Born to shop." I personally think the celebration of shopping is stupid, so stupid that it's not worth my time to even think about it. Other issues, though, are worth my time to think about.

And, okay, fine, let me come out all in favor of the Obnoxious Bumper Sticker War! I urge the people go forth to find the rudest, most irritating bumper stickers they can lay hands on! Everyone should have five, ten, or fifteen bumperstickers ridiculing the beliefs of groups to which they do not belong! Mock Christians, evolutionists, vegetarians, omnivores, bass fishermen, model railroadists, national park enthusiasts . . . MOCK EVERYONE WITH LITTLE STICKERS ON YOUR CARS!!! TAKE NO PRISONERS!

Let us plummet down that slippery slope, whooping and hollering all the way. I hardly think it'll lead to a breakdown of society, though it may increase our gas consumption by weighing down our cars with rhetoric.

[Phil_15]

The clandestine "sign of the fish" was used in the days of the early Christian persecution as signal to each other when identification with the group could get you a quick trip to the lions, archery practice, or a cross. It has recently been in vogue among Pentecostals and other Protestant groups who have desired to more closely identify with the principles and docrine of the NT church rather than with the Catholic branch of Christianity (the back to the Bible folks who are for the most part "Creationists"). There are those I know who view the "Darwin Fish" as sacreligious as our Catholic friends would upon seeing a crucifix or statue of the Madonna spray painted.

I have no IDing marks on my car mostly because I tend to be an agressive driver who ignors speed limits and I don't want to create an opportunity for those who look for reasons to throws barbs at the religious crowd. I did place one of the "fish" emblems on my wife's car at her insistance for the following reasons:


It is a commandment of the Christian religion to witness to the world.
Jesus said that if we (Christians) do not speak out for Him publically, He will not speak to the Father in our behalf.
My wife is NOT a Bible-Thumper, she believes in letting her life be the example like the old saying from St. Francis, "Preach everywhere you go, and if necessary, use words."

Yes, the sign is a form of witness! Purposely so. And for those of you that are offended by any form of religious expression including those that are relatively nonintrusive, I regret you find it so.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe

"Their" symbol? The fish is a Christian symbol, not specifically a Creationist symbol. I understand that the "in your face" Creationists who want Evolution taken out of school (or Creationism put in) are worthy of being "diametrically opposed" to. But I don't think I understand why anyone would give a damn if someone else believed in Creation, or that the Earth is atop a Great Giant Turtle named Phil, or whatever. (As long as they were not militant about it.) It's just a private belief. But that is definitely a topic for another thread, so I'll not go into that here.


To your first point, namely that all Christians use the fish symbol, I agree completely. But the Creation Science folks haven't developed a badge of identity to separate them from the rest of the flock. As soon as the creationists have a widely used and easily recognized symbol of their very own I will assuredly find a parody of that posthaste. However, I still feel that any reaction felt by other Christians is likely to be very minor and, in the whole equation, fairly trivial. At most they might feel that the Darwin fish oversteps the bounds, in that a customary, though not sacred, symbol has been unfairly co-opted, and that, simply put, isn't enough to make me change my mind about it.

As to why I give a damn about what they believe, I really don't. Anybody who wants to believe in a Biblically literal creation is perfectly free to, and while I do not particularly respect that point of view from an intellectual standpoint, I certainly won't lose sleep over it. What I do care about, on the other hand, is the insidious use of pseudo-science to try and give their beliefs a false imprimature of validation while at the same time using dubious tactics to try and discredit the results real science actually yields. I care about the attempt to insinuate religious teachings into the classroom in the guise of science. And I also care very much about the way that such practices can mislead the uneducated layman as to what science actually is.

The basics of what science is, how it works, and what it can and cannot do, are concepts that everyone should understand. They aren't that hard to explain or to grasp. Yet an alarming number of people in this country are shockingly ignorant about these things, and pseudo-science like Creation Scientists pawn off on people exacerbate and exploit this situation. Science is by far the most useful tool we have ever devised when it comes to understanding the universe, and when I see its trappings used to support irrational ideas then I feel probably something similar to what a Christian might feel when confronted by Fred Phelps or the Christian Identity cults. They use all the Biblical trappings to spew forth bile and hatred, clothed with the false imprimature of God's approval, and they give non-believers a very bad impression of what Christianity is all supposed to be about.

I understand your feelings that it is unfair and needlessly combative for the Darwin fish to parody the traditional fish, but I respectfully disagree.

[shagadelicmysteryman]

You wanna know something that i'm really sick of seeing? Jesus Loves You on license plates. People by all means have the right to put that on there, but for cryin out loud, does everyone have to get one? Do they think that this world will be better because of if? If that's the case, I think the world would have been better a long time ago, seeing that the ideas of Christianity have been around for, oh, say, 2000+. Why can't people keep their religious beleifs to themselves for a change? Oh, wait this is america. Freedom of Religion. OOPS.

But by the way, I find the retalliatory bumber stickers against environmentalists and animal lovers quite amusing.

"If you don't like cutting down trees, try wiping your ass with plastic."

I love that one.

[mblackwell]

Bumper sticker "war" ? I see the original Christian fish all the time, I have never seen a Darwin fish.

[yosemite]

Mr. Blackwell:

It must vary from region to region. I see the Darwin Fishes often.

Podkayne:
Guinastasia: Well, pardon me for being annoyed at your religion. Am I indeed entitled to voice my opinion without you rolling your eyes at me?

I can't speak for Guinastasia, but my guess would be "no". (Not that you are not "entited" to voice your opinion, of course.) You are "annoyed" at her religion, she "reacts negatively" by rolliing her eyes. Why shouldn't she roll her eyes?

Well, thank you Podkayne, for such a refeshing display of candor! No more "react negatively" for you! What a relief. "Pissed off" is a far more genuine term, at least in this case.

Well, we have resolved one thing - you are FOR bumper sticker wars, then! :)

Ptahlis:

I understand your feelings that it is unfair and needlessly combative for the Darwin fish to parody the traditional fish, but I respectfully disagree.

Well, you can do whatever you want, of course. But you do have the option of many other (quite amusing) evolution bumper stickers out there. Which would be quite effective in targeting the obnoxious aggressive Creationists. Instead you knowingly choose one that obviously parodies a general Christian symbol. I think that is "needlessly combative". You disagree. We'll just have to leave it at that!

shagadelicmysteryman:
Why can't people keep their religious beleifs to themselves for a change? Oh, wait this is america. Freedom of Religion. OOPS.
Why can't those evolutionists keep their beliefs to themselves for a change? Why can't those fisherman keep their beliefs to themselves for a change? Why can't those National Park lovers keep their beliefs to themselves for a change?

:rolleyes:

[Phil_15]

Why can't people keep their religious beleifs to themselves for a change? Oh, wait this is america. Freedom of Religion.

Note my above post...it's against my religion...literally!
:D

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
Podkayne:
Guinastasia: Well, pardon me for being annoyed at your religion. Am I indeed entitled to voice my opinion without you rolling your eyes at me?

I can't speak for Guinastasia, but my guess would be "no". (Not that you are not "entited" to voice your opinion, of course.) You are "annoyed" at her religion, she "reacts negatively" by rolliing her eyes. Why shouldn't she roll her eyes?


Because it's rude--mildly offensive, if you will. You're trying to draw a parallel here, where none realy exists. The negative reaction I spoke of is a feeling, which I can chose to keep to myself, express appropriately, or express inappropriately. In a personal conversation, rather than a "bumper sticker war" I'm considerably more careful, since I'm addressing to a person, not a faction, and I've done my best to be courteous and respectful to everyone in this thread. Inappropriate expressions directed toward me bring an end to a discussion in which I want to participate.

If someone is really interested in what I have to say, they'll respond substantively to my statements. If they're not, they'll do things like misrepresent my position, ask me the same questions again and again, and roll their eyes at me.

I do not deny Guinastasia the right to roll her(?) eyes, but I don't consider it very polite.


Well, thank you Podkayne, for such a refeshing display of candor!

Are you implying that I have not been straightforward with you? I've done my best to express my feelings honestly and without attacking anyone. Simply not agreeing with you does not constitute a lack of candor.

No more "react negatively" for you! What a relief. "Pissed off" is a far more genuine term, at least in this case.

Uh, sorry, no.

I remind you that we're dealing with your definition of "pissed off," which, you seem to be tacilty agreeing, is "thinking about opposing points of view instead of dismissing them without a thought"--not a definition of "pissed off" I've ever encountered before.

I would never choose to describe myself as pissed off about religious symbols, according to my understanding of that phrase. I freely admit that I get pissed off at creationists, evangalists, and the like when they spread lies and intimidate people--but I don't get pissed off at a simple symbol.

I am mystified if, despite all I've said and the pains I've taken to describe my true feelings as accurately as I can, you still think that "pissed off" is the best descriptor. I suspect this is because you think you know how I feel, that I'm an atheist with a chip on my shoulder reading unwarranted intentions into a perfectly neutral symbol and getting pissed off about it. Well, all I can say is that it really, truly does not make me angry to see a fish on a car, and as to the intentions of fish-owners, I direct you to Phil_15's post. If "witness" isn't the smuggest word in the Christian's dictionary, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

I'll continue say I react negatively because, despite the fact that it's a little clumsy, I believe that is the most accurate description of my feelings, and I think I'm the person best qualified to describe my own emotions. If it makes you feel good, by all means declare victory--but I think either I've failed to convey my point, or you've failed to grasp it.

[Podkayne]

God, this has gone on to two pages.

We both really need to get a life. :)

[Phil_15]

"....witness is the smuggest word in the Christian's vocabulary..."

From one of the online dictionaries:


Main Entry: smug
Pronunciation: 'sm&g
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably modification of Low German smuck neat, from Middle Low German, from smucken to dress; akin to Old English smoc smock
Date: 1551
Inflected Form(s): smug.
1 : trim or smart in dress : SPRUCE
2 : scrupulously clean, neat, or correct : TIDY
3 : highly self-satisfied
- smug.ly adverb
- smug.ness noun


I assume you are referring to #3 and unfortunately I have met many "Christians" who do display that attitude. I would submit that they have a problem with PRIDE which the scriptures most certainly warn against. I, too, find the "Bible Thumper" in-your-face brand of "Christianity" most repugnant because that is NOT the Gospel of Jesus as I understand it and try to base my life upon. And secondly, it gives the rest of us a black eye and plenty of ammunition for those of you that are on the opposite side of the fence :D . I share the gospel to those that express an interest and TRY (except in debates on this board) to leave the rest of you as alone as I can. However to lump an entire religion into one denigrated group because of the idealogy and actions of some of that group that are disingenuous to precepts laid out in their own fundemental "rulebook", I believe is less than fair. But, as always, I respect your right to disagree.

[tracer]

Ptahlis wrote:

the legged fish is a perfect visual for evolution.

Actually, it's a lousy visual for evolution. Not one transitional or stable form in life's long history looks like a fish with legs. The early amphibians looked more like salamanders. (And they sure as heck never used wrenches, like that "evolve" fish does!)

A more accurate symbol might be an actual extinct species, such as a trilobite or a stegosaurus.

[Guinastasia]

'm saying that I personally don't enjoy seeing Christian symbols. I don't like Christianity. I think
Christianty is erroneous and dangerous. If I could wish it away as if I never existed, I would. But
since it does exist, I'm not going to tell anyone that they don't have a right to believe in it, talk
about it, paint "Praise Jesus" on their house or do whatever they want. I just don't personally like
to see it. Okay?


And that's not rude? So all Christianity is dangerous?
Give me a break! So it's dangerous when I pray the Rosary in Church. Sweet Mother of God! You don't know me, and you don't know all Christians. So don't go around saying it's dangerous. That's bullshit. By that same argument, I could say I found atheism dangerous, wrong and I wish it would go away. (Although, that's not how I feel). But if I were to say that, I'd be a bigot, right?

Please. Give me a break. I don't even have a car, and if I did, I wouldn't put a fish on it. If I were to wear a cross, what's it to you? Why do you get so pissed about it?
It's my body. I'll wear what I want.

ANd by the way, we should keep our beliefs to ourselves?
Oh sure! And I guess you'll be keeping YOUR beliefs to YOURself.

Get a life.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[David B]

Guinastasia said:
I could say I found atheism dangerous, wrong and I wish it would go away. (Although, that's not how I feel). But if I were to say that, I'd be a bigot, right? Well, you'd certainly be asked to explain yourself. And you'd be fully justified in doing the same thing here. But you didn't. Instead, you chose to go off on a rant...

[Guinastasia]

Well, I didn't mean to go on a rant, and if I did, I appologize. (Rough night-failed a test and have a D as my midterm grade in Early American History...:(
The reason I did not take that tactic, however, is because I don't believe there's anything wrong with atheism. I don't believe there's anything wrong with any religion, whatever it is-it is a personal choice. And most of the time, I really do respect people's beliefs.
All I ask is that they respect mine in return.

I merely meant to play the Devil's Advocate.

[David B]

Guinastasia said:
The reason I did not take that tactic, however, is because I don't believe there's anything wrong with atheism. I think you misunderstood what I said. I meant you could ask him to explain why he feels that way instead of just jumping him for feeling that way. For all you know, he has perfectly good and legitimate reasons for holding that opinion...

[Guinastasia]

Hmmm...good idea.
Why didn't I think of that-d'oh!
Too much school is frying my brain...;) Midterms, senior thesis...

Podkayne-why do you feel the way you do about Christianity?

[yosemite]

Originally posted by Podkayne


Because it's rude--mildly offensive, if you will. You're trying to draw a parallel here, where none realy exists. The negative reaction I spoke of is a feeling, which I can chose to keep to myself, express appropriately, or express inappropriately.

You expressed your opinion (your "negative reaction") to her religion and her wearing of a Christian Cross. She expressed her opinion ("negative reaction") by "rolling her eyes", or, using the VB code of "rolleyes". She could have just written something like "Oh puleeeze" instead, it would have amounted to the same thing. She is entitled to respond to your post, just as your are entitled to respond to hers. It does not mean that she would literally roll her eyes at you in a public and face-to-face situation. It would be rude to do that to someone's face.

She could be more articulate in expressing why she "rolls her eyes" at you, but I think she might be wondering if indeed, you do go around "pissed off" all the time. Seeing as a whole lot of people wear crosses. And I guess she might be wondering if you are wound a little too tight. Or something...(I cannot speak for her, of course.)

I wrote:
Well, thank you Podkayne, for such a refeshing display of candor!

Are you implying that I have not been straightforward with you? I've done my best to express my feelings honestly and without attacking anyone. Simply not agreeing with you does not constitute a lack of candor.

Oh HEAVENS. You do take things so seriously. (I write this suspecting that you will take this little quip too seriously as well! ;) ) It's just that the term "react negatively" has got to be the most stilted, awkward, "PC speak" expression I think I've ever read. "Pissed off" seems to be far more geniune. As does "annoyed". Sorry, that's just my gut reaction. Feel free to take several paragraphs correcting me, chiding me, or telling me that I don't get it! (THAT'S A JOKE!!!! JOKE!!!!)


I remind you that we're dealing with your definition of "pissed off," which, you seem to be tacilty agreeing, is "thinking about opposing points of view instead of dismissing them without a thought"--not a definition of "pissed off" I've ever encountered before.

"Thinking about opposing points of view instead of dismissing them without a thought". Oh heavens, I think I am going to collapse. You are exhausting me! First we have "react negatively", then this!!?!

I can only relate with my own experiences as a vegetarian. Meat-eaters are expressing an "opposing point of view", and I have decided that THINKING about their opposing point of view every time I encouter it is just too exhausting. I've thought about it enough already. Now I don't give a damn (or give them much thought) as long as they personally leave me alone and don't wave meat in my face. I've got other things to "react negatively" to, thankyouverymuch. Life is too short, you know?

I'm sure you will express an "opposing point of view" to my last thought, I anxiously await it! ;)

I freely admit that I get pissed off at creationists, evangalists, and the like when they spread lies and intimidate people--but I don't get pissed off at a simple symbol.

But you don't mind annoying a lot of people by mocking this specific symbol (that does not piss you off.) OK.

If it makes you feel good, by all means declare victory--but I think either I've failed to convey my point, or you've failed to grasp it.

I'm far too exhausted to "declare victory", and that was not my intent. This is not a contest! I never expect atheists to totally agree with me. (Where's the fun in that?)

[redtail23]

RE the OP - I have no bumperstickers on my car and never have had. If I had any such, they would most likely refer to tandems and/or MTBs rather than politics or religion. I do think that there is some risk to putting certain ideas on your car - I've had a car vandalized because (AFAICT) it had '666' on the license plate. I do have a Chthulhu fish magnetic plate (I thought it was funny), but I keep it on my cabinet at home rather than on my car, mostly because I don't want it stolen.

I don't think that bumperstickers are particularly effective as means of communication, but I often find them to be entertaining and amusing. I will admit to a tendency to be less peeved at incompetent or annoying driving if the bumperstickers on a car reflect views with which I agree rather than the opposite. ;) However, I don't get terribly offended at bumperstickers that promote ideas or beliefs I don't like - I can even admire them if they're clever or witty. But then, I tend to be obnoxious and like obnoxious things. Chacun a son gout, doncha know.

The only person I know who ever defaced bumperstickers was a guy who stuck "Do Lots" over the "Do Time" on the anti-drug stickers the local cops have. You gotta admit, that's gutsy if nothing else. :D


yosimitebabe, you said a few posts back "I am not all that offended by the Darwin Fish". That certainly seems to state that the DF does, in fact, offend or annoy you to some extent. This is supported by your continued assertions that the Darwin Fish is an inappropriate symbol that you personally dislike.

Yet later you reply to Podkayne, “But I don't buy the "*shrug*, I'm merely annoyed" thing. I think it goes a little deeper than that.". Aside from the inherent insult that you somehow have knowledge of Podkayne's feelings that is superior to her own, specifically how are your statements of dislike any different than Podkayne saying that she's annoyed but not really offended?

Why do you get to be 'just a little bit offended' but others can't possibly be?


As has been stated, there are many bumperstickers that are created SPECIFICALLY to offend, annoy, 'tweak', or whathaveyou - in other words, to provoke a reaction from innocent passersby. Why is the DF especially egregious in this collection? Because it parodies a popular religious symbol? Many of the 'tweaking' stickers I've seen are parodies - again, why is this one so awful?

It seems to me that you're trying to argue both sides of the fence on this one. First you claim that the fish is a "mere fish" that doesn't mean anything, really, except membership in a group, and carries no covert meanings (despite the fact that many Christians will disagree with you). But then you claim that this is such an important and potent symbol that it should be entirely off limits for anyone *but* that group. Which is it?


My opinion is that Christians lost the ‘moral high ground’ needed for righteous indignation over misuse of the fish symbol when they started using their religion and their symbols to sell used cars, shoddy homes, sub-standard home ‘improvements’, and themselves. YMMV, of course; I’m speaking locally and specifically. This is not only accepted but condoned by Christians here, and often supported and encouraged by the churches. I'd say that if these symbols are so sacred that they must not be touched by unbelievers, they probably oughtn't to be plastered all over everything you see.

I don't have a Darwin fish, but if I did I wouldn't particularly care if it offended Christians. Christians certainly don't worry about offending me. In fact, they tend to get attitudinal if I so much as suggest that their behavior might be offensive to anyone. Consequently, I don't see any real reason to spend my time and energy worrying about their oh-so-sensitive sensibilities. Again, YMMV. (Actually, mine varies – I do know exceptions to this general statement. We treat each other with courtesy and respect, and cut each other slack as needed. But those are exceptions in my experience.)

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
[quote]
'm saying that I personally don't enjoy seeing Christian symbols. I don't like Christianity. I think
Christianty is erroneous and dangerous. If I could wish it away as if I never existed, I would. But
since it does exist, I'm not going to tell anyone that they don't have a right to believe in it, talk
about it, paint "Praise Jesus" on their house or do whatever they want. I just don't personally like
to see it. Okay?


And that's not rude?


No, it'ts not rude. I expressed an opinion about a system of belief. I did not say Christians are dangerous. I did not say you are dangerous.


So all Christianity is dangerous?
Give me a break! So it's dangerous when I pray the Rosary in Church. Sweet Mother of God!


Yup. I think it is. I think it creates a dangerous pattern of thought.


You don't know me, and you don't know all Christians. So don't go around saying it's dangerous. That's bullshit.


Heh. Telling me what to I am allowed and not allowed to say, huh? No, I don't know all Christians, but I know a think or two about Christianity, and that's what I base my statements on. What, I have to know every single member of the Islamic Jyhad before I can say that they're dangerous? Not that I'm comparing Christians to terrorists, mind you.

By that same argument, I could say I found atheism dangerous, wrong and I wish it would go away.


Why yes, yes you could.

But if I were to say that, I'd be a bigot, right?


Why no, no you wouldn't.


Please. Give me a break. I don't even have a car, and if I did, I wouldn't put a fish on it. If I were to wear a cross, what's it to you? Why do you get so pissed about it?
It's my body. I'll wear what I want.


I believe I have already exlained what it is to me, and I've already explained that I'm not "pissed" and I think you should feel free to wear whatever you want, and stick whatever you want on your car.


ANd by the way, we should keep our beliefs to ourselves?
Oh sure! And I guess you'll be keeping YOUR beliefs to YOURself.


I assume this comment is directed toward shagadelicmysteryman since he is the one who expressed that sentiment, while I have repeatedly and emphatically posted exactly the opposite. It's probably a good idea to let people know to whom you are addressing your remarks by mentioning names explicitly.


Guinastasia, reread my posts if you want the answers to your questions. Unless they suddenly start to sink in and you have some questions I haven't answered before, I'm through talking to you. Have a nice life.

[Podkayne]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
She is entitled to respond to your post, just as your are entitled to respond to hers. It does not mean that she would literally roll her eyes at you in a public and face-to-face situation. It would be rude to do that to someone's face.

Okay, we have vastly different standards to netiquette, then. I don't think anyone should use insulting or dismissive language (or symbols) online or face-to-face. While I cannot control what anyone types, I can tell them what I do and do not find appropriate, and when I find someone persists in inappropriate behavior I have the choice to no longer interact with them.


She could be more articulate in expressing why she "rolls her eyes" at you, but I think she might be wondering if indeed, you do go around "pissed off" all the time. Seeing as a whole lot of people wear crosses. And I guess she might be wondering if you are wound a little too tight. Or something...(I cannot speak for her, of course.)


The reason I am wound tight is this thread. I'm having a terrible time communicating to you what I really feel about this issue. Perhaps the fault lies on my side.

And again (and again, and again) when I see someone wearing a cross I take notice. I don't get upset.


"Thinking about opposing points of view instead of dismissing them without a thought". Oh heavens, I think I am going to collapse. You are exhausting me! First we have "react negatively", then this!!?!

Uh, that's not new. That's what I said two posts ago. That's my best expression of how I feel when I see an opposing point of view expressed.


I can only relate with my own experiences as a vegetarian. Meat-eaters are expressing an "opposing point of view", and I have decided that THINKING about their opposing point of view every time I encouter it is just too exhausting. I've thought about it enough already. Now I don't give a damn (or give them much thought) as long as they personally leave me alone and don't wave meat in my face. I've got other things to "react negatively" to, thankyouverymuch. Life is too short, you know?

I'm sure you will express an "opposing point of view" to my last thought, I anxiously await it! ;)


And I shall not disappoint. :) So maybe I spend more time thinking about Christianity than you think about meat-eating. Just because you don't think much about opposition to meat-eating doesn't mean that it's silly or petty or whatever for me to think about Christianity. I feel more strongly about it than you feel about omnivorism, I guess.

Look, it's not like I think about the origins of Christianity, it's ideals and its practice, the way it has evolved throughout history, and its effect on the world today every time I see a freakin' fish. But I do tend to think about what people's motives are for displaying it, and what they'd message they think they're sending. In case I haven't been PC and pedantic enough :) , I'll mention that context is key as well. Is it an expensive car? Does it have other bumper stickers? Who's driving? Are there a bunch of people in the car? Etc. It's a mental game, perhaps--one I don't bother with if traffic is heavy, of course. ;)

But you don't mind annoying a lot of people by mocking this specific symbol (that does not piss you off.) OK.


What, I have to be "pissed off" at something to want to mock it? I can't disagree with it, and think it's clever to turn it around to express a different sentiment?

Now, I don't know how many people my fish annoys, or how annoyed they get. I don't know if it's a lot of them or not. But I really don't mind annoying them. If it really truly pisses them off so much that I've ruined their day, well, that's unfortunate, but I really think they should get a grip. If people look at it and get mildly pissed off, well, then it's doing its job, especially if it gets them thinking about the relationship between religion and science. Plus, it might brighten the day of someone who agrees with it.

I don't want to offend or insult anyone, but I realize that some people will feel insulted, no matter how mild the statement I make. But on balance I think (and it's possible I'm wrong) that it does more harm than good.

[Podkayne]

Phil_15: As I understand it, "witnessing" means making people aware of your religious convictions with the intent of inspiring similar convictions in them. I won't bother with a dictionary definition, because words often mean more than the lexicographer sees fit to put down. For example, to Mr. Webster's definition of smug, I'd add "visibly self-satisfied." To me, witnessing means making a spectacle of what a good Christian you are, holding yourself up as an example, and I think that's incredibly smug. I think your post and your wife's attitude (as you describe it) are incredibly smug. I've known some Christians to have the amazing ability to be smug about how humble they are. These are only my perceptions of course, and you almost certainly disagree.

By the way, I'm well aware that I'm incredibly smug about certain things. Smug isn't bad per say, but there's nothing smugger than somebody being smug about how they're not at all smug. (That sounds like something out of E. E. Milne. I particularly like the word "smugger." I think I'll use it in conversation today.)

[Guinastasia]

AS I said above, I did not mean to become so Pitlike.
I was merely in a foul mood last night.

For the record, I'd like to say that the Darwin fish is kinda cool. But then, I like the Pepperidge Farm fish better.

Anyways, Yosemite, you hit the nail on the head. I just rolled my eyes because it seemed like such a silly thing to be offended by a piece of jewelry. FWIW, I don't even own a cross.

And I'm sorry I blew up about the Christianity is dangerous thing. I still don't see all Christianity is dangerous. It seemed to me, too general a statement, and I wish you would elaborate on that.

[yosemite]

I am too exhausted. I have already collapsed.

Redtail: Re the OP.

I think my original thought, and the point of my OP, was that contentious bumper stickers are something I don't want on my car, and, I guess I could say that they make me "squirm". I said that the Darwin fish does not offend me that much. Which didn't mean it didn't offend me at all, just not that much. I am also "offended" (or squirm) at "Meat is Murder" stickers, and many other cloying, "in your face", or otherwise potentially contentious bumper stickers. But I also said that they didn't offend me that much, not enough to want to pry them off someone's car. My point has been, potentially or deliberately contentious bumper stickers are something I am against, personally.

We started to discuss the Darwin Fish on this thread because several people spoke up and said that they had one. If someone had spoken up and wanted to discuss a "Meat is Murder" sticker, we would have discussed that instead.

Podkayne:

And again (and again, and again) when I see someone wearing a cross I take notice. I don't get upset.

But I think you said you "react negatively"? I still am lost, sorry. And, I have to say, that I am not usually a totally stupid person. (No, I DO NOT think you are implying that, at all.) I bring this up because yes, I am having a difficult wading through the "react negativelies" to understand what you mean! I am not the brightest bulb, I sometimes don't grasp what people say. But I have to say, I don't think I am unusually thick.

So maybe I spend more time thinking about Christianity than you think about meat-eating. Just because you don't think much about opposition to meat-eating doesn't mean that it's silly or petty or whatever for me to think about Christianity. I feel more strongly about it than you feel about omnivorism, I guess.

Well, first off, vegetarianism is something I take seriously, and I do spend time thinking about meat eating. I just have made the decision to not "react negatively" every time I encountered an "opposing point of view". I don't think it's silly or petty for you to feel strongly about whatever you want to feel strongly about. But I do have a general philosophy that life is too short to spend a lot of time "reacting negatively" to an "opposing point of view" that is all around me, and that I encounter daily. I conserve my energy for the instances where some "opposing point of view" is being obnoxious, personally getting in my face, or trying to take my rights away. The fact that I daily encounter an "opposing point of view" to my vegetarianism is something that I choose not to dwell on all the time, because it is too exhausting. I wasn't always that way. It's just a decision I made, because it's a lot less stressful for me.

I guess we will differ on this point.

I will try to respond to more points made on this thread, but I need to lay down for a while, and regain my strength! ;)

[Podkayne]

The terms "pissed off" and "upset" and so on strike me as fairly strong emotional reactions, feelings you wish you didn't experience because they make you so uncomfortable. If someone or something is pissing me off, I'm inclined to avoid that--and here we're in agreement, because if an anti-vegetarian sentiment pisses you off, you ignore it.

Terms like "disagree" and "react negatively" and "tweak" convey a certain emotional distance that I have been trying to express. I can disagree with something, or react negatively, or be tweaked, and I don't feel like that's something to avoid, but rather something to explore. I guess I'm looking for a word like "intriguing" but with less positive connotations. Ah HA! Provoked! Provoked, provocative. . . yes, that's exactly it! I like to be provoked. I often seek out things that will provoke me--usually something a little more intellectually satisfying than a fish, of course.

If you were pissing me off, I'd let you know, like I let Guinastasia know (and thank you, G, for the response.) Instead, we're disagreeing. I've gotten a bit frustrated, and, eh, maybe I was a bit pissed off--not at what what you were saying, but at the fact that it didn't seem that we were communicating very well--a problem I'll admit I wasn't helping to solve very much by getting all stuffy. :)

This is what I'm hearing from you (and correct me if I'm wrong): you don't let yourself get upset at stuff that you strongly disagree with because you find it exhausting to wrestle all the time with things that upset you. You ignore it, shrug it off, put it out of your mind. That's perfectly valid.

Perhaps the difference is that you are more passionate than I am. I can see a Christian fish and be provoked by it. I'm am, reacting, and my reaction is negative and I think people should be conscious that non-Christians (and maybe even some Christians) could react that way to their public display of faith. I'm not pissed off or upset, I don't wish I never saw the fish and I don't feel inclined to avoid or ignore it.

And, no, I don't run around "pissed off" all day, seething, just waiting to see another cross around someone's neck or hear them make a statement of faith so I can dwell on how awful it is. But I do notice, and upon noticing, I am not pleased.

You talk of conserving your energy for important things; I feel that I don't waste a lot of energy simply because my reaction is not a strong emotional reaction. There's some sort of middle ground between ignoring something and being pissed off at it, and that is what I have been trying to describe.

It's quite possible that the way I feel about this is totally atypical, and that there are really only three reactions to my sticker: people agree with it, ignore it, or get pissed off at it. If that's the case, oh, hell, I'd still have it for the sake of the people who agree with it.

[redtail23]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
I think my original thought, and the point of my OP, was that contentious bumper stickers are something I don't want on my car, and, I guess I could say that they make me "squirm". I said that the Darwin fish does not offend me that much. Which didn't mean it didn't offend me at all, just not that much. I am also "offended" (or squirm) at "Meat is Murder" stickers, and many other cloying, "in your face", or otherwise potentially contentious bumper stickers. But I also said that they didn't offend me that much, not enough to want to pry them off someone's car. <snip>

We started to discuss the Darwin Fish on this thread because several people spoke up and said that they had one. If someone had spoken up and wanted to discuss a "Meat is Murder" sticker, we would have discussed that instead.

OK, I think I've got you. The DF is one of many stickers that you dislike; it is no worse nor better than the others that you don't like. The discussion here just happened to go that way. Correct?

Now then, you don't like (or 'squirm at') potentially contentious bumperstickers. But they don't bother you enough to actually do anything about them.

And Podkayne has said that she has a negative reaction to the displays of certain symbols. But they don't bother her enough to get pissed off about them.

What I still don't understand is why you don't believe that Podkayne can have the same sort of mild reaction that you have.

To me, you're both saying the very same thing about different display-objects and how you react to them. I react similarly myself - I may like or dislike a particular bumpersticker, and I may 'squirm at' or 'react negatively to' the ones I don't like. That doesn't mean I'm pissed off or offended or looking for trouble.

What is the difference in your mind between 'squirm at' and 'react negatively to'?

My point has been, potentially or deliberately contentious bumper stickers are something I am against, personally.

OK, so you are personally against the Darwin Fish symbols (among others) because they are potentially or deliberately contentious to some individuals.

So, after the discussions here, may I presume that you are also equally against the Christian Fish symbols because they are potentially or deliberately contentious to some individuals?

[yosemite]

Originally posted by redtail23

OK, I think I've got you. The DF is one of many stickers that you dislike; it is no worse nor better than the others that you don't like. The discussion here just happened to go that way. Correct?

Now then, you don't like (or 'squirm at') potentially contentious bumperstickers. But they don't bother you enough to actually do anything about them.

What exactly am I supposed to do about them? Other than NOT have them on my car? I don't have any bumper stickers of a "potentially contetious" nature on my car. That was one of the main points of the OP. I DON'T do that. And I kinda wish other people wouldn't either. (But that's just me...:) )

On this thread, I did discuss with other people about why they would knowingly put something "potentially contentious" on their car. "Darwin Fish" came up as a main point of focus. Had this thread taken the turn towards "Meat is Murder", I would have discussed that with the same amount of detail. I'm still willing to discuss it with the same amount of detail. Any takers?

And Podkayne has said that she has a negative reaction to the displays of certain symbols. But they don't bother her enough to get pissed off about them.

What I still don't understand is why you don't believe that Podkayne can have the same sort of mild reaction that you have.

Because not only did he have a "negative reaction", he went out of his way to put a "potentially contentious" bumper sticker on his car. Thus possibly escalating an obnoxious bumper sticker war. I make a point of NOT putting such bumper stickers on my car. That's the difference.


What is the difference in your mind between 'squirm at' and 'react negatively to'?

About 5 syllables. :D Seriously, I think I already covered that. I wrote in a previous post: "That's just that the term "react negatively" has got to be the most stilted, awkward, "PC speak" expression I think I've ever read."

There. My own words!


So, after the discussions here, may I presume that you are also equally against the Christian Fish symbols because they are potentially or deliberately contentious to some individuals?


I think I covered that in the OP, and in consequent posts. From the OP:
For instance, I might dare to put a bumper sticker on my car that said "Vegetarians are sprouting up all over" (since I am a vegetarian) but I would NOT put a sticker up that said something like "Meat is Murder". The second one is "in your face", connecting "meat" and "murder", and bound to piss someone off. The first one is cheery and happy, all about "sprouting" vegetarians - no mention of murder there.
and: (italics added)
I think the happy "I'm for this thing!" bumper sticker is OK, (even if the "thing" is something controversial to some). But I am not comfortable with the obvious parody of someone else's belief, attack on someone else's belief, what have you, on a bumper sticker.

I consider a "I am happy and for this thing!" (like a "Vegetarians are sprouting up all over" and a simple Christian Fish) to be a positive thing that people are expressing. And when it comes down to it, I consider a Pro Bass Fish sticker a "I'm for fishing!" thing, and I think that's "happy" and OK too. I believe that the intent of the person who is displaying the sticker is merely to show a simple, happy thing that they are for. I don't feel that the Bass fisher is trying to "stick it" to me (a vegetarian) by displaying that sticker. They just like to fish. And I think the intent of the Christian who displays a Christian Fish is the same thing - they are not trying to "stick it" to any non-Christians, they just are happy happy happy. A "Evolutionists do it with increasing complexity!" is a humorous sticker supporting Evolution, but there is nothing in it that is deliberately trying to mock in anyone else's beliefs. Happy happy happy. And okey-dokey with me. I also figure, even if the subject might be considered "controversial" to some, if at least it's a "happy" sticker, people should be able to deal with it. (Just like I deal with the "Pro Bass" sticker.) However, a "Pro-NAMBLA" bumper sticker would raise everyone's ire, so everything has it's exceptions, of course.

On the other hand, a "Meat is Murder" sticker is not trilling on about how happy someone is with their vegetarianism, it's telling anyone who eats meat that MEAT IS MURDER! (Grrrrr!) It's "sticking it" to meat-eaters. A Darwin Fish, among other things, is deliberately mocking someone else's symbol (you'd all agree with that, right?)

There, that's the difference. Now, I guess someone can still consider a Christian Fish "contentious", but they could also consider a Pro Bass fish "contentious". They could consider the color red "contentious" (If you read my OP, someone apparently considered the State of Wyoming "contentious", and tried to remove my Wyoming sticker from my car!) But I don't think that was ever the intent of the bumper-sticker maker, or the person who displays these stickers. And that's where I draw the line. Now, I suppose you can tell me that to you the Christian Fish is "contentious", (but yet, apparently, so is the State of Wyoming to someone out there.) And I can admit that I have to draw the line somewhere in my mind, and I have decided that the deliberate intent is where I draw the line. If I don't draw the line somewhere, I'll end up with NO bumper stickers on my car, and that's no fun!

Oh, and by the way, I DON'T have a Christian Fish on my car. I don't have any religious sticker on my car. (In case I cut someone off in traffic, I don't want anyone blaming my religion!)

Podkayne: I am now officially exhausted, (again!) but it seems like we are beginning to come to some sort of meeting of the minds. Or maybe we are just both worn out! ;)

[yosemite]

Arghh. Grammar farts. It's "it's", not "that's", and "subsequent", not "consequent". And probably a whole lot of other grammar farts I didn't detect!

[Podkayne]

Yay! Consensus through mutual exhaustion.

Your post to redtail made a lot of things clearer to me--I don't think we'd strongly made a distinction between bumper stickers that are for one thing rather than (in part or in whole) against another, but I can see where you're coming from with that.

[Guinastasia]

On another note: Those "My Kid is an Honor Student" bumperstickers are kinda annoying...

[David B]

I don't find those annoying. I rather like that intelligence is being showcased.

On the other hand, I think anybody who has one of the "My kid beat up your honor student" bumper stickers should be taken out of the gene pool.

[Guinastasia]

Yeah, those are pretty pathetic.
I thought of a funny one to make up: Jesus Loves My Cat.

[Shodan]

Regarding the fish as a Christian symbol - it came before Darwin by about 1700 years.

'Fish' in Greek is 'Ichthys'. The Greek letters in the word 'Ichthys' were taken to stand for
- Jesus (spelled with an I - Koine Greek did not have a J) - Christ (begins with the Greek letter 'chi')
- Theou - possesive form of the word for God - i.e. 'of God' or 'God's'-
- The Greek word for 'son' which I cannot remember
- The Greek word 'Soter', which means 'Savior'

"Ichthys' then stands for 'Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior'.

I think the Darwinians picked this symbol because it works better than a cross. I am afraid it was chosen in reaction to use of the fish as a Christian symbol. So the ones who began the 'in your face' aspect of this bumper sticker war are the evolutionists. I don't think there is a specific symbol just for creationists, so the fish got chosen by default.

As a non-creationist Christian, I don't find this as offensive as a lot of other bumper stickers (particularly the 'my son beat up your honor student' one mentioned previously, which I always interpret as stating as loudly as possible "I am a loser and I am teaching my children to be the same". Maybe it's just me.)

Regards to all,
Shodan

P.S. Jesus loves you.

[David B]

Shodan said:
I don't find this as offensive as a lot of other bumper stickers (particularly the 'my son beat up your honor student' one mentioned previously, which I always interpret as stating as loudly as possible "I am a loser and I am teaching my children to be the same". Maybe it's just me.) Must not be "just" you, since two others already agreed. :)
P.S. Jesus loves you.My IPU beat up your god.

[Guinastasia]

The only reason I'm not too crazy about the my kid's an honor student thing is, it's like, "My kid's so great, what about your's, in your face." That's all. I don't care, though, they just don't do a thing for me.

Still, I like the idea: Jesus Loves My Cat.

[Guinastasia]

Oh, d'oh, just thought of something: do you think I could get a bumper sticker for my dad, "My other vehicle is a hearse?"

[yosemite]

I have mixed feelings about the "honor student" bumper sticker. There can be an element of smugness to it, but I guess when it comes down to it, it's a "happy" bumper sticker!

A friend of mine just told me a heinous story! He lives in an apt. complex - he is a strong Bush supporter, has a large Bush/Cheny sign displayed in his apt. window, and on his vehicle. The neighbors in this apt. complex have a large Gore/Leiberman sign. Now, he doesn't know that they did it, but the other day he went out to his car to find a Gore sticker plastered across his car door, covering the door lock. It took him quite a bit of time to get it off without damaging the paint job (and he got it off only because he's skilled at that sort of thing.) That's destruction of property! That is the epitome of "obnoxious bumper sticker wars"!

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by Shodan
So the ones who began the 'in your face' aspect of this bumper sticker war are the evolutionists.

Well, I'll give you that, as long as we're dealing strictly with the "bumper sticker war." Other than that, there's this little deal about a "Monkey Trial," we might talk about ;)

[Esprix]

Regarding the OP, I've always tried to have stickers on my car that represent some of the things I enjoy in my life:

Queer issues (usually just the rainbow flag, also a pink triangle hanging from my rearview mirror)
Two-stepping (once had a rainbow boot, also the ASGRA logo)
The SCA (shield w/"SCA" on it)
Unitarian Universalism (the chalice)
Scotland (had a sticker of the flag)

Never had anything negative happen (but then, I hang out/park next to other queers, two-steppers, SCAdians, UUs and Scots). In fact, the SCA sticker and the queer stuff have gotten me friendly honks (mostly from lesbians). I know I always notice rainbow stickers.

Esprix

[Esprix]

I will say, however, that overtly conservative bumper stickers piss me off - Icthus, "pro-life," Republican, etc. Turns my stomach. Gut reaction. I promise I don't run into them on purpose, though.

Most annoying bumper sticker I ever saw: "You'd smile, too, if you were going to heaven." :mad: Sanctimonious son of a... carpenter. ;)

I gotta get me down to Democratic HQ and get a Gore/Lieberman sticker to make me feel better. Must be like a smoker on the patch... "Aaaaaah..." :D

Esprix

[David B]

Guin said:
The only reason I'm not too crazy about the my kid's an honor student thing is, it's like, "My kid's so great, what about your's, in your face." That's all. I don't care, though, they just don't do a thing for me. I don't think it's "in your face" at all. I think it's a praise issue -- recognition for kids who do well in school. Lord knows, the way the country looks like it's about to pick the dummy for president, we need some sort of recognition for smart kids!

[Guinastasia]

True, but just because someone's on the Honor Role doesn't always mean they're smart or successful. I myself struggled to get there and only made it three times...I'm not stupid, but I'm learning disabled, and in my school, there was a real stigma about it.

Me-bitter? Nah!
;)

[Ptahlis]

Regarding the honor student stickers, my feelings are mixed. Praise is very motivating to all people when it is heartfelt and comes from the right people, but I would hope people might carefully consider the possibilities before putting these stickers on their cars. F'rinstance, what about the sibling who doesn't quite measure up to the honor roll, but still has to look at that sticker every day? Or what about the kid who barely manages honor roll, and feels enormous pressure to measure up to that damn sticker every time afterward? Or who never gets there again after one great semester? Oh I'm not saying that any of this would be terribly traumatic. But still, the sticker, meant to be an attaboy, something to encourage kids to do well and show your pride in them, could easily end up having a discouraging effect instead.

[Esprix]

Ha! Picked up a "Gore/Lieberman 2000" bumper sticker today! Woo hoo! I feel so... liberal! :D

Esprix

[Ike Witt]

I have always wanted to make little stickers of screws. That way when someone has a "I heart my poodle" bumpersticker, I'd put the screw over the heart.

[writefetus]

Originally posted by adam yax
I have always wanted to make little stickers of screws. That way when someone has a "I heart my poodle" bumpersticker, I'd put the screw over the heart.

...ahem
Originally posted by writefetus
...back when those "I (heart) my dog" or "I (heart)N.Y." bumperstickers were so popular there was for sale a little book of self adhesive stickers that carried an illustration of a SCREW that fit exactly over the heart icon on most bumperstickers, thereby changing the sticker to read ...well you get the idea.:eek:

[Palandine]

Originally posted by Esprix
I will say, however, that overtly conservative bumper stickers piss me off - Icthus
Esprix

Aw, Esprix. :)

That's probably unfair. I don't choose to have any religious identification on my car, but like the nice person said above, the Jesus fish means "Jesus, son of God, Savior." You'd be surprised how many moderate and liberal folks also believe Jesus is the son of God and the savior (not to mention Catholic Libertarian types like me...who knows, even Unitarian Universalists might have a nice thing to say every once in a while about Jesus). Now, they may or may not choose to put the fish on their cars, but I'm not sure it's immediately a dead giveaway that one is overtly conservative because his or her car bears a Jesus fish.

As an evolutionist, the Darwin fish annoys me because it's bad science and makes a connection that is not logical (Christians=creationists). However, I do find a way to get on with my life when I see one. :)

All I've got is a Harry Browne for President sticker (and as far as I can tell, I'm the only person in St. Louis to have one).

[Esprix]

Yup - lots of Christian UU's. It's a totally visceral thing; sadly, when I meet a Christian, I assume we're not in agreement on social issues until proven otherwise. Fine, call me jaded, I can live with it.

Esprix

[Ike Witt]

Writefetus,

Sorry. I admit to only scanning the entire thread and not reading every single post.

[panache45]

I've only defaced someone's bumper sticker once, and it was an act of sweet, delicious revenge.

I had a rainbow-flag/pink-triangle sticker on my car. One day i found it half-torn off. When I found out who had done it, I changed his "RAPTURE" bumper sticker to "RUPTURE." (I'm an artist, so I did a real good job.)

The guy didn't notice it till someone brought it to his attention. I bet it got a few laughs in the meantime.

[David B]

Palandine said:
All I've got is a Harry Browne for President sticker After I attended the Libertarian national convention in Chicago 3 elections ago or so, I put an "I Support the Bill of Rights" bumper sticker on my car.

You wouldn't believe the questions I got about something so simple.

"What does that mean?"

"Everything?"

"Even the 2nd Amendment?"

Jeez, people, was this so difficult to understand?

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by David B

Jeez, people, was this so difficult to understand?

Well David, considering the arguments we have around here about just what the Bill of Rights entails, I can understand that some folks might wonder at what statement you are trying to make. That statement could be construed as being for or against gun control, for or against abortion rights, for or against the banning of schools posting the Ten Commandments, and probably a host of other political and social issues.

Maybe people just want more clarification of why you posted it because the statement is so broad.

[sqweels]

I'm tempted to get a Darwin fish for my car, but I have one small nitpick about them: By displaying a symbol representing evolution in place of a religios symbol and invoking the name of Darwin in place of Jesus, you run the risk of reinforcing the notion that evolution and science are a competing religious belief system and that Darwin is a false prophet.

But how about those bumper stickers that say, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." What these people seem to be saying is, "I really enjoy pissing people off with my closed-mindedness, but I don't get to do it often enough, so I'm taking it to the streets".

What I'd really like to get is a bumper sticker that says:

"FISHING - Stops a Beating Heart"

Or better yet, but a bit more risky:

"My Other Car is Purple Pyramid"

[smilingjaws]

I don't care much one way or the other about the fish/darwin fish symbols--
but I do hate car tags that say "Jesus" Seems more than a little disrespectful to me to plaster God's name on a car that is subject to dirt, traffic, bird poop and even being smashed in a car crash!

The ones that make me a little queasy are the downright nasty ones about your college's major rival--Like Friends don't let friends go to Chapel Hill, Go to Hell Ole Miss, Don't tell your mama you go to Penn State, etc. I'd prefer to just be FOR something. I like alumni bumper stickers that just say your college name or University of Georgia Mom or Go Cornhuskers.

I always wanted a My child is an honor student at X Elementary--but never got one (boo hoo). Now that she is an honor student in high school--they don't give them out :)