Comment 15 by reebus

But I think I like Richard Dawkins idea the best, ask a specific question:

No, they are not the best. And the current approach does not provide a benefit or clearly and quickly address the problem.

You examples are designed to convert or mock they are not developed to clarify the problem. The problem is people don't realize that just because they culturally identify with a specific religion doesn't mean they are religious and that it is important to make a distinction between being culturally religious and believing in god.

My example above in comment 14 http://i51.tinypic.com/jpznvb.jpg demonstrates targeting the issue and not mocking or trying to convert the religious. We are not trying to determine if people believe priests have the right to rape children or not. We are educating people that being a cultural Christian or other religion is damaging to a secular society when you don't actually follow that religion.

The benefit of ticking NO RELIGION isn't that we will no longer have to endure visits from the Pope but that we will not have a religious country dedicated to giving the religious what they want when the majority of us are secular no practicing individuals.

Printed material that goes on walls has to make a quick impression or else you make no impression at all. Cut the long winded crap, cut the mocking, cut the converting. Just get to the point and provide a single benefit. People can only absorb one message at a time, so make it count.