mmurray, this morning, after sleeping on it, I saw a point you made in your post #451493 (back on page 2). This morning when I looked at the NBGA page again, yes, I agree, that one sentence did jar me a bit. And I like the way you worded your point precisely, “But doesn’t this claim . . . make you feel just a little uncomfortable?”

So today I looked at my feelings to see why I felt that way. As I see it, the first thing is the disaster. The second thing is responding with money for aid. The third thing is the co-location of aid with a banner of Non-Belief, and I think we can agree that seems fine that so far. But that one sentence you highlighted does argue in the negative against a scandalous myth. And I would agree if you say that sticks out -- is the point really to argue in the negative against a negative perception? If the banner was Darn the Canard, that would feel twisted. That might introduce a fourth thing that would muddy the waters.

I see NBGA as an opportunity to give aid while also standing up and being counted in the positive. I also see the USA Today post by Cathy Lynn Grossman as totally positive (and the negative comments on their site are inevitable, no matter how the words are played). Sometimes I see “Atheist Public Relations” as a Monty Python sketch akin to “Dirty Fork Sketch”. If Richard says one thing “wrong” there’s hell toupée.

Oh, man, this thread went from 2 to 4 pages while I wasn’t looking. I'm out of here!