Anti-Religious T-Shirts

[SleepingDemon]

Like it or not, WBC has the right to say what they wish. If these assholes get to peddle their bullshit on billboards, bumper stickers, commercials, murals, etc etc, then yes, fuck their sensibilities. When it comes to religion, no one notices you until you step on someone's toes.

[Whateverist]

Double standards...

We say "yeah fuck their sensibilities", yet we protest the Westborough Baptist Church's signs or Fox News' stupidity...

Insulting people for no purpose other than being smug and condescending is not being a brave voice defying the social norms...it's being an asshole.

So if offending people who havnt done anything to him is so important, then, well, ouch

I suppose one could argue that they just want to show xtians they don't have the market on being an asshole cornered. But if what we really want is to move toward the social mainstream, then yours may be the voice of reason here. Some may deserve to be treated in kind but it might be better to avoid collateral damage where possible.

[Shell B]

Yep, SleepingDemon is right, in my opinion. Who the fuck said the WBC can't do what they do? I personally think their right to do so is important. However, I also think it is within our rights to berate them. There are those who think the WBC is in the right. There are those who think my opinion on them is correct. What matters to me, and every other individual, is my own opinion. I can handle being butthurt about words. I have little respect for people who cannot. I would totally wear a shirt that said "Fuck Jesus." I just wouldn't wear it around Christians that I care about.

---

So if offending people who havnt done anything to him is so important

How do you know he wasn't given a colonoscopy by a guy in a black dress when he was a kid? Lots of people have good reason to be pissed at Christianity in general.

[Rwandrall]

Freedom of speech is restricted by definition. Take defamation, for example, most countries have laws against it even though essentially you're just using words.

Denying the Holocaust is forbidden in France for example because it insults the cultural memory. I don't think it's unreasonable.

The idea that everyone should be able to say what they want any time, anywhere is a nice idea, but impossible in practice.

As for the WBC, i think people were trying to forbid them from protesting at soldiers' funerals, should that be forbidden ?

I mean at some point when you tell someone their son deserved to die, should freedom of expression really mean you could say it as much as you want with no repercussions whatsoever ?

Psychological damage is damage too, and i'm pretty sure some words are more damaging than a punch to the face, yet words are free and punches are not, there is a dissonance there.

[Minimalist]

There are ways to announce one's opposition to religion in ways which normal people should not find offensive.

But fundies are not "normal."

More than offensive they find even mild statements of atheism to be threatening.

[Shell B]

Freedom of speech is restricted by definition. Take defamation, for example, most countries have laws against it even though essentially you're just using words.

Defamation has to be proven to have caused harm (not emotional) to be considered a viable claim.

Denying the Holocaust is forbidden in France for example because it insults the cultural memory. I don't think it's unreasonable.

I find that law ridiculous. I cannot stand Holocaust deniers. I still don't think they should have to hide their thoughts.

The idea that everyone should be able to say what they want any time, anywhere is a nice idea, but impossible in practice.

I wouldn't limit possibilities based on the limits of prudes.

As for the WBC, i think people were trying to forbid them from protesting at soldiers' funerals, should that be forbidden ?

Freedom of speech isn't covered in private functions. For example, you cannot say whatever you want in my house because it is my house. I can kick your ass out.

I mean at some point when you tell someone their son deserved to die, should freedom of expression really mean you could say it as much as you want with no repercussions whatsoever ?

In the legal sense, yes. That is not to say someone will not punch you in your dumb face for it.

Psychological damage is damage too, and i'm pretty sure some words are more damaging than a punch to the face, yet words are free and punches are not, there is a dissonance there.

You can choose to be damaged by words. It's much more difficult to dodge a punch.

[Rwandrall]

Defamation has to be proven to have caused harm (not emotional) to be considered a viable claim.

Harm to one's honor (which is emotional) is basis enough for a defamation suit. As such emotional harm is already illegal, that means freedom of speech is already limited.

I find that law ridiculous. I cannot stand Holocaust deniers. I still don't think they should have to hide their thoughts.

Well the worry is that by letting them spread their venom some impressionable kids would fall for them. I should know, my own brother seems to be going down that path (which is quite a worry).

And also it stems from the idea that denying it is an insult to the country's history, as in the country itself and every citizen within it, so it makes sense the state, a representative of the people, would forbid something that the common will of the people wants forbidden.

I wouldn't limit possibilities based on the limits of prudes.

It's not a matter of prudes ! Take gay kids that are called "faggots", told they are going to hell, and bullied psychologically, some of them go in deep depression or worse without physical harm done to them, it's not that they are prudes, it's that insults hurt. There are anti-bullying laws, should those be unconstitutional as well ?

In the legal sense, yes. That is not to say someone will not punch you in your dumb face for it.


You can choose to be damaged by words. It's much more difficult to dodge a punch.

I disagree that you can choose to be damaged by words. We all are affected by words, and it's much more difficult to ignore what people say about you than dodging a punch.

It seems strange to punish physical, temporary, superficial harm and not emotional harm which is much, much more dangerous.

[Shell B]

Harm to one's honor (which is emotional) is basis enough for a defamation suit. As such emotional harm is already illegal, that means freedom of speech is already limited.

Erp. Nope. Yes, freedom of speech is already limited. However, "harm to one's honor" is not enough for a defamation suit. One must prove that such harm affected something other than their emotions. You cannot walk into court and say, "he hurt my feelings." The very basis of defamation is that a person is "defamed."

Well the worry is that by letting them spread their venom some impressionable kids would fall for them. I should know, my own brother seems to be going down that path (which is quite a worry).

So? Some people worry that their children will be corrupted by atheists. Should we tell them all to shut up now?

And also it stems from the idea that denying it is an insult to the country's history, as in the country itself and every citizen within it, so it makes sense the state, a representative of the people, would forbid something that the common will of the people wants forbidden.

Yes, it makes sense for countries to want to look good. That doesn't make it right to forbid a topic of discussion. Yes, it's a loathsome topic. So, what? Talking about the Holocaust makes Germany look bad, should Germans not be allowed to talk about the Holocaust. Yes, I realize it's a taboo subject there, but it sure as fuck ain't against the law to my knowledge.

It's not a matter of prudes !

Yes, it is!

Take gay kids that are called "faggots", told they are going to hell, and bullied psychologically, some of them go in deep depression or worse without physical harm done to them, it's not that they are prudes, it's that insults hurt. There are anti-bullying laws, should those be unconstitutional as well ?

No, not all of them. Again, you are misunderstanding a general right to freedom of speech, which is, as I already conceded, sadly limited. Now, in a school, there are school rules. In law, there are rules against hate speech. It is not stopped because of the content of the words. In fact, it's not even defamation. By derogatory definition, a faggot (sorry) is a homosexual. Truth negates defamation. Now, it incites hatred against a certain group, so it might result in litigation. All of that being said, the word police can still suck it. I hate that some people are assholes and treat people who do not deserve it like shit. However, laws like that can get people who don't deserve it in serious trouble. Say a homosexual cuts me off, almost killing me and my passengers. Not even knowing he is a homosexual and in the heat of the moment, I yell, "Watch out, ya fucking faggot." (I would not say that, but you get the idea.) Do I then deserve a heap of fucking litigation? No. It's petty fucking law making. Punish bullying children in and out of school and certainly punish for harassment. Do not limit freedom of speech. However, once people reach adulthood, they eventually have to realize that words are words. If I was a lesbian and someone called me a dyke, I would just nod in agreement. Yes, you can choose to be affected.

I disagree that you can choose to be damaged by words.

I don't, but I also disagree with laws that inherently make people slaves to the government. Oh, please, can I use that word? Oh, I might hurt someone's feelings? Fuck that. Oh, and knowing a person is mentally ill and berating them into killing themselves is much different than simply saying the word faggot to someone, so I am aware that there are some cases where words are far more harmful than all that. In general, it hurts your feelings for a bit and then you get the fuck over it.

We all are affected by words, and it's much more difficult to ignore what people say about you than dodging a punch.

Wrong again. You can walk away from people who talk shit. You can shut off your computer. You can tell your teachers. You can choose to ignore it. If someone is going to beat your ass, you better have your running shoes on.

It seems strange to punish physical, temporary, superficial harm and not emotional harm which is much, much more dangerous.

Really, emotional harm is much more dangerous? Perhaps we shouldn't prosecute the group of kids who gang rape a girl after prom. Perhaps murder should be okay, as long as no one's feelings got hurt. For pity's sake! I realize feelings can be hopelessly damaged, but saying emotional harm is more damaging than physical harm in a world where people beat each other into disablement is a fucking leap that was clearly taken to back up some silly idea that our t-shirts should not offend.

[reverendjeremiah]

Atheist shirt

---

---

Source: http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_attitude_w...3326874237

I , as a man, can't wear female shirt, but I can buy a poster with that awesome artwork.

Excellent shirt!

[Mitja]

i just bought this t-shirt
EPIC:

Bad Religion