So, there's this huge storm brewing because some group put up a sign like this:
http://images.sandiego.com/articlefiles/394f35ff-2ce2-49cf-9218-5ea091385f10/coalition%20of%20reason.jpg
http://www.sandiego.com/index.php?option=com_sdca&target=394f35ff-2ce2-49cf-9218-5ea091385f10

Which makes me think that for all the hue and cry Christians make over their freedom to practice religion how and when they want, why do they give so little respect to people who choose not to practice religion?

Move to San Francisco. I grin whenever I see one of these ads:

http://sfcitizen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/IMG_0470-copy-450x336.jpg

There are variations too, with famous atheist quotes:

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/news_images/2009/marktwainatheist.jpg

And yes, it's sad that San Francisco is one of the only places in the nation (or maybe the only place?) where you can actually put this ad on a public bus without any controversy. Some cities have actually refused to post these ads.

/jealous

It will be interesting to see if the SD billboards fare better than those in Ohio. Godless Billboard Moved After Threats (http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Godless-Billboard-Moved-After-Threats/W0iGN9STXUW0m6VF2g2Xeg.cspx)

Godless Billboard Moved After Threats (http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Godless-Billboard-Moved-After-Threats/W0iGN9STXUW0m6VF2g2Xeg.cspx)I wonder what would have happened had it been a Muslim organization threatening the owner of a billboard sponsoring Christianity.

Actually, I don't wonder, and I doubt all of you wonder either.

This is a fundamentalist Christian nation.

"My thoughts? I think the sign needs to come down. Its atheist. Its going to cause problems around all the churches, not just catholic, but lutheran, baptist, all of them," said Jack Jones of Downtown.
Like what? Riots? Church ladies flinging sacramental wafers? Save us all!

I bet the Unitarians are relaxed.

I bet the Unitarians are relaxed.
Well, maybe not too relaxed. They still have to worry about violent conservatives motivated by hatred of Democrats, liberals, African Americans and homosexuals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting)

I used to crack up over this billboard in Mississippi that had been rented out for years over a small strip club. It had some repent or burn in hell kind of thing on it.It was amusing.

I suppose the fun aspect of all this, with the larger numbers of atheists, agnostics, as well as the non religeous people are beginning to somewhat organize, beyond our typical solitary natures. While I doubt we will ever make an organized mass where we actively worship nothing, maybe a block party here and there. The next 5-20 years should have some active involvement on various issues, beyond the one agnostic/atheist/non religeous person popping up here and there.

I briefly belonged to a secular humanists organization. Our meetings were always like, "What do you want to do?" "I dunno. What do you want to do?" except for one crazy young guy who kept saying he wanted to burn churches. *roll eyes*

Well, maybe not too relaxed. They still have to worry about violent conservatives motivated by hatred of Democrats, liberals, African Americans and homosexuals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting)
Here's the funny thing. (And I'm responding to Tuda and Pan in this as well.)

If one was to accept the premise that we should live in fear of religious extremist/terrorists, than it'd be far more rational for them to side with the Bill Kristol/Dick Cheney side than your side. Because the argument as to why Muslims pose a threat to us is far more credible than the argument as to why right wing Christians post a threat to us.

You guys using such a faulty premise to argue your political agenda from isn't helping you. It's far more productive, imo, to point out how Christians (unlike Muslims) have the democratic power to impose their values onto others. But the political points you guys gains from undermining the credibility of Christians by painting them as extremists aren't as big as the political points you lose by ad-libbing a neo-conservative "Islamofasicist" fear mongering speeches into Christian fearmongering.

Because the argument as to why Muslims pose a threat to us is far more credible than the argument as to why right wing Christians post a threat to us.About 1,700 years of history, up to and including recent newspaper headlines, disagrees with you. ("Us" being the non-Christians here.)It's far more productive, imo, to point out how Christians (unlike Muslims) have the democratic power to impose their values onto others.And you don't call that a threat?

But the political points you guys gains from undermining the credibility of Christians by painting them as extremists aren't as big as the political points you lose by ad-libbing a neo-conservative "Islamofasicist" fear mongering speeches into Christian fearmongering.
Right wing Christian extremists who persue violence are terrorists, no different from Muslim ones, IMHO. I'm not at all sure what your point is.

If you're a right-wing christian extremist and you're not promoting or participating in violence against others then you're just a valued and listened to member of the GOP these days. If you are promoting violence, then you're a terrorist but still probably a valued member of the GOP. They might not embrace you quite so openly if you cross line and actually kill someone. Although some will, I'm sure.

And you don't call that a threat?

What level must one read at to translate someone "I think it's more productive to talk about X" into "I don't think X is a threat"?

It's far more productive, imo, to point out how Christians (unlike Muslims) have the democratic power to impose their values onto others. But the political points you guys gains from undermining the credibility of Christians by painting them as extremists aren't as big as the political points you lose by [...]
I agree that Christians using their democratic power to impose their values on others is a larger concern (at least to those of us not being shot at). However, I don't see how pointing out that extremists (of any religion) are prone to violence diminishes that argument. Both are valid concerns, aren't they?