'Rogue' UK Girl Guide troop won't use new non-religious promise, excludes new leader

[moosetracker 132]

No, I am commenting on billboards you put up that are A) around churches, B) disrespectful.. The one on the property was simply because it was on the property, proclaiming something disagreement with their ideas however tastefully done.. The message on the billboard is not the point on that one, even if it was an OK message, it would have ben NOT OK to have to thumb it at the enemy.. It would have been OK disconnected from any church, sitting on a highway, You want to talk about a message individually, the message statement is OK.. You want to talk about the message, and the need to place it ONLY where it can harass those you dislike, now we have a different discussion.. And yes, due to the placement and the fact that you placed it their with the intention to annoy or harass those you dislike.. Then not the message, but the placement of the message, is harassment..

Wrong again. David Silverman (current head of American Atheists) has stated many times that AA increases its membership from their billboard campaigns.

And no, it's not "harassment", it's just a message you don't like. That's your problem

.

Coining a favorite phrase from Merlyn.. You don't get to dictate to people what is and is not harassing.. So you bring in more angry disagreeable souls with the signs. I can name some very bad organizations that are currently successfully advertising for new recruits, but will just let you think about that may be, as naming them may be going over the top.. Doesn't mean that your PR of "We hate religion, and feel we have a right to be as nasty and disagreeable as possible" campaign is winning the support of the American majority, those who are religious or simply those who don't but believe to live and let live.. Including many many who also consider themselves atheists, but will loudly proclaim they are not part of your movement, and feel the need to apologize for it.

 

Many of these billboards were forced to be taken down, (or moved in the case of the one on the church property..) Due to being DISRESPECTFUL..

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

No, I am commenting on billboards you put up that are A) around churches, B) disrespectful.. The one on the property was simply because it was on the property, proclaiming something disagreement with their ideas however tastefully done.. The message on the billboard is not the point on that one, even if it was an OK message, it would have ben NOT OK to have to thumb it at the enemy..

 

Which, as I already told you, was not the decision of the atheist group. The billboard company came up with that suggested spot along with 6 other spots. Yet you keep wanting to dishonestly blame the atheists as if they did it deliberately, and you keep lying about atheists.

 

Coining a favorite phrase from Merlyn.. You don't get to dictate to people what is and is not harassing..

 

For legal purposes, yes, a billboard can't be harassing. You can whine and say it is, but that won't support a lawsuit.

 

Many of these billboards were forced to be taken down, (or moved in the case of the one on the church property..) Due to being DISRESPECTFUL.

 

So what?

[moosetracker 132]

Your last line of "So what?" pretty much sums it up..

 

So, now I will have to agree with others that say it's time to wrap it up, because we are just going around in circles.. I got my answers..

 

I started out by stating that while certain atheists I would welcome, rules would have to be enacted to remove quickly those who can not show tolerance for other members beliefs or traditions.. Which you were offended that I would think any atheists would act in such a manner.. Yet when pointed out, as to when and where atheist have been intolerant you respond with, "So What".. or "free speech" or "it's not illegal".. Maybe, not.. but BSA's expectation of showing tolerance request that it be done voluntarily, not "you can take your intolerance up to the point where you legally cross the line.",..

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I started out by stating that while certain atheists I would welcome, rules would have to be enacted to remove quickly those who can not show tolerance for other members beliefs or traditions.

 

Which apparently encompasses every atheist who has the gall to speak out or resist infringements on their rights.

 

Yet when pointed out, as to when and where atheist have been intolerant you respond with, "So What".. or "free speech" or "it's not illegal"

 

Yeah, putting up billboards saying "I can be good without god" is sooo intolerant. Oh wait, it's purposely putting it up on church property illegally during the night -- oh wait, you initially claimed that, but it wasn't that at all -- then the atheists must have deliberately selected a billboard owned by a church -- oh wait, you tried to claim THAT, but that wasn't true either -- oh, then those horrible atheists sued the church -- oh wait, that's just more lies about atheists made up by you.

 

Maybe you should stop lying about atheists.