# Atheist billboard vandalized by criminals



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 29, 2010)

> Defacing the Pledge of Allegiance (again?)
> 
> By David Waters
> 
> ...


----------



## earl (Jun 29, 2010)

The devil made them do it . Dang vandals .


----------



## gtparts (Jun 29, 2010)

No vandals there. It is a sign from God..... or was it the pot-stirring atheist group that paid for the sign in the first place?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 29, 2010)

gtparts said:


> No vandals there. It is a sign from God..... or was it the pot-stirring atheist group that paid for the sign in the first place?



Pot-stirring?  How convenient a label you're placing on them.  They're legally expressing their stance, harming no one.  Too bad private property rights were not respected.


----------



## earl (Jun 29, 2010)

Painting anything on another persons property is indeed vandalism and is illegal . If they painted graffiti on a church would you say it wasn't vandalism but merely a sign of the devil ?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 29, 2010)

earl said:


> Painting anything on another persons property is indeed vandalism and is illegal . If they painted graffiti on a church would you say it wasn't vandalism but merely a sign of the devil ?



I'm guessing hate crime, Earl.  But this _clearly _is appropriate.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 29, 2010)

earl said:


> Painting anything on another persons property is indeed vandalism and is illegal . If they painted graffiti on a church would you say it wasn't vandalism but merely a sign of the devil ?



Is it vandalism to paint on your own sign to get publicity and to allow Christians to be blamed. It isn't vandalism until the "perp" is identified.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 29, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Is it vandalism to paint on your own sign to get publicity and to allow Christians to be blamed. It isn't vandalism until the "perp" is identified.



How quickly I overlooked the possibility of atheists being behind it all.  My mistake.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 29, 2010)

I suspect it was some right-winged radical trying to correct what was obviously a misprint.


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 29, 2010)

Look closely. Do you see any concern in my eye?


----------



## Lowjack (Jun 29, 2010)

Actually the sign Was Corrected, the original was wrong. LOL


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 29, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> Look closely. Do you see any concern in my eye?



Not surprised.  I bet you'd be all upset if a likeness of the Obama logo was pasted on your church's steeple though.


----------



## earl (Jun 29, 2010)

Amazing how Christians rationalize things. It's ok to justify anything as long as it is ''God's will''.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 29, 2010)

earl said:


> Amazing how Muslims rationalize things. It's ok to justify anything as long as it is ''Allah's will''.



See what I did there?


----------



## gtparts (Jun 30, 2010)

earl said:


> Amazing how Christians rationalize things. It's ok to justify anything as long as it is ''God's will''.



As long as it is God's will, one need not rationalize at all.


----------



## Randy (Jun 30, 2010)

Damage to property is wrong no matter if someone misses the quote.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 30, 2010)

I wonder what the motivation of the original sign was?

And who says it was a Christian that damaged the property?
It could have been a jew.  Or maybe it was even an atheist who believes the pledge should stand just as approved by the governing authority of the land.

Either way, I believe both participants have dirty hands.


----------



## pnome (Jun 30, 2010)

gtparts said:


> As long as it is God's will, one need not rationalize at all.



Mmmmuuuuuuussssssttttt......nnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooottttttt....dddddddeeeeeebbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaattttttteeeeeeee................

Whew, that was close.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 30, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Pot-stirring?  How convenient a label you're placing on them.  They're legally expressing their stance, harming no one.  Too bad private property rights were not respected.



Legally expressing a stance

Just say the sign did really read "under God" on it originally. How many atheist activist groups would there be marching and picketing the sign because it violates their rights labeling them as persons under God? After all, the Christian would only be legally expressing their stance, right?

But, I dont agree with the vandalism from either side.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 30, 2010)

Gave me a little chuckle when I saw it.


Whoever did it, should be held responsible.  Just cause I agree with it doesn't make it right.

I will say, it does look awefully good to be just some vandalism...but again, that is my 2 cents.  Take it for what it is worth.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 30, 2010)

pnome said:


> Mmmmuuuuuuussssssttttt......nnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooottttttt....dddddddeeeeeebbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaattttttteeeeeeee................
> 
> Whew, that was close.



pnome, you are a jewel. Glad you decided to stick around the SDS. You've always done an admirable job of presenting you pov without being overbearing or antagonistic. Besides, I could probably write your response myself. Thanks for the chuckle!


----------



## FishingAddict (Jun 30, 2010)

There is a deeper irony here that no one is catching....


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 30, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Not surprised.  I bet you'd be all upset if a likeness of the Obama logo was pasted on your church's steeple though.



You'd lose that bet.


----------



## dawg2 (Jun 30, 2010)

It was probably lightning.


----------



## Lowjack (Jun 30, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> I wonder what the motivation of the original sign was?
> 
> And who says it was a Christian that damaged the property?
> It could have been a jew.  Or maybe it was even an atheist who believes the pledge should stand just as approved by the governing authority of the land.
> ...



Yep, And I slept like a baby last night,


----------



## Lowjack (Jun 30, 2010)

dawg2 said:


> It was probably lightning.



Naaah if it was then there would be 10 commandments burnt into the Sign, LOL


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jun 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> Damage to property is wrong no matter if someone misses the quote.



X's 2


----------



## obsession (Jun 30, 2010)

pnome said:


> Mmmmuuuuuuussssssttttt......nnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooottttttt....dddddddeeeeeebbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaattttttteeeeeeee................



x2! opinions and different points of view dont go 'round here. lol


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 30, 2010)

gtparts said:


> pnome, you are a jewel. Glad you decided to stick around the SDS. You've always done an admirable job of presenting you pov without being overbearing or antagonistic. Besides, I could probably write your response myself. Thanks for the chuckle!




I agree


----------



## dawg2 (Jun 30, 2010)

FishingAddict said:


> There is a deeper irony here that no one is catching....



Well?


----------



## possum steak (Jun 30, 2010)

the professing Christians who did this should be ashamed. They disrespected private property not to forget they want to silence our 2nd Amendment in our Constitution.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 30, 2010)

possum steak said:


> the professing Christians who did this should be ashamed. They disrespected private property not to forget they want to silence our 2nd Amendment in our Constitution.



possum, you, as many others have done, are assuming things not in evidence. No one has been caught or claimed responsibility. I agree, IF Christians did it, they should be ashamed. But we don't know who did it.


----------



## Lowjack (Jun 30, 2010)

possum steak said:


> the professing Christians who did this should be ashamed. They disrespected private property not to forget they want to silence our 2nd Amendment in our Constitution.



What is his name and where does he live and do you have pictures ?
Everyone Assumed Innocent until proved guilty.


----------



## earl (Jun 30, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> What is his name and where does he live and do you have pictures ?
> Everyone Assumed Innocent until proved guilty.




Ye shall know them by their fruits.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 30, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> Just say the sign did really read "under God" on it originally. How many atheist activist groups would there be marching and picketing the sign because it violates their rights labeling them as persons under God?



My guess is zero.  What atheists don't believe in is deities; not the right for others to worship as they also choose.

I can't imagine what you could possibly see as a violation of rights in your scenario.  It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 30, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> You'd lose that bet.



Well, you have established a track record of being okay with vandalism so carry on.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 30, 2010)

gtparts said:


> As long as it is God's will, one need not rationalize at all.



At least you're forthright about it.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 1, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> I wonder what the motivation of the original sign was?



Probably asserting that religion needs to stay out of government.



Ronnie T said:


> And who says it was a Christian that damaged the property?



Certainly not me....I just labeled them as criminals.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 1, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Naaah if it was then there would be 10 commandments burnt into the Sign, LOL



We established last week that deities don't control lightning, except when, well, I forget what the rule is.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 1, 2010)

possum steak said:


> the professing Christians who did this should be ashamed. They disrespected private property not to forget they want to silence our 2nd Amendment in our Constitution.



Can't be sure it was christians, just keep that in mind.

2nd?


----------



## Israel (Jul 1, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Can't be sure it was christians, just keep that in mind.
> 
> 2nd?



I think they were the under god gang that have been tagging everything they find...even subway carz


----------



## Dominic (Jul 1, 2010)

Seriously 

I love the ends justify the means crowd as well as the "if Christians and made this billboard someone would vandalize it, so this is OK". I hear this attitude from "Christians" all the time, I also hear it from atheist. They some how find logic in the "The other side does it too, so it’s OK for me" argument. Grow up and rise above it, if you are a Christian then face it but do not stoop to the others level. If you feel that Christ is calling you to vandalize someone else’s property, realize that it might not be Christ you are hearing.


----------



## FishingAddict (Jul 1, 2010)

dawg2 said:


> Well?




The fighting which is tearing the country apart  over the words (and meaning) that come right after the word "indivisible."

The things that made this country stand together as strong, single unit with pride are going away as people become more interested in their own self guided agendas.   And I'm not just talking about religion, either.

Really makes me worry about the future of this country.  It seems most are interested in what they can get from our awesome land of opportunity, with out an inkling of respect or appreciation of how good they have it- or a thought of making our country better.

Our foundation of our pride in our country is crumbling, if you ask me.  It worries me greatly.

But perhaps I'm just a overly worried curmudgeon.


----------



## FishingAddict (Jul 1, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Seriously
> 
> I love the ends justify the means crowd as well as the "if Christians and made this billboard someone would vandalize it, so this is OK". I hear this attitude from "Christians" all the time, I also hear it from atheist. They some how find logic in the "The other side does it too, so it’s OK for me" argument. Grow up and rise above it, if you are a Christian then face it but do not stoop to the others level. If you feel that Christ is calling you to vandalize someone else’s property, realize that it might not be Christ you are hearing.



Well said.  Very well said.


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 1, 2010)

Dominic said:


> Seriously
> 
> I love the ends justify the means crowd as well as the "if Christians and made this billboard someone would vandalize it, so this is OK". I hear this attitude from "Christians" all the time, I also hear it from atheist. They some how find logic in the "The other side does it too, so it’s OK for me" argument. Grow up and rise above it, if you are a Christian then face it but do not stoop to the others level. If you feel that Christ is calling you to vandalize someone else’s property, realize that it might not be Christ you are hearing.




And _there_ is a very important reason for Christians to read,study,and most important - UNDERSTAND God's Word.No one can really know the voice of Christ calling them to do or not do something unless they are -first of all,born again - second,well-grounded in God's Word.



FishingAddict said:


> The fighting which is tearing the country apart  over the words (and meaning) that come right after the word "indivisible."
> 
> The things that made this country stand together as strong, single unit with pride are going away as people become more interested in their own self guided agendas.   And I'm not just talking about religion, either.
> 
> ...



If so, you sure aren't the _only_ one! Good post,brother.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 1, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Probably asserting that religion needs to stay out of government.
> What? Religion didn't put "under God" in the pledge, the government did.
> 
> 
> Certainly not me....I just labeled them as criminals.


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 1, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I'm guessing hate crime, Earl.  But this _clearly _is appropriate.



As opposed to a "love" crime?


----------



## possum steak (Jul 1, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Can't be sure it was christians, just keep that in mind.
> 
> 2nd?



well yeah you're right, could have been some young boys wanting to stir the pot.

Thanks for bringing that to mind, 1st Amendment. I stand corrected.


----------



## earl (Jul 1, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> As opposed to a "love" crime?



There you go dave ! Definitely a love crime. I love the Lord so much I am compelled to vandalize in his name .


----------



## thedeacon (Jul 1, 2010)

vandalism is vandalism no matter who  does it. Someone spent a lot of money to make a point and they had every right to do so.

I don't agree with the sign, but I don't have the right to go to their billboard and change it. I wish God was injected into everything that is done in the world, but that is just me.

Christians break the law every day. They are wrong. Did a, "Christian" commit this crime. I don't know. 

I am not going to loose any sleep over it, there are a lot more important things for me to worry about.


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 1, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Well, you have established a track record of being okay with vandalism so carry on.



Sir,I think you've had too much nicotine gum.


----------



## Israel (Jul 3, 2010)

For the record, I'm ok with vandalism and stealing, too.
Matter of fact I've been sent to sack your soul of all its self confidence and see every idol crushed and ground to powder.
Make no mistake, though I am only charged to do it in another's name, I have no compunction about it at all.


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 3, 2010)

Israel said:


> For the record, I'm ok with vandalism and stealing, too.
> Matter of fact I've been sent to sack your soul of all its self confidence and see every idol crushed and ground to powder.
> Make no mistake, though I am only charged to do it in another's name, I have no compunction about it at all.


----------



## earl (Jul 3, 2010)

Israel said:


> For the record, I'm ok with vandalism and stealing, too.
> Matter of fact I've been sent to sack your soul of all its self confidence and see every idol crushed and ground to powder.
> Make no mistake, though I am only charged to do it in another's name, I have no compunction about it at all.





Wow !!!  That's the same thing those  radical Muslims said on 9/11


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 3, 2010)

I guess the possibility of a radical atheist vandelizing the billboard to draw condemnation towards Christians is simply unfathomable huh?

Maybe I missed the part where they actually caught the perps and proved they were Christian.


----------



## earl (Jul 3, 2010)

Like the Christian minister claiming to be a converted Muslim ?  All things are possible .


----------



## Israel (Jul 3, 2010)

earl said:


> Wow !!!  That's the same thing those  radical Muslims said on 9/11



earl the difference is, I will not touch you, see you, need to even be in the same room or continent with you...your heart and God do all the work.
keep working earl.
your heart is either getting weaker or stronger.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 3, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I guess the possibility of a radical atheist vandelizing the billboard to draw condemnation towards Christians is simply unfathomable huh?
> 
> Maybe I missed the part where they actually caught the perps and proved they were Christian.



Man some of you Christians are defensive!  I didn't see where anybody ever accused the perps of being Christian.  Ever heard the saying "a hit dog will holler"?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 3, 2010)

FishingAddict said:


> The fighting which is tearing the country apart  over the words (and meaning) that come right after the word "indivisible."
> 
> The things that made this country stand together as strong, single unit with pride are going away as people become more interested in their own self guided agendas.   And I'm not just talking about religion, either.
> 
> ...



Excellent post, excellent observation my man.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 3, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


>



Yes Ronnie T, government technically did sign that change into law.

It didn't happen spontaneously of course.  Mash here.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 3, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Man some of you Christians are defensive!  I didn't see where anybody ever accused the perps of being Christian.  Ever heard the saying "a hit dog will holler"?



Six, I hope you don't include me in the defensive crowd. While we don't know who made the unauthorized addition to the billboard, we don't know who has reason to be defensive. And since I had no part in the addition, I, personally, have nothing to be defensive about. 

If the perps are apprehended and if they profess some notion of being Christians, I would not defend them. Their actions would speak contrary to their professions. Should they not profess any motivation other than the desire to use up an old can of spray paint, I would still not defend them. The justice of our courts should be blind to any religious affiliation or lack thereof as regards the perps.

Those, that call for the music and dance thereto, should pay the piper.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 3, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Six, I hope you don't include me in the defensive crowd. While we don't know who made the unauthorized addition to the billboard, we don't know who has reason to be defensive. And since I had no part in the addition, I, personally, have nothing to be defensive about.
> 
> If the perps are apprehended and if they profess some notion of being Christians, I would not defend them. Their actions would speak contrary to their professions. Should they not profess any motivation other than the desire to use up an old can of spray paint, I would still not defend them. The justice of our courts should be blind to any religious affiliation or lack thereof as regards the perps.
> 
> Those, that call for the music and dance thereto, should pay the piper.




Count me as agreeing with you.
If I had seen the sign I wouldn't have given it a second thought.
It's just a sign.
I don't know why anyone would have gone to the trouble to interject their scribblings to the original sign.
They wasted as much time as the originator of the sign - except, the originator paid for it.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 3, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Yes Ronnie T, government technically did sign that change into law.
> 
> It didn't happen spontaneously of course.  Mash here.



I'm not sure that there is any other way for a law to be changed, except technically. Seems like that is the proper way to do so.

 Are you suggesting that while the letter of the law says one thing, we are at liberty to disregard it for personal reasons? Sounds like a recipe for anarchy to me. If it is such an issue for some, they need to seek to have it changed technically.

This "sign issue" is not religious in nature. It is about civil and criminal law. If God takes offense to the sign, He can square it away. If He takes takes offense to the vandalism (and I am sure He does), He can square that away also. He doesn't need anyone to defend Him by the use of criminal activity.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 3, 2010)

gtparts said:


> I'm not sure that there is any other way for a law to be changed, except technically. Seems like that is the proper way to do so.
> 
> Are you suggesting that while the letter of the law says one thing, we are at liberty to disregard it for personal reasons? Sounds like a recipe for anarchy to me. If it is such an issue for some, they need to seek to have it changed technically.



No, I'm just saying religion and government need to be very much separated.  It's just that simple.


----------



## thedeacon (Jul 3, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> Count me as agreeing with you.
> If I had seen the sign I wouldn't have given it a second thought.
> It's just a sign.
> I don't know why anyone would have gone to the trouble to interject their scribblings to the original sign.
> They wasted as much time as the originator of the sign - except, the originator paid for it.



I could buy that.


----------



## Israel (Jul 4, 2010)

A man who is willing to pay for his words with his life, not using God as an excuse, is really free to engrave the whole of the world if he so chooses.
No matter whose property lines he crosses.


----------



## MudDucker (Jul 4, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> How quickly I overlooked the possibility of atheists being behind it all.  My mistake.



Gosh, how could anyone think that you, with your long standing bias and hatred of all things Christian, might not consider a controversial group defacing its own property in order to get attention as a possibility.  Didn't we just see this same thing basically with the climate change folks?  



Six million dollar ham said:


> No, I'm just saying religion and government need to be very much separated. It's just that simple.



Then you need to find another country, because religion is the very basis for the creation of this government ... the Christian religion specifically.


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 4, 2010)

I think Mr. Ham is the only one "worried" about it.


----------



## Slewfoot (Jul 4, 2010)

*sign*

Breaks my heart...really does.


----------



## LEON MANLEY (Jul 4, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Not surprised.  I bet you'd be all upset if a likeness of the Obama logo was pasted on your church's steeple though.



I'll bet OBAMA would be upset.


----------



## LEON MANLEY (Jul 4, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> No, I'm just saying religion and government need to be very much separated.  It's just that simple.



They are separated, the public schools can't buy a bible with state funds to have in their library.
But the state will tell you that you can't carry your cc to church.
Go figure.


----------



## LEON MANLEY (Jul 4, 2010)

possum steak said:


> well yeah you're right, could have been some young boys wanting to stir the pot.
> 
> Thanks for bringing that to mind, 1st Amendment. I stand corrected.



Could have been young girls or several senior citizens.
Could have even been two or three amigos setting the record straight.


----------



## Israel (Jul 4, 2010)

This one?


----------



## earl (Jul 4, 2010)

Then you need to find another country, because religion is the very basis for the creation of this government ... the Christian religion specifically. 


Is that why abortion is still legal in the US ?  Or the 10 commandmants are no longer allowed on public properties ? 
I think you are mistaken .


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 4, 2010)

MudDucker said:


> Gosh, how could anyone think that you, with your long standing bias and hatred of all things Christian, might not consider a controversial group defacing its own property in order to get attention as a possibility.  Didn't we just see this same thing basically with the climate change folks?



What makes you think I hate all things Christian?  Please be specific with examples.  Given that it's longstanding, that should be easy.  Do this today, please.

Who is the controversial group you mention? 

Yes the climate change folks did something like that.  But keep in mind I haven't accused Christians of being behind this.  I find it odd that you're being defensive over something not actually alleged.



MudDucker said:


> Then you need to find another country, because religion is the very basis for the creation of this government ... the Christian religion specifically.



Are you sure?


----------



## Big7 (Jul 6, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Not surprised.  I bet you'd be all upset if a likeness of the Obama logo was pasted on your church's steeple though.



No.... Ham..

That would be time to have a stroke.

Maybe they should put the logo on jerimia wright's
(olbalmers) church!


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 6, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> My guess is zero.  What atheists don't believe in is deities; not the right for others to worship as they also choose.
> 
> I can't imagine what you could possibly see as a violation of rights in your scenario.  It just doesn't make sense.



I cant either, I cant even imagine how their rights got violated when the little kids pray at school or pledge to the flag. They were never required to participate. They always had a choice to not do it.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 6, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> I cant either, I cant even imagine how their rights got violated when the little kids pray at school or pledge to the flag. They were never required to participate. They always had a choice to not do it.



What is the subject?  You lost me again.  

On second thought, never mind.


----------

