Attempt to burn down atheists' Saturnalia billboard in South Jersey

[modrepub]

A South Jersey billboard proclaiming “Keep the Saturn in Saturnalia” was torched Tuesday night by two unidentified men who fled in a pickup truck after only charring the sign’s steel support beams.

The billboard, erected as a cheeky counterpoint to a “Keep Christ in Christmas” banner in downtown Pitman, refers to the ancient pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice, held in mid-December to honor the Roman god, Saturn.

<snip>

An off-duty police officer witnessed the latest assault on the sign Tuesday about 11:45 p.m., said Chief Robert Zimmerman. Two white men pulled up in a silver and blue Ford 150 pickup truck with a ladder rack. They poured gas around the supports, set it ablaze and quickly fled.

“They were not successful,” Zimmerman said. “The posts are steel and didn’t ignite at all.”


Link: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/Attempt_to_burn_down_atheists_Saturnalia_billboard_in_South_Jersey_.html

[Kolesar]

1. The war on Christmas has escalated to fire bombings

At least they are not burning their rivals temples this time.

[JoePhilly]

2. God could knock it down with one blast from

his nostrils ... Geeze.

[longship]

3. Christians are being oppressed!!!

Therefore, we have to stamp out all opposition!

[cbayer]

4. This whole billboard war thing is stupid.

It's stupid when RW christians do it and it's stupid when atheists do it.

Why anyone feels the need to fuel this whole faux war on christmas thing escapes me.

OTOH, burning the sign is just downright wrong. They have the right to put it up and to not have it defaced.

Hilarious that these idiots tried to light steel posts on fire.

[skepticscott]

9. What exactly is "stupid"

about atheists letting other atheists know they're not alone? Or about atheists expressing their worldview publicly? Or even about poking a little fun at someone else's foibles?

Oh yeah..right...if one side is stupid, the other side HAS to be labeled stupid too...can't have a world where everything isn't exactly even.

[trotsky]

17. What exactly is "stupid" about reminding people there are other traditions,

other reasons people celebrated this time of year in the northern hemisphere?

One of the biggest problems with Christians like Bill O'Reilly and his "war on Christmas" brigade is that they truly believe their religion is the only reason to celebrate the solstice. That's demonstrably false. What's so "stupid" about using a billboard to point out the silliness of the whole "war on Christmas" nonsense?

Is it just that you HAVE to create a narrative that has extremist fundamentalist believers on one end - you know, the folks who bomb abortion clinics, fly planes into buildings, kill women for being raped, etc. - and "extremist" "fundamentalist" atheists on the other who do equally bad things like, uh, wear T-shirts and put up billboards and write books about why they think religion is silly?

Yeah, totally equal.

[okasha]

33. It's particularly stupid

when non-believers feel the need to appropriate pagan traditions. I'm sure atheists don't want to be mistaken for Goddess worshipers, and traditional Native Americans don't particularly care to be taken for atheists. We have enough to do to deal with stereotypes as it is.

[cbayer]

36. I really don't get it at all.

The only point, as far as I can see, is to mock the "Keep Christ in Christmas" signs.

As an aside, this was a phrase used in my church as a child. It's intent was to remind people that christmas was about something much more than just the commercial industry it had become and to reject the notion of "Xmas". This was way before the whole "War on Christmas" faux outrage.

[okasha]

37. I think you're exactly right.

The only "attack on Christmas" has come from the commercial sector.

[pokerfan]

5. Onward Christian Soldiers....

[cbayer]

6. On first glance I thought those were MJ leaves on his helmet.

That really confused me.

[TexasProgresive]

7. Saturn worshipers are not atheists

I don't know but that just struck me funny.

[cbayer]

8. It had nothing to do with atheists. It's only point was to mock and escalate.

Juvenile on both sides, imo.

[skepticscott]

10. Sometimes silliness deserves to be mocked

For you to pretend that you don't do exactly the same, cbayer, or that you don't heartily support others who do, is ludicrous hypocrisy.

[cleanhippie]

12. Her initial reply #4 explicitly stated that the atheists were stupid for putting it up.

Now she says it has nothing to do with them.

[skepticscott]

13. Let's see which of us

can hold their breath longer waiting for a retraction.

[cleanhippie]

11. According to your post above, it does have to do with atheists, and you called them "stupid".

4. This whole billboard war thing is stupid.
It's stupid when RW christians do it and it's stupid when atheists do it.

What happened in the 45 minutes between posts that made you change your tune, cbayer?

Was your only point to mock and escalate?

Very juvenile, don't ya think?

[el_bryanto]

14. That's pretty awful. And awfully stupid - sounds like drunken shenanigans borne of hatred. nt

[skepticscott]

15. Right, of course..we all know that CHRISTIANS are incapable of being petty

mean, or destructive towards atheists, unless they're drunk out of their minds and not responsible for their actions. These obviously weren't TRUE Xstians.

Of course, out of all the bazillions of billboards out there, they went right for this one. Funny, that..wouldn't you agree?

[el_bryanto]

16. I'm sorry - they tried to burn down a billboard with metal posts? That sounds drunken to me

That said I said drunken shenanigans born of hatred. Did you not read that part? But just to make it clear, obviously attacking this billboard was an awful act, and the people who did it would probably describe themselves as Christian. They may well have felt they were acting as Christ wanted them to act.

Jesus - seriously what do you think I meant by born of hatred? Really?

Bryant

[skepticscott]

18. Drunk, or just plain stupid...lots of Christian fundies

are capable of stupid with no help from alcohol.

And of course this was caused by hatred. So why would you try to imply they must have been drunk, when there was no evidence of that, if not to make them seem less responsible?

[el_bryanto]

19. They tried to set a metal pole on fire - how stupid do you have to be to think that would work?

I think a more likely possibility is that they were drunk. I should make it clear that I don't drink and I don't think drinking excuses hateful bigotry of this type.

But it's clear that with you, Skepticscott, really there's no winning is there? It really doesn't matter what I say, you are going to start laying in accusations. I could speculate on what makes you like this, but instead I'll just make it clear that I think your actions and way of communicating are unique to you and are in no way indicitive of all DU atheists.

Bryant

[trotsky]

20. I think one of the biggest points of contention in this group...

is how much latitude and leeway is given to DOCUMENTED anti-women, anti-gay, anti-choice religious believers like the pope. Right there in black-and-white are direct quotes from him saying how gay marriage is from Satan, yet when he says that pagans are the ones who show off, he's given a pass. Oh, it must be a translation issue. I'm sure he didn't mean it like that. Etc.

But Richard Dawkins is photographed in a shirt that says "RELIGION: Together we can find the cure" and ZOMG he's such a horrible bigot, he should die like the dinosaurs, what a horrible person he is, yada yada. Not a whiff of "Well, the shirt is clearly meant to be tongue-in-cheek" or any attempt to make excuses whatsoever.

I can readily admit that the new pope has said very good things about poverty and the destructive effects of our capitalistic economy. There's a lot more that should be brought into that discussion - the role of reproductive freedom when it comes to escaping poverty, for instance. Or how historically, his institution helped maintain a status quo that guaranteed the masses would live in poverty and subservience, thus helping lay the foundation that has given us the income inequality we see today.

But OMG, back to Richard Dawkins, what a horrible human being he is and why can't he and the rest of the "anti-theists" just go extinct?

Yeah, there's just a bit of a double standard there. (And that's not even going into what a strained equivalence is made between Dawkins - a guy who's written some books and given lectures, and the pope - a man who leads the largest Christian church on the planet and who could change doctrine for a billion people in an instant if he really wanted to).

[el_bryanto]

22. I really don't know how to respond to this

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with these Christian morons who tried to set a metal pole holding up a billboard on fire? Or is the argument - you are letting these Bigots off the hook by suggesting they might have been drunk in the same way you let the Pope off the hook?

Also I don't recall writing on Dawkins recently, if at all? Was this billboard put up by Dawkins? If so I missed that - but if it was, I still condemn the possibly drunken Christian idiots who tried to set it on fire.

Bryant

[trotsky]

23. I was trying to address the frustration you were showing towards scott.

Those of us who have been around for awhile have seen the same behavior for a very long time indeed. You want to know why you feel like you "can't win"? Because of the double standards.

[el_bryanto]

25. I appreciate the effort -

But Scott explained himself pretty well below I think.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

21. Let's put it this way

As long as you're an apologist and supporter for an anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-choice bigot like the pope, and as long as you're supporting him and his anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-choice church on a progressive web site, I'm not likely to cut you much slack. Nor, frankly, should anyone else who claims to hold progressive ideals. Sorry if you need to cozy up to the RCC that badly, but they are what they are. You can't have it both ways.

Live with that.

[el_bryanto]

24. Well that's clear enough. Thank you for revealing the depth of your hatred. nt

[Goblinmonger]

27. I hate anti-gay anti-women organizations.

Do you?

[el_bryanto]

28. I don't hate the Catholic church if that's what you are asking. nt

[skepticscott]

29. Not only do you not hate them

you support them, you praise them, you fawn over them.

And in case you hadn't noticed, hatred is expressed on this site every day, with no regret, no apology, no shame. Hatred for racist and sexist politicians, hatred for greedy and corrupt businessmen, hatred for those who would destroy the environment, hatred for those who would deny certain people their right to be equal human beings. So why is it only when virulently anti-progressive values are cloaked in the mantle of religious "faith" that hatred for them is a vice and support for them is above criticism? Do you have any answer for that?

[el_bryanto]

30. I don't believe I fawn over them.

Well at the outset, there's little point to responding to someone so full of hatred as you - I know in advance that my words will be twisted and taken apart for even the mildest inconsistency because you hate the Catholic Church so much that you even hate anybody who defends them.

That said, I do try to be a charitable person (and often fail, I must admit), and as you have asked a question, all answer.

I think there is too much hatred expressed at this site - both towards our political enemies and towards each other. This is a rough and tumble website and you have to accept that people get very worked up, but I try to assume that the people I disagree with are genuinely good people who simply disagree with me. Of course I'll occasionally after a period of debate with someone come to the conclusion that they really are full of hatred or illogical or just dicking around or whatever, but that's not all that often (although it seems to have spiked up with all this Pope talk).

By the same token I think we too reflexively condemn and dehumanize our political opponents - yes when they say something stupid I have no trouble making fun of them. When they do something inhuman we should condemn them; but hating them? I just don't think that adds anything, and in fact makes it harder for us to succeed.

Because if we don't do it nobody else is gonna
But you know if we can't do it with a smile on our face
You know if we can't love in our hearts then children we ain't got no right to do it at all
Because it just means we ain't learned nothing yet
We're supposed to be some kind of different

- Crosby Stills Nash - 49 Bye-Byes/America's Children Lyrics

Do I live up to these ideals myself? No, I often fall short.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

31. Not sure what question you were answering

but it certainly wasn't mine: So why is it only when virulently anti-progressive values are cloaked in the mantle of religious "faith" that hatred for them is a vice and support for them is above criticism?

My question (and the point that's been conspicuously ignored by you all through this thread) was about why religion and its adherents get a free pass on this site for supporting anti-progressive values and beliefs, when no one else does?

Care to take another stab at it?

[el_bryanto]

32. Hmmm - who could have seen this coming?

Let's see if I can answer it in relation to the three issues at hand

The people who tried to burn down that billboard - They shouldn't get a free pass and I don't believe I gave them a free pass. I did suggest they might be drunk but I don't think that excuses their hateful bigoted actions.

Pope Francis - I'm really not sure how we got on thus subject, but apparently since I defend the Pope it's a fair subject in any post I make? At any rate, I think there is more to the Pope that bigotry and misogyny. While I disagree with what he has said on those issues in a political context, I think that to say that those statements are all that matters about the pope is inaccurate and incomplete. If I were to say "Pope Francis is a great guy all the way around" than you'd be right to point out that he has also said some awful things. But what I feel like I've actually said is that the Pope says some good things and some bad things - the good things don't negate the bad things, and the bad things don't negate the good things. What I feel that you and others have said is that the bad things that the Pope has said negate any good things he has said.

Religion and its AdherentsI am on shaky ground here, because I feel like you are asking me to take responsibility for a whole bunch of stuff other people have said, as well as my own feelings. But my observations are these - I don't feel that religion gets a pass around here - I feel like there are plenty of people who attack Christians in general, and conservative Christians in general. And as for the rest I guess my answer would be the same as for Pope Francis. I don't believe in blind praise of religion, but I also reject blind condemnation of religion.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

34. This pretty much sums it up

At any rate, I think there is more to the Pope than bigotry and misogyny. Nice that you've finally admitted that the pope is a virulent bigot and misogynist. But even then, you probably don't even grasp the full irony of that statement.

And no..I and others here have not said that the bad things the pope has said negate the good things. We've said that they so far outweigh them (especially when the good things are things that should be expected of any decent human being) as to render the pope unworthy of anything like the fawning praise and adulation he gets on this site every time he so much as farts in the direction of a poor person.

[el_bryanto]

35. And you, in your hatred, believe that anybody who fails to condemn him as hatefully as you do

is a dishonest person who doesn't belong on a progressive message board.

See #21 above.

Bryant
mythos exultant, ascendant mantle

[skepticscott]

38. Apparently there is a fantasy world

that you inhabit where what I said in #21 is something remotely like what you're claiming here. I can only assume that such dishonesty stems from an even deeper hatred than you've attributed to me. Why else would you invent something so completely divorced from reality?

[el_bryanto]

39. It is unfortunate for you that the record is right up there for people to read

should they choose to. Maybe you should go back and edit it so that it reads more benignly.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

40. Yes, very unfortunate..for you

Here's what you claimed I said:

"anybody who fails to condemn him as hatefully as you do is a dishonest person who doesn't belong on a progressive message board."

Since the post you referred to is easily available, you should have no trouble at all pointing out to everyone here exactly where in that post (and not in your vivid imagination or religionist projections) I said anything like that. Particularly the parts about "condemn", "dishonest" and "doesn't belong".

Have at it. And be advised that failure to do so will be duly remarked on. As will any response saying that , Ok, I didn't use those words, but you read my mind and knew I meant that.

[el_bryanto]

41. Here it is

As long as you're an apologist and supporter for an anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-choice bigot like the pope, and as long as you're supporting him and his anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-choice church on a progressive web site, I'm not likely to cut you much slack. Nor, frankly, should anyone else who claims to hold progressive ideals. Sorry if you need to cozy up to the RCC that badly, but they are what they are. You can't have it both ways.

There it is - now you can quibble that that's not what you meant - but clearly the implication is that in my initial post, condemning the people who set this billboard on fire, I was dishonest, and that's why you can't "cut me some slack." That covers "condemn" and "dishonest."

Then in the next line you also argue that on a progressive board nobody should cut me any slack. I think that covers "doesn't belong."

Let's remember where this all started - you started getting on my back because I implied that people who tried to set a metal pole on fire might be drunk, as if that was somehow excusing them. When that particular argument ended up not making a lot of sense you jumped to the Pope, because apparently that always works.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

42. That's your response? Seriously?

"clearly the implication is" put you off to a really bad start. That's simply an admission that this is nothing but a projection of your anger, frustration and hatred onto me, and not about anything I actually said.

And then:

"in my initial post, condemning the people who set this billboard on fire, I was dishonest"

And yet in your post 35 you said: "you, in your hatred, believe that anybody who fails to condemn him (the POPE) as hatefully as you do is a dishonest person" That had nothing to do with the billboard or the people who set fire to it, now did it? More bullshit.

And to equate "not likely to cut you much slack" with "condemning" or saying that you don't belong is just laughable. And there's also the fantasy of you becoming the "anybody" you claimed I referred to.

I think that covers all of your dishonest inventions and projections. I'm sure you'll want to continue the discussion, but I'm done with you.

[el_bryanto]

43. You've been done with me before; I can only hope that this time it sticks. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. "On Sunday, a family of four attempted to shroud the sign with picture of Jesus"

Were they all drunk too? On a Sunday - shameless!

[el_bryanto]

45. No - because that's not quite as idiotic as setting a metal pole on fire.

On the other hand I agree that covering up that message on a Sunday is pretty shameful -but doing it at any time is pretty nasty.

Just to make this clear - I condemn this family of four that tried to censor this message. Was that clear enough for you muriel?

Bryant

[Politicalboi]

26. I guess they thought fire could melt steel

Good enough for the 9/11 Commission I guess.