I think that the idea is that if she is a good Christian woman living up to her ideals, she can show it better by doing good deeds with five grand than by sticking billboards up. What did JC say? Witness with actions and not words?
How 'bout “Love thy neighbor as thyself”?
Is this the best way she could find to demonstrate love for her neighbors? Moralizing to them? I’m sure there were hungry people, or hurting people or otherwise needy people within a reasonable distance from her. She could have chosen to help them.
Yet, she chose to preach at the rest of us. I’m sure it’s much more effective to induce guilt feelings in the ambivalent than it is to actually HELP someone.
Which leads to the age old philisophical question: Could God create a dick so big that even He could not suck it?
I’m gonna echo Guinastasia’s comments here: she’s at liberty to use her cash as she wishes.
Furthermore, in the lady’s mind, giving money to people isn’t the only means of “helping” them. I mean, that’s what I assume Eve’s ““living her religion” by helping people” comment refers to: taking the five grand and giving it to, say, the homeless or some other worthy cause. The Christian life calls for being charitable to others, but with larger issue behind it of bringing people closer to God. (Hence, missionaries don’t just give out food, but Bibles too. Mother Theresa’s order didn’t just care for the homeless, ill, and dying, but worked in a genuine ministry.)
I hope I’m not misreading the comment. But I do get annoyed when people call Christians hypocrites for not giving enough money away, when that isn’t necessarily the issue.
But I agree with the larger sentiment: these billboards will likely cause more annoyance and division than the awareness the waitress is hoping to achieve.
I have no problem with what she’s doing, but I have to ask why there isn’t some kind of atheist counter-movement to all these religious billboards I have been seeing lately. I’d like to see some. Maybe a few in-your-face ones saying ‘God is a fairy tale’ or ‘The Bible is a work of fiction’, but I think something more effective would be the more subtle ‘Do you honestly believe what your religion tells you?’ Even if it made just one in a thousand religious people question their beliefs, I think it would be a good thing.
Personally, I’d create one so big that I could…oh, never mind.
Y’know matt_mcl’s just waiting for someone to tell him how old and tired that joke is getting. C’mon, folks, get with the program.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THE OP (just as a change of pace): Badtz, perhaps because atheists aren’t as committed to spreading their “gospel” as the believers are? Perhaps, mind you; I’m just guessing here. But if you want to see something like that, no-one’s stopping you from doing what she did: fork over the bucks and post your philosophy. I’m not getting worked up over it either way, so knock yourself out.
Class, dahling. She’s not a Manhattan editor and socialite, so naturally we don’t want to see her espousing the views of the Great Unwashed in Flyover Country, sullying our view of the freeway, now do we? Heavens, would that the servant class simply stick to waitressing and other roles to which they were born . . .
Eve I thought this was going to be a rant about how you were out dining and the waitress started speaking in tongues or witnessing to you…
In any event, I have to agree that it’s her money. If she chooses to donate it to a homeless shelter, fine. If she chooses to buy billboard space, fine. If she chooses to blow it on the crap tables in Vegas, fine. You are also free, of course, to buy your own billboard space…
One reason why this isn’t just about someone spending her money and exercising her right to free speech is that this is about the whole Pledge of Allegiance flap. She didn’t just spend her savings to rent a billboard saying “Jesus Is Lord” or “God Loves You” as her way of fulfilling the Great Commission. This is specifically about keeping “under God” in a Congressionally-mandated, officially-recognized national patriotic ritual. “Under God” is only in the PoA in the first place because Congress passed a law respecting an establishment of religion. Congress shoved God down our throats in 1954. Ms. Hansen thinks this is a good idea.
Yeah, it’s her money. Yeah, she has a right to free speech. But she’s wrong.
I love how any defense of the woman is nearly always framed as if someone is trying to take away her freedom of speech. Nobody is saying she has no right to say what she wants, they’re just exercising their freedom to criticise what she said.
And very well said, MEBuckner.
Perhaps I’m being dense, but I don’t see how the fact that she paid for a billboard that espoused a political view instead of a purely religious view in any way changes the issue of free speech. Is she any more answerable to us for having chosen the message to put on the billboard?
Also, I’m sorry, but for those of you who think that a stranger renting billboard space for a message constitutes “shoving it down your throat,” get real. You don’t have to read the damn billboard. Keep your eyes on the road where they belong and before you know it, you’ll forget that this mean ol’ waitress even CONSIDERED expressing an unpopular view.
Lastly, I agree with Reilly. If a NY Times columnist expressed her opinion in an op-ed piece as mildly as the waitress expressed it on the billboard, I doubt it would be taken here. Great debates, maybe, but not the pit.
Of course it’s free speech. But free speech doesn’t include the “right” to not have other people disagree with you. She is precisely as “answerable” as anyone else who publicly expresses a political view, to everyone else with an opinion.
Ah, yes, that deeply unpopular view, “Let’s keep telling atheists to fuck off everytime we pledge allegiance to the flag!” I think in some polls support for keeping “under God” in the pledge has slipped down to 90%.
Oh, I dunno. We Pit all kinds of people around here. New York Times columnists are not immune.
That’s not what I’m disagreeing with, however. You seemed to state earlier that there was somehow a difference between Jesus is Lord and Keep “under God” in the constitution as far as free speech was concerned. I know you don’t think she should be censored in any way, but I don’t see where you draw the line between a purely religious view and a political view. As a fellow atheist, it’s not like I really see the difference between paying money to espouse one or the other.
Then again, there IS this:
So, maybe I CAN see where you’re coming from. To which, I reply, puh-leeeze!!! Get OVER yourself!!! They’re not telling us to go fuck ourselves. It’s not about us, OK? When they mention “under God,” they’re not thinking about us. When they add something like, “One nation, under God, fuck the atheists, and piss on the agnostics,” then they’re telling us to fuck off every time they pledge allegiance to the flag. Until then, “under God” is more about them than it is about us. If you REALLY think most Christians go around praising God for the express purpose of getting on atheists’ nerves, then you’ve seriously overestimated your place in the grand scheme of things.
I personally wouldn’t mind seeing “under God” removed from the pledge. I think that it was put there during a period of overwhelming religious influence, and probably put there for the best of reasons, but given the current legal climate, it should go.
But get this straight: When you take a phrase that Christians and other theists have said every day in school for almost 50 years and suddenly say that it should be edited out, YOU’RE telling THEM to fuck off, not the other way around. When a waitress, or anyone else for that matter, spends hard-earned money to express her views, and you go start a thread to whine about it, YOU’RE telling HER to fuck off, not the other way around. I happen to agree with your position. It’s just that I’d rather be honest about what it really entails.
And, finally, I should apologize. I was unclear about my term “unpopular.” I meant “unpopular” in the context of the message board, which overwhelmingly seems to support getting rid of the phrase (again, rightly so, in my opinion).
Well, I hope I never said anything about keeping “under God” in the Constitution…
There is a difference between expressing a religious or philosophical view I disagree with, and campaigning to have that view supported by the state. The problem is not with Christians paying their money to espouse the view that this nation (and all other nations) are “under God”, or saying that they “trust in God”. The problem is with the U.S. Congress espousing those views, on my behalf.
I don’t know if that was just a typo for “probably not put there for the best of reasons”, but here (Warning: You’ll get mucho pop-up ads if you click on that link) is a quote from Rep. Louis C. Rabaut from the legislative debate over altering the pledge:
So, as far as the original intent of the legislation to put “under God” in the pledge goes, they pretty much were saying “fuck you, atheists”, on the (ludicrous) grounds that all atheists are Communists, and no true American is an atheist.
No. I will concede that many theists in this country were probably just not thinking about it when they passively supported “ceremonial deism” in public life. It’s a little harder to buy that they aren’t being actively hostile to atheists when they rise up in righteous indignation when it is pointed out to them that what they are doing excludes some of their fellow citizens from the rituals of American patriotism based on their religious beliefs. However, just advocating neutrality–"…one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all…" and going back to E pluribus unum as the national motto–is NOT telling anyone to fuck off based on their religious beliefs. “We Don’t Trust In God” on the dollar and “one nation, without God, indivisible…”, now that would be telling American theists to fuck off.
One of my co-workers started handing me religious literature and sending me e-mails of a religious nature. When I asked her to stop, she indicated the cross I wear, stating she thought that made it okay to inundate me with pamphlets and e-mails.
“I wear a cross”, I told her. “But I don’t insist that everyone do so.”
No further problems. I realize that what I just posted took a detour from Eve’s OP, but I thought it was appropriate.
Thanks
Quasi
Buckner, I concede that there are 2 issues here and just one that bugged me, and I might have gone off on the wrong issue, namely about the justice in taking “under God” out of the pledge, which I do agree should be done. It’s not something that would have occured to me naturally, but now that it’s on the table, I’ll support it.
The other issue–the one that gets to me–how people can get so worked up about a billboard or about dissenting opinions. You claim that the theists are “actively hostile.” Bullshit. They DISAGREE with you. Perhaps some addled freakazoid somewhere gets his jollies phoning in death threats to people who support removing the words, but that’s not because he’s a theist. It’s because he’s a whack-job.
That waitress is not shoving God down your throat any more than you’re shoving atheism down hers. She felt strongly enough about the issue to raise money and put up a billboard. That’s NOT coercion. She’s NOT with the inquisition. She’s not even out to ruin your day. She’s expressing a belief, and she could probably care less whether you yourself read the message, so long as her message gets out. You think her actions “advocate a divisible country of nutcases?” That’s nice. She probably thinks the same thing about you. I wonder why.
I had not read Rep Rabaut’s comments, and they gave me pause for thought, but a few minutes later, it dawned on me that there was nothing there that was any more offensive or extremist than in MM O’Hair’s rant here. They’re both idiots. They’re both extremists. You’re going to find these rimjobs on both sides of the fence, no matter which topic you discuss. It’s not that one is better or worse than the other. As far as I’m concerned, they’re the same person with different rhetoric. Calling the bible “pornographic literature” is about as logical as calling atheism the root of “the evil weed of communism.”
I understand that, even barring the aforementioned freakazoids, many theists react strongly. No kidding. We’re going after something very near and dear to their hearts–something that’s intrinsic to their lives. We can’t expect them to remain neutral about this. For you to scream “theist hostility” after the court order in CA is sort of like running to your parents and crying that your sibling started a fight with you because he hit back.
One last thing. I stand corrected on the origin of “under God”. I didn’t realize that was why the words were included (although I still sort of doubt that was the ONLY reason), but you were right about the original intent being “fuck you, atheists.” I’ll grant you that. It’s the tone I have a problem with here, not the content.
And what exactly would that be? This is buying into the rhetoric that supporters of church-state separation–whether they’re atheists or theists–are trying to “outlaw God”. Not even Madalyn Murray O’Hare has ever tried to “outlaw God”. For the government to remain neutral and Congress to refrain from making pronouncements, express or implied, about what theological beliefs make one a “real American” is in no way infringing upon the rights of theistic Americans to believe and proclaim their beliefs.
And the court decision didn’t “start the fight”, either. The PoA didn’t say “one nation, without God” until Congress changed it in the '50’s. The national motto of the United States wasn’t “Americans Don’t Believe in God” until the McCarthy era rolled around.
Buckner, no kidding, you’re preaching to the choir. I didn’t say their belief was right (btw, the belief in question wasn’t so much “Atheists are trying to outlaw God” as it was “God belongs in the pledge.”) I said it was important to them, and that I could understand their side of the story this time around, not that I agreed with them.
I’m saying that this isn’t a case of fundies insisting that we revamp all science classes to teach creationism or change Pi to 3 (if you believe that urban legend.) I’m saying (a)Now, WE’RE the ones who want to make the radical change. (b) quite a few RATIONAL, CALM theists are going to disagree with us. And © if we turn around and start screaming “nutcases,” guess who’s going to come off as freaky. Hell, man, I agree with you, and even I am a little freaked out by the bitterness in this discussion.
I’m not disagreeing with your wanting to achieve separation of church and state. I’m disagreeing your grouping every theist who wants “under God” left in the pledge under the monikers “hostile,” “nutcases,” and “fundies.” Right or wrong, the pledge has said that for 50 years, and not everyone who disagrees with changing it mentions Jesus six times in every sentence.
Why are we automatically assuming that she’s not doing those other things as well?