Because a musical CD contained profanity while labeled by both pictures and words as being for children Wal-Mart has refused to continue to sell it. Thank goodness.

Per the article:

"The CD cover shows four smiling young children surrounded by balloons looking up at the camera. On the back it reads: "Your kids will love these versions of today's biggest hits, reinterpreted especially for them."...

"Wilson said she assumed the children pictured on the CD would be singing, but the voices on the recording belong to adults. At least two of the songs contain profanities and others aren't suitable for children, she said...just the way they referred to women..."

Atheists need to be on the good side of the Wal-Mart decision in oder to not accommodate the desires of many theists to stigmatize us as malign decadent degenerated sociopaths.

Views: 307

Replies to This Discussion

This is the first I have heard of this. Who produced this CD and how could atheists be blamed for it?

Theists will stigmatize non-believers no matter what we do. In their pursuit of world domination, truth and even human decency only gets in the way. Their statements and actions for thousands of years substantiate that.
I can't see anything blaming atheists.  I think the word "profanity"  means more than offensive to believers.  The objecting mother mention the CD's being offensive "to women and such."  Hey, if this is hip-hop/rap, many of the songs are offensive to women, including way out leftie bleeding lib moi!
I didn't mean that Atheists might immediately be blamed for the profane CD. I meant they should not criticize Wal-Mart's decision to pull it. My experience has been that some think children being exposed to profanity is not a bad thing.
I think that the archaic prohibition of swearing in front of children is ... well, archaic; children don't live in Brady Bunch cartoons.  I certainly don't support prohibitions of traditional "foul language."  I suspect Wal-mart, no matter what it does. WM has supported Republican and Tea Party fundamentalist candidates and screwed (scuse me, "fucked") its employees. I don't shop there. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm wondering about the contents/lyrics of the songs of the CD. Many rap/hip hop songs put women down.  I don't care about the swear words ... I care about what the songs are saying.
You have underlined my position that some Atheists think children being exposed to profanity is not a bad thing.
Why would swear words including taking the Lord's name in vain (ha) upset an atheist?  I can think of a myriad of things worse, such as hunger, physical and emotional abuse, ignorance, racism, violence ....
Generally speaking, show me a person who needs to use profanity to communicate and I will show you somebody with a poor vocabulary.

Because it is not necessary to use profanity to communicate doing so usually (not always) is simply for the sake of being ignorant. I fully understand and honor that most parents don't want to raise their children nor have them led by others to be unnecessarily disrespectful.

You ask why an Atheist would be bothered by the unnecessary use of profanity. The answer is that some are Secular Humanists and as such find unnecessary disrespect inconsistent with the development and sustaining of personal dignity.

It may certainly be the case that you are not a Secular Humanist but, very respectfully (and I mean that), given the stated purpose of this group, if you are not a Humanist why are you a member?

People need to have the choice in what to expose their kids to.  I personally cuss like a sailor but I try not to in front of other people's kids.  I try not to day GD in front of others that I know would be offended.  This is clearly a case of mislabeling or misleading.  It would be nice to see exactly what the words and subject matter were, tho.  


Hi Diane:

Atheists come into it because the decision is in the news and, as such, an Atheist might find him or herself in a conversation about it with a theist. In such a conversation if he or she does not support Wal-Mart's decision it would accommodate the stigmatizing of Atheists by theists as amoral or immoral. Out of self-righteousness I believe most theists would like to throw us into one of these categories and influence agnostics to do the same. Because having one of these stigmas assigned to us by the majority would make it more difficult for us to be received without bias and to communicate the many valid positions we have we should not make it easy for anyone to so label us.
I don't stake out my Atheist flag at the beginning of conversations either but most of my friends and acquaintances know I am Atheist in that I do not hide it when the topic of god comes up. I tend to think at least to some extent that their opinions of Atheists in general are affected by their opinions of me. I think that others at least to some extent form opinions of Atheists in general from their opinions of Atheists they know or hear about. This is why I think it is important for Atheists to set a good examples. I certainly do not want to be stereotyped as an immoral monster as that is not the animal I am.
Sadly, not all Atheists are Humanists and, in my honest opinion, even more sadly some of the non-Humanists attempt to infiltrate Humanist groups to undermine Humanist thought.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service