"God Forgive America"

I would like people to at least consider that question.

I am not expressing a judgement on the religious matter of whether there is or is not a diety, whether if there are dieties, it is offensive to claim by implication that no identification of "which god" is required, or even whether I would consider it more appropriate to beg fogiveness rather than blessing.

NO -- I am suggesting that there might be something really wrong and offensive about interfering with somebody else's religious expression. Sorry folks, but to me this DOES appear to be an attack upon the right of whoever put up the orginal billboard statement to make the religious expression of their choice. Not funny or cute or something to be proud of having done.

It comes across easily and well.

I don't think it's in poor taste at all, given what we've done and what we've allowed to happen.

Hopefully this'll make some war supporters think. If anyone's offended by it, there's probably no changing their minds anyway.

Is that the new term for vandals?

You totally misunderstood my objection. I would say that the excellentness of the point being made would still not justify the manner in which it was made. I was asking you (all) to consider whether or not this was a case where one would have to obtain one's own billboard to make that excellent point -- that the excellentness of the point did not justify interfering with some other persons right to make their own religious expression.

What are you saying when you consider it "justified"? Do you REALLY want to be saying that because your words are true, you can with them blot out somebody else's expression of religion (which is presumably truth for them). We as a society decided long ago NOT to do that -- that we didn't want to be killing each other over whose religious expression was truth and so we would tolerate each other's free exression in that regard. Are you wanting to go down that other road? Are you sure? You are for fundamentalism and imposed religious truth of the most oppressive kind?

That was NOT a "commercial message" being disrupted. And I believet that those who disrupt commercial message billboards do NOT accept the concepts of capitalism and property in the usual sense -- that at least is consistent. What was disrupted here was somebody's religious message -- and however much improved (more truthful, more politcally relevant) you think the new version, implied is that whoever did this does NOT respect the right of people to express their religion. Whatever I might think about religion isn't relevant here (that wasn't MY message).

Let me ask you something -- seriously. If you think this was OK, where do you think the line should be drawn. Would it be OK to paint your political slogans on somebody else's church? How about rearranging some church sign to be more truthful (you know the kind I mean, moveable letters spelling out some religious message changed each week). And it's OK done in reverse?

i think the distinction between personal and commercial speech is not so relevant.

what is most offensive about corporate billboards is not that a corporation owns them or wishes to promote its product. it is the fact that people are subjected to the message without their consent and without compensation of any kind (this contrasts -- for example --with TV commercials, which are baited with lousy programming).

this billbord may be a political religious or personal message, but if i am to be subjected to it against my will, i deserve the right to respond in kind, to engage in debate, if you will.

it is the equivalent of someone driving through my neighborhood with a bullhorn shouting about larouche. and i have every right to go out in the street and shout right back at them.

It seems to me that While there are many of us that make actual religious statements, there are a lot of times when we say the word "God" and don't mean it: "Oh my God, that movie was awesome." The use of the word "God" is no longer indicitive of a religious statement.
This billboard is, to me, another example of the pointless god reference (as well as reverence). "God Bless America" is a slogan, not a prayer, in its present use.

I think an important point thats been overlooked is that the poets were not anti-religion, but rather seemed to request a different reaction and perspective of the god beign invoked. Whats wrong with a different perspective being promoted on a billboard? isn't interpretation and political/religious debate what this country has forgotten?

This was done again today...

If you dont like our country, then leave!!

and our right to free speech, go to Iraq. 'Cause we're not leaving.

if you want free speech make your OWN billboard, do not deface others. Anyone who does that is rude and obnoxious and causes others to immediately disagree with them. You "got away" with nothing.

every darn billboard I've seen defaced. Shows spunk, ingenuity and independence. Oh well maybe not, if you're in love with your corporate masters...