Fact: Sex sells, the billboard is a good example of that fact.

Your comments that it may not be sexual, rather the internal sexual repression of the viewer intreperts it as such, is conjecture.

Fact: No one can prove God exists, or that he does not exist. There are no factual arguments to prove either side of the argument. People often view it as factual proof that God does not exist since they have not seen him. Not seeing something does not dis-prove its existence.

You make my point beuatifully, that people who align themselevs so rigidly to one side of an aqueous position need a wake up call to reality. A citizen reports to the city they are offended by an obviously sexual billboard, and you tirade into an anti-God parade, and campaign to save people from believing, a call for others to attain your state of elightnement.

You should read my posting more closely, I did not take sides, nor profess a belief in God, I just challenged your position and you reacted as if I were taking sides. I do not agree with the caller that the billboard is offensive or should be removed. In fact, I say I even appreciatte such billboards, I believe the company has a right to advertise their service within the boundaries of decency as set by government agencies.

There is also a difference between being offended and entitlement to be offended. The complaint against the billboard indicates the caller is offended, your comments indicate you are entitled to be offended by religous symbols. Sure, we all have entitlement, the real issue is when people are offended and is that offense rationale? If you were to actually say you are offended by religous symbols, rather than being entitled to being offended you would have a stronger argument.

EDITOR NOTE–Please try to stay on topic–the religion debate can go on forever and it just detracts from the issue…the issue wasn’t even billboards until someone called the mayor…billboards are gone. Let’s move on.

Note that in expressing my own opinion, I am careful to apply the same standard of judgement that others have applied in expressing theirs. As such, I am just as entitled to be offended by the public display of religious signs as others are by the public display of things that are offensive to their religion. Again, you judge me by a double-standard.

When will parents wake up to the fact that kids need to be educated about that which surrounds them, rather than pretending those things simply don’t exist? Applying a double-standard any time someone criticizes something you side with is not the answer, nor is it productive. Education grounded on fact (rather than fiction) is the true answer. Even that seems impossible to achieve in this state!

You need a wake up call to reality, so much anger and hate. If God is imaginary, then stop feeling so offended by him, your chasing your own tail and trying to convince everyone else to do the same.

Also, try to look at the billboard before being an expert on it, while I have no problem with the billboard, even appreciatte a little cleavage now and then, there is no doubt it is referring to boobs both as an personality attribute and anatomical feature.

Taking the position that people interpret the billboard as sexual due to their own repressive nature is absoltuely silly. Marketing has proven sexuality to be an extremely effecitve tool, this is a fact and the billboard is a good example.

Of what relevance is the fact that you also found the billboard tasteless and stupid? I find church slogans and religious billboards tasteless (in that they prey upon the weak) and stupid (in that they refer to an all-mighty imaginary diety). Does that mean they should be removed, or that I should petition the city/county for their removal?

The point is… censorship is a slippery slope. If the “two boobs” billboard should be removed because some find it tasteless and stupid (assuming that’s a fair criteria for judging such things), then religious billboards and Sunday sermon slogans should also be removed for the same reason. Tit for tat (I hope no boob takes offense to that double-entendre).

I’m about as left as you can get, a mom with elementary kids, pretty easygoing, predominately atheistic, and I found the billboard tasteless and stupid.

I see this one splitting down party lines – male or female.

Of course the “ivory-soap, wholesome, clean living right wing religious fanatics” have never taken a good look at the reality surrounding them instead of hiding from it and creating their own.

Do you actually expect any different from a group of people who spend time each weekend worshipping an imaginary diety but spend zero time actually doing something directly productive for their fellow man?

Does it come as any surprise to you that these same people who believe values are instilled via some spiritual process are blind to life around them?

What a sad, sad state of affairs we’ve reached… where parents are afraid to teach their children about their bodies, or about the slang words used to refer to their bodily parts. I guess kids just have to find out for themselves, on the school playground or underneath the stairwell, because some parents are still too stuck up to be down-to-earth, even for the sake of their own children.

I suppose these are the same parents that are afraid to discuss drugs with their kids, too. So, as a result, we continue to have drug, alcohol and sexual abuse in our schools. Well, at least at that point the parents can blame it on their kids – “we gave you everything, we did everything right to raise you…” Everything except for taking the blinders off your head so you could see what your kids were being exposed to, and *teach* them about it before it’s too late.

You complain about a radio station morning show billboard ad with the slogan “two boobs in the morning” and describe it as “very belittling for women” among other things.

Perhaps if you didn’t have a dirty mind to begin with, you would not find the ad offensive. When I first read the slogan, I immediately thought of the Three Stooges (who are three boobs, rather than two). I’m sorry to see you getting upset about these things… there are much more serious and pressing problems in Ada County than the possible interpretation of “boobs” as breasts.

After trying empathize with you, I began to wonder why you don’t complain to news organizations when they mention the name “Dick Cheney” – surely that is even more offensive than “two boobs” (and, as luck would have it, one describes the other fairly well).

I sincerely hope that, at some point in life, your children are taught the difference between boobs and boobs… the former referring to their parents and the latter being an anatomical reference.