Godless Billboard Moved After Threats

[MoonWater]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

which is really all a post like that deserves.

[rojse]

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Good points, except that the religiously motivated and pastors are nutcases, not or.

If that were so, it should be easy to find out more information to support the article, should it not?

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Good points, except that the religiously motivated and pastors are nutcases, not or.

Seriously, of all the people to say that to,
you pick Angellous_Evangellous.

That takes a special kind of chutzpa.

[rojse]

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Think about it, it's a given one would be religiously motivated if the accusations were true, and it's a given that whomever would make such threats would be considered a nutcase, pastor or not. I merely stated what would be obvious after the fact.

I don't see any need to link the sanity of a person with the religion they practice. Why do you?

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Seems like poor reporting.

It is poor reporting. Investigative journalism is a dying art.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

It doesn't put a face on either side of the story, nor does it give enough information for the atheist group nor the readers to draw conclusions on.

I'm a little confused about the way you refer to both sides of the story. I'm not sure what "the other side" might be. The reporter should have talked to the property owner and the police and got more information. Who made the threats? What was the nature of the threats? Is there a police investigation? Has anybody been identified as having made threats? It's clear to me that the reporter could have done a better job, but it's not clear to me why we're talking about "sides."

[MoonWater]

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Think about it, it's a given one would be religiously motivated if the accusations were true, and it's a given that whomever would make such threats would be considered a nutcase, pastor or not. I merely stated what would be obvious after the fact.

It would seem to me that what would be "obvious" (if what you say is true and they were "nutcases") that the particular individuals who made the threats are religiously motivated nutcases.... but I fail to see how that would "make it obvious" that all people with religious motivation are nutcases.

[MoonWater]

Originally Posted by dogsgod

They're not, until they do something in the name of God.

So if a religious person decided to donate to a homeless shelter or work at a soup kitchen and did it in the name of god, you would still consider them a nutcase?

[ChristineES]

In the area I live, a cross that someone put up for a WWII memorial had to be taken down, so I guess it's tit for tat.

[MoonWater]

Originally Posted by dogsgod

I might.

[freethinker44]

Originally Posted by MoonWater

So if a religious person decided to donate to a homeless shelter or work at a soup kitchen and did it in the name of god, you would still consider them a nutcase?

I would. Being delusional or a "nutcase" doesn't have to mean that they are bad. If someone said they heard voices that told them to give to charity, they would be equally as delusional as someone who heard voices that told them to murder.