Political/Religious bumper stickers, etc.

Great Debates
61

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. :wink: 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. :smiley:
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.)

62

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Guinastasia *

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.

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

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.

Why yes, yes you could.

Why no, no you wouldn’t.

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.

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.

63

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.

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.

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.

And I shall not disappoint. :slight_smile: 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 :slight_smile: , 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. :wink:

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.

64

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.)

65

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.

66

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:

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.

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! :wink:

67

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. :slight_smile:

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.

68

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’?

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?

69

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…:slight_smile: )

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?

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.

About 5 syllables. :smiley: 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!

I think I covered that in the OP, and in consequent posts. From the OP:

and: (italics added)

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! :wink:

70

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!

71

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.

72

On another note: Those “My Kid is an Honor Student” bumperstickers are kinda annoying…

73

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.

74

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

75

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.

76

Shodan said:

Must not be “just” you, since two others already agreed. :slight_smile:

My IPU beat up your god.

77

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.

78

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?”

79

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”!

80

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 :wink: