NJ bank wouldn't notarize American Atheist documents for ‘personal reasons’
162 replies, posted
[QUOTE=matt000024;44372344]Did you even read the less bias article?
[url]http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2014/03/atheist_group_says_it_was_denied_by_td_bank_notary_because_of_religion.html[/url]
This wasn't even a religious matter. She just didn't know how to handle the paperwork. And them being Christians wouldn't change the response at all.[/QUOTE]
I'm calling bullshit on that. According to the other source, all the notary needed to do was sign off on something. How can you not know how to sign off on something?
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;44372523]I'm calling bullshit on that. According to the other source, all the notary needed to do was sign off on something. How can you not know how to sign off on something?[/QUOTE]
And she also waited until the woman had finished describing what she does for Atheism to say she couldn't do it. If she couldn't sign it she could have just gotten someone else to do it from the beginning
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;44372523]I'm calling bullshit on that. According to the other source, all the notary needed to do was sign off on something. How can you not know how to sign off on something?[/QUOTE]
You do realize you have to understand a document before signing? It isn't like those ToS agreements before you play a game that you just click "Yes" and sell your soul for all you know. If you're working at a bank you have to be able to know exactly what a document does and read it thoroughly. After she heard how the organization intended to use the money she may have been unsure if the document still applied.
[editline]27th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44372558]And she also waited until the woman had finished describing what she does for Atheism to say she couldn't do it. If she couldn't sign it she could have just gotten someone else to do it from the beginning[/QUOTE]
If she hated atheists then wouldn't she have just gotten someone else to do it from the beggining after seeing the organization name?
Original article said they claimed to be using the money for charity. She may thought it was more of a convention sort of group opposed to a public service group like they supposedly explained. I assume the two would be dealt with differently.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44372500]I'm not saying most churches aren't. There are tons of Christian lobbyist groups out there. There is a huge difference though in preaching to people who will go to your church without even seeing a sign and posting billboards over town openly mocking religions and telling people they are objectively wrong in public. There can be propaganda groups on both sides of the coin. There are leftist propaganda groups along with conservative propaganda groups. There are religious propaganda groups and anti-religous ones. There are American propaganda groups along with Russian ones. I don't get why you all are assuming I don't think that Christian propaganda groups don't exist. Are you even reading my posts at this point? I've already stated that it is just as bad to be a religious group posting "Atheists are dumb" around town.[/QUOTE]
So you would defend this womans actions if she refused to do it for a church? a church and a propaganda group are at the heart, the same. So would you defend that?
[QUOTE]Since when do I belong to a propaganda group? I was born a Catholic and usually identify as one to make things simple for people, but I don't follow everything I hear. I also rarely attend Church and have knowledge of other religious groups beliefs. You people are calling me a bigot, but you are all stereotyping me based on my religion. Apparently all Christians believe the exact same thing.[/QUOTE]
Are you part of a church? Does this church ever have new members it got be spreading the word of god or preaching? Well then son, you belong to a propaganda group and you're a-ok with it. No, you don't personally have to believe everything that comes out of there, but you are calling yourself part of a group that is part of those actions.
[QUOTE]Also why are you all ignoring the article which makes the thread pretty much pointless? The lady didn't refuse to sign based on religion, she refused due to not being able to handle the paperwork. That pretty much proves that AA are making a big deal to push their agenda, not because any discrimination happened.[/QUOTE]
the article you posted there doesn't seem to have the complete story and makes me wonder a number of things. Like, how does she not know how to sign a document that is in fact, basically her only real job? Why did she wait until after she knew who she was dealing with to say she didn't know what the hell she was doing?
[editline]27th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=matt000024;44372572]You do realize you have to understand a document before signing? It isn't like those ToS agreements before you play a game that you just click "Yes" and sell your soul for all you know. If you're working at a bank you have to be able to know exactly what a document does and read it thoroughly. After she heard how the organization intended to use the money she may have been unsure if the document still applied.
[editline]27th March 2014[/editline]
If she hated atheists then wouldn't she have just gotten someone else to do it from the beggining after seeing the organization name?
Original article said they claimed to be using the money for charity. She may thought it was more of a convention sort of group opposed to a public service group like they supposedly explained. I assume the two would be dealt with differently.[/QUOTE]
So she as a notary couldn't understand her own documents? Or the documents she had in front of her to sign? Sure seems like a model employee.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44372625]So you would defend this womans actions if she refused to do it for a church? a church and a propaganda group are at the heart, the same. So would you defend that?[/quote]
I would still be fine with that because all she'd have to do is call over another notary.
[quote]Are you part of a church? Does this church ever have new members it got be spreading the word of god or preaching? Well then son, you belong to a propaganda group and you're a-ok with it. No, you don't personally have to believe everything that comes out of there, but you are calling yourself part of a group that is part of those actions.[/quote]
I already said I rarely attend church. I'm not a member of one and usually only attend in support of other family members and other special events. Therefore I'm not a member of one. Also many churches advertize by telling what they have to offer, not by denouncing other groups like AA did. Some do, but some aren't all.
[quote]the article you posted there doesn't seem to have the complete story and makes me wonder a number of things. [/quote]
The original article was from a very obviously bias site and left a ton of the story out. At least this one is coming from the bank itself.
[quote]Like, how does she not know how to sign a document that is in fact, basically her only real job? Why did she wait until after she knew who she was dealing with to say she didn't know what the hell she was doing?[/quote]
I really doubt many religious groups come in. It is like blaming a lawyer for not knowing every single law. Nobody is perfect and if you've never had to ask for help in anything then you're either a liar or a stubborn moron.
[quote]So she as a notary couldn't understand her own documents? Or the documents she had in front of her to sign? Sure seems like a model employee.[/QUOTE]
She may have written the documents improperly due to not understanding the group function.
Example: Bob wants to make Bob's Cars, a car museum. The notary hears the name and expects a car dealership and prepares documents for one. When she finds out it is a museum she is unsure exactly what to do because few people come in asking to fund museums.
I don't get why you all are assuming the worst out of this woman.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44372572]
Original article said they claimed to be using the money for charity. She may thought it was more of a convention sort of group opposed to a public service group like they supposedly explained. I assume the two would be dealt with differently.[/QUOTE]
I suppose in the end I'm just not surprised that the Vice president of public affairs for TD Bank would say
[quote=TD]Rebecca Acevedo, TD Bank's vice president for public affairs, said: “Valuing diversity and building an inclusive environment is a fundamental part of TD’s culture. We treat all consumers fairly and with respect, and this instance was no different.”
The entire issue was a misunderstanding that arose from the notary not knowing how to handle certain government documents, Acevedo said.
“Our employee did not understand how to process this particular paperwork and needed help that, unfortunately, led to the miscommunication,” Acevedo said.
The employee has not been disciplined, she said.[/quote]
in response to the facebook post the Silverman woman said. She was very pissed off in her message
It would be better if the guy who the Notary called who was on lunch to do the Notarizing for her was interviewed; he probably has the least biased perspective
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;44365857]Do you see how ridiculous it is to say it's okay to discriminate against there people because they're atheists? If it was any other group being discriminated against there'd be near uniform criticism of her actions, regardless of whether it was part of her beliefs or not.[/QUOTE]
You're entirely correct, if the roles were switched then yes, it would be ridiculous. The problem with it is that it doesn't matter; this is the USA, no? And in the USA, we have our freedom of religion, no? The atheist woman does indeed have the same rights as the teller, but given that the teller handled this in an arguably professional manner (i.e. resolving the problem with another teller), then the teller is entirely within her legal and moral bounds.
Think about this though, what if it were switched? What if it were an atheist teller refusing service to a theist customer in this same way, and the customer made complaints like this? I bet anything that what I just stated (First Amendment rights) would have been the first point [b]anybody[/b] in this thread would bring up. This is like domestic abuse double standards; man beats a woman, he's a scumbag, but if a woman beats a man, everybody calls the man a pussy.
And I never said it was okay to discriminate, because this isn't discrimination. The teller enacted her rights as an American citizen to professionally resolve the situation, no name-calling, no hate. This atheist organization woman (of an organization, I might add, known for being a bunch of jerks to theists for no reason) is crying wolf here.
EDIT: And let me put another thing out there, the obviously intentionally misleading thread title just makes it obvious that this is atheists trying to start something over nothing. The bank notarized the documents without a problem (as far as we are informed), it's the teller (who was entirely justified by [b]law[/b] in doing so) who didn't.
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44372842]I suppose in the end I'm just not surprised that the Vice president of public affairs for TD Bank would say
in response to the facebook post the Silverman woman said. She was very pissed off in her message
It would be better if the guy who the Notary called who was on lunch to do the Notarizing for her was interviewed; he probably has the least biased perspective[/QUOTE]
How is it any more bias then what is coming from AA, a group that benefits from publicity?
[QUOTE=matt000024;44372880]How is it any more bias then what is coming from AA, a group that benefits from publicity?[/QUOTE]
Isn't that why I said "It would be better if the guy who the Notary called who was on lunch to do the Notarizing for her was interviewed; he probably has the least biased perspective"?
[editline]27th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;44372871]You're entirely correct, if the roles were switched then yes, it would be ridiculous. The problem with it is that it doesn't matter; this is the USA, no? And in the USA, we have our freedom of religion, no? The atheist woman does indeed have the same rights as the teller, but given that the teller handled this in an arguably professional manner (i.e. resolving the problem with another teller), then the teller is entirely within her legal and moral bounds.
Think about this though, what if it were switched? What if it were an atheist teller refusing service to a theist customer in this same way, and the customer made complaints like this? I bet anything that what I just stated (First Amendment rights) would have been the first point [b]anybody[/b] in this thread would bring up. This is like domestic abuse double standards; man beats a woman, he's a scumbag, but if a woman beats a man, everybody calls the man a pussy.
And I never said it was okay to discriminate, because this isn't discrimination. The teller enacted her rights as an American citizen to professionally resolve the situation, no name-calling, no hate. This atheist organization woman (of an organization, I might add, known for being a bunch of jerks to theists for no reason) is crying wolf here.
EDIT: And let me put another thing out there, the obviously intentionally misleading thread title just makes it obvious that this is atheists trying to start something over nothing. The bank notarized the documents without a problem (as far as we are informed), it's the teller (who was entirely justified by [b]law[/b] in doing so) who didn't.[/QUOTE]
You're generalizing atheists yourself in this post. Don't you see that?
[quote=you][B]And let me put another thing out there, the obviously intentionally misleading thread title just makes it obvious that this is atheists trying to start something over nothing. The bank notarized the documents without a problem (as far as we are informed), it's the teller (who was entirely justified by [b]law[/b] in doing so) who didn't.[/B][/quote]
And when I posted it the only source I had was the one in the OP before TD bank issued a statement about this. And that was the title they used; I'm sorry I didn't explicitly put "she wasn't completely denied service; but was allegedly denied service by one woman for personal reasons after being told about what this woman does for Atheism" in the thread title. So no, I'm not trying to 'start shit' (and the woman was a Notary who could have signed the documents, who apparently didn't know how to sign this womans particular documents, and not just a teller)
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44372983]You're generalizing atheists yourself in this post. Don't you see that?
[/QUOTE]
But the 3 pages of generalizing Christians is okay?
Except that didn't happen Matt.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44373311]Except that didn't happen Matt.[/QUOTE]
You were all claiming the only reason a Christian would deny an atheist is because of their faith.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44373825]You were all claiming the only reason a Christian would deny an atheist is because of their faith.[/QUOTE]
There is another reason? Without the difference in faith, what makes the Christian any different from the Atheist?
[QUOTE=matt000024;44369811]Then replace it with Americans or Canadians instead. One part cannot control the whole and judging individuals based on other parts of the group is very similar to racism especially with very vague categories like Christians. Religion does deserve the same protection as race as long as they aren't inciting violence or discriminating themselves.
Oh and by the way, have seen people replace Atheist with Black a lot here when they need to feel persecuted.
[editline]27th March 2014[/editline]
Also just realized how hypocritical you are being. You said that religion shouldn't be protected that much, but you're complaining about an atheist group being discriminated against for their beliefs[/QUOTE]
It's not their beliefs I want protected, but their speech.
And no, religion does not deserve the same protection as things such as race and sexual orientation. You can't change your genes, so it would be wrong to hate a black or gay man for being black or gay. But religion? You weren't born a Christian; someone had to teach you to think that way. If no one had told you about God, how would you know? That's what we call an idea, and ideas can adapt and change. Christians should know: they pick and choose from the bible all the time.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44373979]There is another reason? Without the difference in faith, what makes the Christian any different from the Atheist?[/QUOTE]
So everybody is exactly the same? As the article said, she didn't sign because she didn't know how to handle the document, not due to religion. And even without religion people are all very different. There are even atheists out there who think AA is a dumb group and may not want to support them. There is no proof she denied based on religion. It all comes from assumptions.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44373825]You were all claiming the only reason a Christian would deny an atheist is because of their faith.[/QUOTE]
How do you know she's Christian? She could be Jewish. We were also saying she denied them because they're atheists, not because she was Christian.
I think your persecution complex is showing.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;44374101]How do you know she's Christian? She could be Jewish. We were also saying she denied them because they're atheists, not because she was Christian.
I think your persecution complex is showing.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1379840&p=44363924&viewfull=1#post44363924[/url]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1379840&p=44366227&viewfull=1#post44366227[/url]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1379840&p=44366271&viewfull=1#post44366271[/url]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1379840&p=44371051&viewfull=1#post44371051[/url]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1379840&p=44369647&viewfull=1#post44369647[/url]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1379840&p=44369578&viewfull=1#post44369578[/url]
I initially say Christian, Jew, or Muslim and they all seem to focus on Christian. I don't know, but everyone else seems to be claiming so.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44374172][url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1379840&p=44363924&viewfull=1#post44363924[/url]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1379840&p=44366227&viewfull=1#post44366227[/url]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1379840&p=44366271&viewfull=1#post44366271[/url]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1379840&p=44371051&viewfull=1#post44371051[/url]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1379840&p=44369647&viewfull=1#post44369647[/url]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1379840&p=44369578&viewfull=1#post44369578[/url]
I initially say Christian, Jew, or Muslim and they all seem to focus on Christian. I don't know, but everyone else seems to be claiming so.[/QUOTE]
Considering about 73% of Americans consider themselves Christians it's not a huge leap of logic. I'm not even sure why you think this part is worth arguing.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44374235]Considering about 73% of Americans consider themselves Christians it's not a huge leap of logic. I'm not even sure why you think this part is worth arguing.[/QUOTE]
I'm responding to people's complaints. I honestly don't get what you want me to do. I respond to a point and I'm somehow off topic, but if I ignore it I'm accused of ignoring your points.
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44372983]Isn't that why I said "It would be better if the guy who the Notary called who was on lunch to do the Notarizing for her was interviewed; he probably has the least biased perspective"?
[editline]27th March 2014[/editline]
You're generalizing atheists yourself in this post. Don't you see that?
And when I posted it the only source I had was the one in the OP before TD bank issued a statement about this. And that was the title they used; I'm sorry I didn't explicitly put "she wasn't completely denied service; but was allegedly denied service by one woman for personal reasons after being told about what this woman does for Atheism" in the thread title. So no, I'm not trying to 'start shit' (and the woman was a Notary who could have signed the documents, who apparently didn't know how to sign this womans particular documents, and not just a teller)[/QUOTE]
I do see that I'm generalizing atheists, in regards to issues of this "atheist discrimination" subject, and that's what I mean to do. I mentioned previously that I am an atheist, and whenever I read some article about atheists being discriminated against by the religious community and blah blah blah, I laugh. I understand that there are other rational and logical atheists in the community who understand matters like this in the correct way (that is, understanding everybody's views and accepting incredibly minor inconveniences as they are), but I laugh. Why? Because of the horrific double standard atheists (and everybody else) have on the matter (and every other matter). Knief is blowing this massively out of proportion simply for the sake of trying to 'prove' that atheists don't get fair treatment, which (in this situation) is childish and utterly ridiculous because no such thing occurred. Knief is going about doing this entirely wrong when she brings personal grudges into the argument. If she wanted to iron out the subject of "atheist discrimination", she might address an area where this actually occurs. Earlier, for example, I saw an article along the lines of "Tennessee makes it legal to bully atheists/people because of their religious beliefs" or something (excuse me if I'm wrong but at a glance that's what I read). [b]I didn't look into the thread or the article so don't mistake my mention of the subject for feigning of knowledge[/b], but a matter like [i]that[/i] is what Knief should be "pissed off" about, not some ridiculous little thing like this.
And excuse me if I sounded like I was accusing you of making the title, I meant the article in general. That was my mistake.
There is a ridiculous amount of prejudice against non-theistic people in the US, but I am not sure this should be news. I mean I would have definitely complained and maybe taken my business elsewhere, but I would not have went to the news.
I do wish there was less of a stigma against people who are not a part of the Abrahamic religions. I have to be careful when letting religious individuals know I am a deist because they often react unpleasantly.
This thread is absurd.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44369800]You're comparing a belief - an idea - to a race. One is a philosophical choice that is indoctrinated after birth, while the other is something you are the moment you are concieved. It's the difference between philosophy and genetics. What is your point? Are you trying to say that belief deserves the same protection as race? Because religion is a choice, but race isn't. Or are you just being intellectually dishonest?[/QUOTE]
This is absolutely right.
However: everyone needs to understand that this applies to [I]both sides[/I]. All of you people saying "well it's like if she turned away a black person because she hated black people" need to pay attention to this.
Plus, I love all of the "well, you don't [I]know[/I] that she denied them because they put out propaganda! It could be because they were atheist at all" posts. Because it really seemed like everyone posting that went on to assume that she denied them because they were atheist, rather than propaganda. Everyone was saying "this is just like if she denied them because they were Muslim or black or liked sandwiches", but when someone puts out an alternate explanation, multiple people leap forth to say "you don't know that!" And you all forgot that there could be other 'personal reasons', such as her suddenly needing to go to the bathroom while they were talking. It turns out, (at least according to the bank), it was because she didn't know how to do it.
I know we're trusted less than anyone else in the country and are ignored legally sometimes (10 commandments in front of courthouses, there was some place where atheists couldn't hold office, etc.), but when you're this quick to cry persecution, all it does is makes you look like you have a victim complex.
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44372558]And she also waited until the woman had finished describing what she does for Atheism to say she couldn't do it. If she couldn't sign it she could have just gotten someone else to do it from the beginning[/QUOTE]
She had to wait until the end [I]so she could know what type of organization it was[/I]. She has to know what type it is before she can know that she can't do that type. Official documents can get very specific.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;44372523]I'm calling bullshit on that. According to the other source, all the notary needed to do was sign off on something. How can you not know how to sign off on something?[/QUOTE]
Because documents are always just "sign here, that's all". Totally.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44372625]the article you posted there doesn't seem to have the complete story and makes me wonder a number of things. Like, how does she not know how to sign a document that is in fact, basically her only real job? Why did she wait until after she knew who she was dealing with to say she didn't know what the hell she was doing?[/quote]
Oh, and the original article did?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44372625]So she as a notary couldn't understand her own documents? Or the documents she had in front of her to sign? Sure seems like a model employee.[/QUOTE]
That's right, new employees [I]don't exist[/I]. You heard it here first, from HumanAbyss. Inexperienced employees don't exist.
[editline]27th March 2014[/editline]
Additionally, I love how there were people saying "This is just like if she turned away a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish group", but then there were also several posts on the same side saying "Atheism isn't a belief, it's different."
I find it interesting that the original article is laden with bias but the damage control from the bank (aka the institution with a vested interest in preventing this shitstorm from developing) is apparently good as gold testimonial.
It's also interesting that one person heard "personal reasons" when the supposed real reason was that she didn't know how to fill out the paperwork. Which was it?
Hopefully AA gets their shit notarized, and hopefully TD Bank hires better employees in the future who know how to do their job.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;44378231]I find it interesting that the original article is laden with bias but the damage control from the bank (aka the institution with a vested interest in preventing this shitstorm from developing) is apparently good as gold testimonial. [/quote]
AA benefits from a shitstorm. Activist groups goal is to get attention from controversy. A lot of people may have not even heard of them if not for this. Neither source is fully credible, but at least the second offers another viewpoint. At least the second source provided both sides.
[quote]It's also interesting that one person heard "personal reasons" when the supposed real reason was that she didn't know how to fill out the paperwork. Which was it? [/quote]
How is that not a personal reason? She personally was unsure how to notarize it.
[quote]Hopefully AA gets their shit notarized, and hopefully TD Bank hires better employees in the future who know how to do their job.[/QUOTE]
I swear you didn't even read the article. Their stuff was notarized after the coworker came. And as I stated before, you can't expect an employee to be a 100% expert in their field. Activist groups going to banks aren't the most common thing. I assume she can deal with regular businesses and personal loans normally.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44383433]AA benefits from a shitstorm. Activist groups goal is to get attention from controversy. A lot of people may have not even heard of them if not for this. Neither source is fully credible, but at least the second offers another viewpoint. At least the second source provided both sides.
How is that not a personal reason? She personally was unsure how to notarize it.
I swear you didn't even read the article. Their stuff was notarized after the coworker came. And as I stated before, you can't expect an employee to be a 100% expert in their field. Activist groups going to banks aren't the most common thing. I assume she can deal with regular businesses and personal loans normally.[/QUOTE]
If she wasn't sure how to notarize it, why couldn't she just say "I don't know how to do this particular form"? If she was new, I'm sure the AA person would have understood. But when you just say "personal reasons", it makes it sound awkward and, well, personal.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;44386809]If she wasn't sure how to notarize it, why couldn't she just say "I don't know how to do this particular form"? If she was new, I'm sure the AA person would have understood. But when you just say "personal reasons", it makes it sound awkward and, well, personal.[/QUOTE]
Not everyone are good at communicating with others. Maybe she was embarrassed that she didn't know. We don't even know she said "personal reasons" because it is only one person's account.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44387234]Not everyone are good at communicating with others. Maybe she was embarrassed that she didn't know. We don't even know she said "personal reasons" because it is only one person's account.[/QUOTE]
You're really jumping through hoops to make American Atheists look bad.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44387503]You're really jumping through hoops to make American Atheists look bad.[/QUOTE]
some people go pretty hardout to discredit any atheists that don't keep their atheism 100% to themselves
[QUOTE=matt000024;44383433]AA benefits from a shitstorm. Activist groups goal is to get attention from controversy. A lot of people may have not even heard of them if not for this. Neither source is fully credible, but at least the second offers another viewpoint. At least the second source provided both sides.[/QUOTE]
I trust AA more than I trust some banks damage control. Any advantages AA could gain from this are purely hypothetical wheresas the bank has tangible losses that could be incurred if it turns out their notaries don't feel like doing their job because the documents they have to sign are brought forth by an atheist group, or a Muslim group, or a vegetarian group, or a gun rights group. Also check the first source, they updated their article.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44383433]How is that not a personal reason? She personally was unsure how to notarize it.[/QUOTE]
lmao because "I don't know how to do my job, let me find someone who does" isn't personal?
[QUOTE=matt000024;44387234]Not everyone are good at communicating with others. Maybe she was embarrassed that she didn't know. We don't even know she said "personal reasons" because it is only one person's account.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit you have done some mental gymnastics in this thread but this takes the cake.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44369298]They are specifically targeting religious groups.
[t]http://brooklynink.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/BillboardNew.jpg[/t]
[url]http://thebrooklynink.com/2012/03/08/42651-atheist-billboard-enrages-jewish-community/[/url][/QUOTE]Maybe she's like me and just doesn't trust any group that uses billboards?
Have any of you taken that into consideration? All of those groups, be they a religious organization, a corporation, or even one of those sneaky ones with a bunch of shit for all sorts of places so it makes me squint and try to read and then I swerve off the road for a little bit and feel dumb are just tools of [b]obstructive terrorists.[/b] Oh, what's that? You don't know what I'm talking about? Open your mind up, wake up and think outside the box. Consider this: you're enjoying your day, looking at things. Yet, while you are blissfully observing nondescript things you are being [b]stalked[/b] by an assailant that may or may not be three to four stories tall. Oh ho ho, you have a surprise waiting for you my friend, you turn to the left! There it is, [i]Burger King.[/i] You could have seen that flock of geese on the other side, but no, no way, there's an instrument of PROPAGANDA AND TERROR obstructing your view making you think about [i]burgers and fries.[/i] Your turn to your left! Out of nowhere you see [b]Holiday Inn.[/b] Oh, you've [i]been there before[/i] and you saw a piece of shit floating in the pool. Nice going, you got your swim trunks on and everything, you debated for [b]HOURS[/b] about visiting the goddamn pool and there's SHIT in the pool. What's worse, you could have seen a tree in place of that vile trash, reminding you of your failures as a husband. I think they should be banned, honestly, and any group that uses them should be labeled as enemies of the state and persecuted to the [b]fullest extent of the law.[/b] I thought you were on MY SIDE atheists! I thought you [b]DIDN'T LIKE[/b] the billboards! Oh, every life is precious, don't abort babies, come see Jesus as the new Super 8 Church, well NO. YOU betrayed ME, atheists, I thought you [u]understood[/u] my problems, every time I saw one of those gigantic billboards staring down at me with their cold, lifeless eyes, judging me, I thought you [i]understood my pain.[/i] Well no more, you [b]have failed me for the last time[/b] and I am no longer going to trust you with saving this WORLD [i]from itself.[/i]
I am all alone.
Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any more ridiculous.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.