The American Atheists billboard placed outside the Lincoln Tunnel (on the Jersey side) has garnered tons of media attention. Dave Silverman, Blair Scott, Ed Buckner, Edwin Kagin, Kathleen Johnson, Greg McDowell, and many other staff and volunteers for American Atheists have made media appearance after media appearance. And we have to thank our friends at the Catholic League, led by Bill Donahue (head of all those afflicted with persecution syndrome*), for all the extra press when they whined about atheists dared to put up a single billboard to compete with the hundreds of thousands of Christian billboards across this great nation. When the put up their reactionary billboard: even more press for American Atheists, which meant our billboard reached nationwide and that helped us reach our target audience!
We’ve heard from tons of closeted atheists across this nation thanking us for letting them know they are not alone. They may not come out of the closet (and no one should force them to), but at least they know that they are not alone and have an organization that represents them the best that we can.
While all of that was fun, we know we’ve really hit the American landscape when our billboard is referenced in a political cartoon. That has happened:
We’ll ignore the irony of this political cartoon appearing in the Salt Lake Tribune. ;)
Blair Scott
* Persecution Syndrome: When a politically dominate power says it is being persecuted by a minority group.
I’d probably rephrase the definition of persecution syndrome to be about the politically dominant deluding themselves to be persecuted. Majorities have long been persecuted by politically dominant minority throughout history… especially colonial history comes to mind, but certainly not isolated to that.
Good point!
[...] rest is here: American Atheist Billboard Referenced in Political Cartoon This entry was posted on Thursday, December 16th, 2010 at 6:12 am and is filed under [...]
That is a classic. Yes. That too is a myth and has been for a very long time now. In fact, tax and spend liberals are more fiscally conservative than borrow and bomb repugnicans these days. At least we liberals know the bills actually do have to be paid. The repugnicans just keep shoving the bills on the next generation. Unfortunately, the choice these days is the democraps who are really repugnicans and the repugnicans who are really right wing extremist nut jobs. There are very very few politicians these days who actually lean toward the left. The nation has shifted so far to the right that Nixon, that icon of conservatism, would now seem like a bleeding heart liberal by comparison (and only by comparison) with today’s choices.
http://misanthropicscott.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/sock-it-to-me-nixon-you-lefty-liberal/
It looks like the government will actually break even or turn a profit on the money it loaned as part of TARP and the auto bailouts. The profit is actually huge when you consider the taxes these companies and employees continue to pay. TARP and the bailouts are what really PO’d the tea partiers and got the Repubs elected.
.
And what’s the first thing those Repubs did? Strong-arm Obama into a $900B deficit increase to cut taxes. The only pay-back on that will be our children paying back the Chinese, either in higher taxes or worthless currency.
.
The silence from the sold-out tea partiers is stunning, and proves that this is just a team sport.
Quote from Chris B: “It looks like the government will actually break even or turn a profit on the money it loaned as part of TARP and the auto bailouts. The profit is actually huge when you consider the taxes these companies and employees continue to pay.”
LOL! Government making a profit. That’s a good one. When do you think I’ll be receiving my dividend check?
Well: That is why I am no longer a Republican. I AM a fiscal conservative and I learned years ago that I prefer a tax and spend progressive, to a cut taxes and spend conservative. The budget deficit as well as the national debt should be unconstitutional, just like in all 50 states.
Historic analysis backs up the claim that since at least the 50′s, Democratic administrations & congresses have actually increased spending by less than Republicans. The two hyperbolic turning points in the national debt occurred under Reagan and Bush Jr.
.
The problem is, we’re still a short-term mentality country. We want our tax cuts and our revenge wars now, regardless of the eventual cost. We punish any politician who suggests what is actually necessary for long-term success. We’ve given up on everything except instant gratification.
Bush Sr. also doubled the deficit in just 4 years. I don’t think anyone has beaten that.
Actually, Reagan whined about the deficit he inherited from Carter, & blithely tripled it afterward.
Tax & borrow & spend democrats or borrow & spend republicans? The end result is the same, why do you guys keep voting 2 party?
’cause we don’t have approval voting, so everyone is worried that voting for another candidate is a wasted vote. And, there is some difference. The borrow and bomb repugnicans always love to start wars. The democraps tend to be less outwardly warmongering. They just sell arms to the other warmongers.
The “democraps” are less outwardly warmongering? That’s why they’ve sent 100k troops to Afghanistan?
As long as you’re blindly voting for the established plutocratic parties, they’re all wasted votes. You’re just shopping for preferrable chains.
I said less. I didn’t say not warmongering. We are pulling out of Iraq, something that never would have happened under McPalin. The reasons to vote are huge. It’s the choice between really bad and unconscionably terrible. Voting for Nader will never solve the problem. We need to change the voting system. Until we change the system though, we do have to vote for the lesser evil.
Have you looked at the concept of approval voting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
Add that to real campaign finance reform where we have publicly funded elections and no one may use any other source of money including their own money to finance their elections and we might really be on to something.
I am going to have to side with geoih on this one. All the major U.S wars in the 20th century were started under Democratic administrations. I think we are going to be pulling out of Iraq just like we pulled out of Korea, Japan and Germany-it ain’t going to happen. However, I do agree that we all need to vote, even if we have to hold our noses to do it. I vote a straight Democratic ticket since as an atheist and feminist, the Democrats are more in line with my interests. I want to give kudos to the Democrats in congress for finally passing the repeal of DADT, and in a lame duct congress no less. It gives me hope for the future.
Also, I love that cartoon. It just shows the mileage that AA has gotten out of that billboard at least with the educated mainstream.
Qoute from MisanthropicScott: “Have you looked at the concept of approval voting?”
All voting systems have some inherant flaw and are subject to being gamed. Knowing this, the only logical goal is a system where involuntary collectivist decision making is kept to a bare minimum, and preferrably at zero.
No such thing as a wasted vote.
2000 U.S. presidential election, every vote for Nader was wasted and gave a close enough margin in key states to allow W to steal the election. Had the election been honest, it might not have mattered. But, when you have -16,022 votes (yes negative) for Gore from Volusia County, FL, you know you don’t have an honest election. And, the wasted votes for Nader made a huge difference in the outcome of the entire election, possibly almost as big a difference as when the Supreme Court decided to appoint the president instead of going by the election results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volusia_error
(Please don’t anyone try tell me that those who voted for Nader might have voted for W had Nader not been in the race.)
Here’s the insane part of that argument: those weren’t Gore’s votes. They were votes for Nader. It’s that ridiculous concept of ‘wasted votes’ is how the 2 party system locks us into thinking we can only vote for 1 or the other.
The votes belong to the voter, not the candidates.
Yeah. Perhaps. But, look into how much better approval voting is. Nothing is perfect. But we have the worst of all worlds. I think my point is not that the votes were Gore’s votes, but rather that the people voting for Nader, had they known that their vote would put W in office, would likely not have voted that way. Had they been able to approve both Gore and Nader and not W, as I would have liked for my own vote, Gore would have been the clear winner, Nader would have gotten many more votes than he did making a powerful statement to the powers that be, and W would have been a bad moment in history instead of a national catastrophe.
OK, let’s imagine a U.S. with nationally competitive conservative Repub, moderate Dem, and liberal Green parties. Look at the demographics. Which of these 3 would inevitably come to dominate all 3 branches of government? (or which one already did so without the benefit of divided competition, in the early 2000′s).
.
The constant fight for the middle leaves a lot of people out (myself included), but historically has helped keep extremism at bay.
.
That said, I’m not sure the Repubs won’t snuff out the Dems in my lifetime. They’re more unified, more organized, better financed, and actually own the media.
The repugnicans already wiped out the democraps. Today’s dems lean farther to the right than yesterdays reps. Today’s reps on the other hand are extremist right wing nutjobs. The entire country has moved so far right that the New York Times is now regarded as a liberal rag, despite the fact that it is still just a tad right of center. Even slightly left leaning politicians are viewed as crackpots. Look at Kucinich, just a bit left of center.
Check out this political compass on the 2008 candidates. Look where Kucinich is. Look at where the mainstream dems are, right where you’d expect the reps. Then look at the reps.
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
It’s scary as hell, scarier actually since hell does not exist.
Oh, and for those who may be curious where I stand, I’m down in the far lower left corner, more fiscally liberal and socially libertarian than any of Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, or the Dalai Lama. Call me an extremist if you like. I’m fine with that.
I believe people should be free and corporations should be heavily regulated. Corporations have no unalienable rights. They are tools created by people for people’s purposes, like hammers. Just as a hammer has no rights, so too does a corporation have no rights. They were created to limit personal financial liability. Let’s leave them with that purpose, and possibly only that purpose, in tact.
I am right there with you Scott.