In a "Letter to the Editor" that appeared on The Seattle Times Web site on Friday, a Seattle resident laments about the latest atheist bus ads (shown above) that have been placed on Seattle buses by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).
It seems that Carol J. Lundemo was "offended and disturbed" when she saw several Seattle buses sporting the ad. She sees the ad as a "perversion of the original 1897 newspaper reply by Francis P. Church to 8-year-old Virginia, who inquired as to the reality of Santa."
She also believes that the ads are a "completely unnecessary, cruel advertisement campaign." She also refers to FFRF as "selfish" because they spent the money to run the ads.
The most interesting part of her letter is her finger wagging at FFRF for using the money they used for the ads so frivolously. Apparently, this is a clear indication that FFRF does not "value humans." If they did, they would have used the money for something more worthwhile like serving the less fortunate members of the community, like Christian organizations do. She said, "Oh wait, those agencies I mentioned that care about and help people are Christian organizations."
Of course, we know that all of Christian money goes to help the less fortunate. They would never spend any of their funds frivolously. We should recall the millions of dollars that were spent on California's Prop 8 by religious proponents of the measure. That was certainly helpful to the less fortunate. (Talk about being "offended!")
While we are at it, why don't we consider the estimated $1 billion plus that has been paid out by Catholics to settle and (in some instances) cover up sex abuse cases. These child sex offenders and those who covered their rears sure are caring. (Talk about being "disturbed!")
Talk about "cruel!"
I could go on, but won't.
What is that they say about those who live in glass houses? At least the glass house in which FFRF resides only cost a few thousand dollars, which, when compared to the glass houses of the religious, seems like chump change.
Incidentally, there are many atheist groups and individuals around the nation (and the world) working to help in their communities. That Ms. Holier Than Thou, er, Lundemo doesn't seem to realize this does not mean that it isn't happening.
Comments
This is a great ad. If someone chooses to be offended, that is her problem, not ours. Religious believers LOVE to play the "I'm offended" card, as a way to try to gain some kind of upper hand in a debate.
When you have silly superstitious beliefs, you do not have a right to think that others must accept them too, or that others should wink and give you the thumbs up and tell you that you are on the right track.
Our constitution guarantees us a lot of rights but the right not to be offended isn't one of them. That's something theists ought to be thankful for too since some of the ideas they proclaim, such as whole segments of the population being destined for eternal punishment for not living or believing the way their particular sect requires, are highly offensive. Protestants damn Catholics. Catholics damn Protestants. Sunnis damn Shias. Shias damn Sunnis. All the aforementioned damn the Jews and everybody damns atheists. I'll say explicitly what Trina just implied: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Hugh is right,the Constitution does not guarantee the right to be free from offense; but it would appear that much of the litigation against the Christians (I cannot speak for other faiths), is founded upon the 'freedom from offense' premise. I personally welcome the ads, it gives me an opportunity to share my worldview, just as the FFRF shares theirs.
"When you have silly superstitious beliefs, you do not have a right to think that others must accept them too, or that others should wink and give you the thumbs up and tell you that you are on the right track." Strangely enough, isn't this what the proponents of Prop 8 suggested to those who felt it was wrong? And based on the numbers, I doubt you would be able to prove all the opponents were Christian. Both sides of the debate have largely forgotten that tolerance does not mean endorsement or support of a preposition, it implies that we can agree to disagree. If you rail against one side for disagreeing, that is intolerant.
... so "sneaky" to incorrectly post the link to the original letter to the editor. Bias anyone?
@Ray Dymun, Jacksonville Evangelist: You quote me
"When you have silly superstitious beliefs, you do not have a right to think that others must accept them too, or that others should wink and give you the thumbs up and tell you that you are on the right track." And then you replied "Strangely enough, isn't this what the proponents of Prop 8 suggested to those who felt it was wrong?"
Belief in Santa/God can readily be classified by nonbelievers as "silly superstitious beliefs". Are you saying equal rights for all citizens is a "silly superstitious belief"? I think your comparison is WAY off the mark.
A lot of friends and I wear a T-shirt - it simply says "I was molested by filthy dirty catholics. Would you let a nun/priest babysit your kids". Each of us has been molested as a child by catholic clergy. My local politician found this shirt offensive when I visited to talk with him about the sexual abuse of hundreds of thousands of women and children at the hands of catholic clergy. I did not go there to talk about my own abuse, I simply went there to ask what he as a politician was doing about it. He is yet to get over being offended by the shirt and yet to understand how offended so many of us in this society are due to his ignorance as a result of fraud and deception and the inbuilt fear that comes with belonging to one of these cults.
Good job on your logical fallacy: Carol condemns the FFRF for selfishly spending money and points out that Christian foundations routinely spend money to benefit the poor instead of wasting them on bus ads; you rebut by citing Christian organizations that "selfishly" spent money too. That doesn't invalidate her point: the FFRF would rather spend its donations on provocative bus ads than give to charity.
Did you know that religious belief is the largest determining factor of charitable giving? Likewise did you know that religious conservatives out donate their secular counterparts by 30% or more on average?
Where is your high horse now?
Eugene wrote: "Did you know that religious belief is the largest determining factor of charitable giving? Likewise did you know that religious conservatives out donate their secular counterparts by 30% or more on average?"
So What? Even if your statistics are real that does not prove that the givers' world view is true. I know there are lots of good people who donate to charity, but there are other, less noble motivations for giving.
The drug lord Pablo Escobar was a master at charitable donations. He donated plenty of his criminal proceeds to the poor and aided in the building of many churches in his impoverished area. He became a local hero and this helped him elude prosecution immensly.
Further, I'm sure the donars to FFRF understand that their donations are contributing to publicizing their existence. Churches spend lots of money on this, too. Its called recruitment.
@Eugene Hamburger:
If Hindu's gave more money to charities, would that mean that Vishnu is a real God? If Muslims gave more money to charity than Christians, would that mean Islam is correct and Christianity is wrong?
Believers statistics on giving money in no way confirms that the god they worship is real.
Meanwhile, if churches gave up some of their massive wealth the way a secular guy like Bill Gates does, world poverty could be vastly corrected.
[sarcasm]In this economy, supporting sign companies and their employees could almost be seen as charitable.[/sarcasm]
Don't these people see all of the religious advertisements? I counted no less than five religious billboards on a five mile stretch of a single road in my area. If I had to give a rough guess at the number of religious advertisements I've seen on billboards and buses in my area, I'd have to say I've seen several dozen.
Some of them are pretty aggressive, too. One says something like - Don't Trust in the Lord? - Hell is Waiting!
Religious groups spend their money on advertising as well as political campaigning and pedophile victim payoffs. As to where people get the figures on how much atheists contribute to charities as opposed to fundamentalist Christians - what was the exact wording of the study? Virtually every atheist I personally know donates a substantial amount of time and/or money to charitable causes.
You forgot to mention the glass house in Miss Lundemo's backyard. Religious groups just spent a ton of money fighting Washington State Referendum 71. Spent in-vain, and wasted instead of being spent on the homeless or the hungry (or any-number of more fruitful endeavors).
"Did you know that religious belief is the largest determining factor of charitable giving? Likewise did you know that religious conservatives out donate their secular counterparts by 30% or more on average?"
Yes, they give to religious organizations that then turn right around and use that money for recruiting and lobbying. Sorry, that's not "charitable", it's hypocritical.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!