|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2011 : 11:45:44 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | If Christianity weren't #1 at the moment, I might agree. But "ignore it and it'll go away" is a strategy that hasn't worked to eliminate any religious group yet (other than the suicidal ones, like Heaven's Gate). |
It kind of bugs me that you put "ignore it and it'll go away" in quotes in your response to me. I never wrote that, nor do I advocate that strategy. I absolutely, passionately believe that the harmful aspects of religious groups needs to be countered. I just think this particular stunt is rather lame and potentially counter-productive.
| I think they're trying to prevent atrocities. |
I would be quite shocked it that goal is achieved by a small group of non-theists tearing some pages out of the Bible and getting a little press over it.
| It's directing its criticism at every sect that places more than historical value in Mosaic law. Trying to pin down one particular Christian sect is a mistake, anyway. There are over 1,500 of them in the U.S. alone. |
It doesn't have to address one particular sect, but there are plenty of sects that regard the ugliest aspects of the Bible to only have historical value. Do you think censorship is okay? Is it a better solution that facing that which we oppose head on? I HATE book burnings (and by extension, any public demonstration which involves the destruction of books). The very thought of them makes my heart race and my blood curdle. It doesn't matter if the books being burned are great classics in science, history, and literature, or trash. When we destroy books, even symbolically, we advocate forgetting that the words contained within were ever thought, written or uttered.
When I was in 8th grade, my Catholic school teacher found a copy of some romance novel in the Lost and Found. She made a big production of asking the class whose it was. We could all see she was upset about finding the book, which is probably why the owner never came forward. She then gave us some lecture about how horrible the book was because the story included adultery and premarital sex, and then she ripped it up in front of the whole class. I was horrified. Sick to my stomach. And it wasn't because she had destroyed a student's property (although that was bad too). It wasn't because I liked novels like that (I never have.) It was because she destroyed a book. Something in my upbringing (probably having to do with having an English teacher mom and journalist dad) instilled in me that you just don't do that. If a book has a terrible message, we should discuss that, creatively demonstrate against it, and preserve the book so we never forget that those ideas are (or were) part of humanity. Obviously this particular stunt is symbolic. Our record of the Bible is not in danger. But I really don't like or agree with the symbolic implications. My favorite response to the ugliness in the Bible is perhaps the Skeptics Annoted Bible.
| No matter what, it is a stunt, but calling it "lame" when I can't think of any better stunt seems rather harsh. |
There are plenty of better stunts to deal with this sort of thing. Here's one really great one. The author not only did something outrageous and funny, but he managed to get nation-wide attention with a best selling book, articles, and interviews about it. And certainly it helps point out how irrelevant and even dangerous much of the Bible is to today if taken literally.
| If these guys were to do a non-stunt protest, I doubt most of us would have heard of them. While their pro-atheism billboard campaign seem to be getting some local discussion, this will go nationwide. |
I am still quite skeptical that their intended message will wake up anyone who is sleeping on this issue, or that it is totally harmless to the cause of the freethought movement. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/19/2011 11:47:00 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2011 : 11:53:59 [Permalink]
|
I forgot to elaborate on one more thing. My objection that it doesn't criticize specific sects, or rather it doesn't specifically criticize sects of Christianity who advocate applying the Bible today in ways which I agree are totally unethical and harmful. Most Christians today would agree with the atheist protesters on most of the moral and ethical questions being raised. Many, probably most of those Christians are simply ignorant of what the Bible actually says. However, a good number of those Christians, including highly intelligent and educated theologians and clergy, take a modern interpretation of the Bible that excludes a literal interpretation and application of the darker aspects of the Bible.
So by doing this protest the way they are doing it, these atheists are validating the stupid, fundamentalist Christian way of interpreting the Bible, because they are suggesting that a literal interpretation is the only valid one. If a non-literal interpretation is also valid, then there is no reason to rip the pages out. In fact, it is wrong to do so, since they are then historically valuable.
No, any way I look at this it is stupid. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 09/19/2011 : 18:10:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | If Christianity weren't #1 at the moment, I might agree. But "ignore it and it'll go away" is a strategy that hasn't worked to eliminate any religious group yet (other than the suicidal ones, like Heaven's Gate). |
It kind of bugs me that you put "ignore it and it'll go away" in quotes in your response to me. I never wrote that, nor do I advocate that strategy. I absolutely, passionately believe that the harmful aspects of religious groups needs to be countered. I just think this particular stunt is rather lame and potentially counter-productive. |
But your #1 complaint was that this stunt gives Christianity special attention. I don't know how to not do that without ignoring it given the reactions most Christians have to criticisms of their religion.| I think they're trying to prevent atrocities. |
I would be quite shocked it that goal is achieved by a small group of non-theists tearing some pages out of the Bible and getting a little press over it. |
"Trying" was the operative word, there. I'm not going to fault them for their stunt unless it can be shown that it will backfire and get more people calling for the institution of Biblical law.| It doesn't have to address one particular sect, but there are plenty of sects that regard the ugliest aspects of the Bible to only have historical value. |
Then they shouldn't be offended by the stunt.| Do you think censorship is okay? Is it a better solution that facing that which we oppose head on? I HATE book burnings (and by extension, any public demonstration which involves the destruction of books). The very thought of them makes my heart race and my blood curdle. It doesn't matter if the books being burned are great classics in science, history, and literature, or trash. When we destroy books, even symbolically, we advocate forgetting that the words contained within were ever thought, written or uttered. |
I think this is an over-reaction to what's being done, but see below.| It was because she destroyed a book. Something in my upbringing (probably having to do with having an English teacher mom and journalist dad) instilled in me that you just don't do that. If a book has a terrible message, we should discuss that, creatively demonstrate against it, and preserve the book so we never forget that those ideas are (or were) part of humanity. Obviously this particular stunt is symbolic. Our record of the Bible is not in danger. But I really don't like or agree with the symbolic implications. |
Some of us here dealt with this same subject a bunch of months ago. My take is that in this day-and-age, books and the ideas within them are in no danger whatsoever. I understand the visceral reaction (and used to share it) but don't agree with it any longer not only because books are electronically preserved, but because book-burning (and other destruction) is a form of expression itself which must be tolerated as much as the books themselves. While reading is important and the preservation and transmission of ideas is vital, physical books no longer deserve their near holy-relic status.
The comedian Daniel Tosh recently held a book-burning, during which he "burned" 1,500 books by setting a Kindle on fire. I don't think he named any of the books, so it was completely pointless, but that describes most of his comedy.That's a good one, but it doesn't often make the news.| There are plenty of better stunts to deal with this sort of thing. Here's one really great one. The author not only did something outrageous and funny, but he managed to get nation-wide attention with a best selling book, articles, and interviews about it. And certainly it helps point out how irrelevant and even dangerous much of the Bible is to today if taken literally. |
I heard an interview with Jacobs on NPR during that year. Unfortunately, he didn't follow the Bible literally (which would have put him in jail almost immediately). And his stated intent at the time was just to live per Mosaic law for a year. I didn't hear anything more than that in the interview, and it was all passed off as a joke without any anti-Bible slant to it at all.| I am still quite skeptical that their intended message will wake up anyone who is sleeping on this issue, or that it is totally harmless to the cause of the freethought movement. |
Well, they're getting coverage in papers not focused on the atheist or freethought movements, so there's at least a chance it'll wake up someone. And even if everyone views it as a lame stunt, that's pretty much the status quo view of atheism these days. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2011 : 10:56:48 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | But your #1 complaint was that this stunt gives Christianity special attention. I don't know how to not do that without ignoring it given the reactions most Christians have to criticisms of their religion. |
I don't consider Christianity to be uniform enough to be lumped into one big category for ethical criticism. I don't have a problem with Christians. I have a problem with certain Christian groups. I think the responses and criticisms should be specifically targeting those groups.
| I'm not going to fault them for their stunt unless it can be shown that it will backfire and get more people calling for the institution of Biblical law. |
Oh, I don't think it encourages anyone who call for the institution of Biblical law. I think it makes atheists looks bad. That is what I meant by back-firing. I think our Christian allies look at this sort of thing and think, "WTF? We don't use the Bible that way. What a bunch of assholes." And our Christian enemies look at it and think, "See, atheists really are just motivated by hatred of God and Christianity."
| Then they shouldn't be offended by the stunt. |
If I were them I'd be annoyed by this stunt because, as I said before, it implies that a literal Biblical interpretation is the proper religious interpretation.
| My take is that in this day-and-age, books and the ideas within them are in no danger whatsoever. I understand the visceral reaction (and used to share it) but don't agree with it any longer not only because books are electronically preserved, but because book-burning (and other destruction) is a form of expression itself which must be tolerated as much as the books themselves. While reading is important and the preservation and transmission of ideas is vital, physical books no longer deserve their near holy-relic status. |
Point taken, and I hope you know that I would never advocate outlawing book burning unless the books were being permanently destroys, which indeed they are not. However, isn't the associated symbolic meaning still bad?
| That's a good one, but it doesn't often make the news. |
And again, I think it is bad that this reaches the news since I don't think most people will read into it enough to get the intention of the Bible-rippers. I have said what I think the majority reaction will be, and if I'm right, it does not further the intended cause and has the potential to hurt the atheist community.
| I heard an interview with Jacobs on NPR during that year. Unfortunately, he didn't follow the Bible literally (which would have put him in jail almost immediately). And his stated intent at the time was just to live per Mosaic law for a year. I didn't hear anything more than that in the interview, and it was all passed off as a joke without any anti-Bible slant to it at all. |
Oh give me a break. I heard the NPR interview too. He mentioned how to abide by certain parts he would do things like toss a pebble at someone because obviously he couldn't actually stone them. The fact that he couldn't follow the Bible literally because it would have gotten his ass thrown in jail helps make the point! And one thing that is so great about his stunt is that instead of generally criticizing (or ripping up) the Bible as if the ugly parts should be discarded, he specifically ends up making fun of the idea that the Bible can be taken literally, and many fundamentalists claim it can. It is clear to anyone that the motivation behind the stunt is to stir up thought and discussion of the various Biblical interpretations made by different groups of Christians today.
| Well, they're getting coverage in papers not focused on the atheist or freethought movements, so there's at least a chance it'll wake up someone. And even if everyone views it as a lame stunt, that's pretty much the status quo view of atheism these days. |
So guess you are in the camp of any attention is good attention? Because frankly, when I see Jon Stewart making fun of the community that I identify with (such as he did over the comments from David Silverman and other atheists protesting the cross memorial at ground zero), I feel a little ashamed, worried that our community/movement is perhaps getting too isolated and turning into an echo chamber, and I begin to be convinced that we're going about things in the wrong way. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/20/2011 10:59:36 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2011 : 13:37:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Oh, I don't think it encourages anyone who call for the institution of Biblical law. I think it makes atheists looks bad. That is what I meant by back-firing. I think our Christian allies look at this sort of thing and think, "WTF? We don't use the Bible that way. What a bunch of assholes." |
I would think that those particular Christians would agree that the old Mosaic law is immoral by today's standards. I don't see this group saying, "anyone who uses the Bible must abide by these horrible rules."| And our Christian enemies look at it and think, "See, atheists really are just motivated by hatred of God and Christianity." |
As I pointed out before, they already think that. This isn't going to change anything for those people, so it can't be a back-fire in that regard.| Then they shouldn't be offended by the stunt. |
If I were them I'd be annoyed by this stunt because, as I said before, it implies that a literal Biblical interpretation is the proper religious interpretation. |
No, it doesn't. It acknowledges that there are lots of people who think that Mosaic law (or at least parts of it) is moral. They need to cherry-pick (say, just the Top Ten) to get along in this day-and-age, and so this exercise in editing the Bible seems appropriate to me.| However, isn't the associated symbolic meaning still bad? |
Only if burning anything in protest is bad. Would burning a Hummer in protest of Detroit's promotion of gas-guzzlers also be symbolically bad?
I think I'd draw the line at burning effigies of real-live people, since I think it may be too close to incitement of violence. But that's just me. I wouldn't act to prohibit effigy burning in general just because I'd be unwilling to take that risk at any protest or rally that I might organize.| Oh give me a break. I heard the NPR interview too. He mentioned how to abide by certain parts he would do things like toss a pebble at someone because obviously he couldn't actually stone them. The fact that he couldn't follow the Bible literally because it would have gotten his ass thrown in jail helps make the point! |
No, it means he chose to not kill people like the OT says to. Our secular laws couldn't prevent him from stoning anyone, they only provide a punishment if he does. And really, in the interview I heard, he actually asked a person if it was okay if he "stoned" them with a pebble. I must have missed the Commandment about asking permission first before carrying out God's Will.| And one thing that is so great about his stunt is that instead of generally criticizing (or ripping up) the Bible as if the ugly parts should be discarded, he specifically ends up making fun of the idea that the Bible can be taken literally... |
As I said, I didn't get the idea from the NPR interview that what Jacobs was doing was more than mere comedy.| ...and many fundamentalists claim it can. |
Those same fundamentalists claim that reading the New Testament literally shows that Jesus' sacrifice fulfilled the OT laws, so they don't apply any longer.
Of course, Jacobs is Jewish, and while I don't know of any Jews who take the OT literally (they pretty much all consider Genesis to be metaphorical, for example), I do know that there are plenty of ultra-orthodox Jews who do, indeed, try to live by Mosaic law, up to and including violence against law-breakers.| It is clear to anyone that the motivation behind the stunt is to stir up thought and discussion of the various Biblical interpretations made by different groups of Christians today. |
As I said, I didn't get that. But all that I heard was that one interview. I haven't read the book. Chalk this one up to ignorance, I suppose.| So guess you are in the camp of any attention is good attention? |
Not hardly. I would not hesitate to criticize an atheist stunt which relies upon breaking the law (say, a group that calls itself the Antigideons that goes around stealing Bibles).| Because frankly, when I see Jon Stewart making fun of the community that I identify with (such as he did over the comments from David Silverman and other atheists protesting the cross memorial at ground zero), I feel a little ashamed, worried that our community/movement is perhaps getting too isolated and turning into an echo chamber, and I begin to be convinced that we're going about things in the wrong way. |
I've seen a lot of criticism within the atheist movement about the Ground Zero cross lawsuit. I also remember hearing atheists describe the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit as stupid and lame even before the issue of standing came up, back when it looked like it actually had a chance of being a winner. With a community as large as ours, there's no chance of getting everyone on the same page. Jon Stewart could probably have a field day with a nutcase like Officiant. It's impossible to police against those who self-identify with a cause for all the wrong reasons. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2011 : 20:25:58 [Permalink]
|
Dave: I would think that those particular Christians would agree that the old Mosaic law is immoral by today's standards. I don't see this group saying, "anyone who uses the Bible must abide by these horrible rules."
...
No, it doesn't. It acknowledges that there are lots of people who think that Mosaic law (or at least parts of it) is moral. They need to cherry-pick (say, just the Top Ten) to get along in this day-and-age, and so this exercise in editing the Bible seems appropriate to me. |
The stuff in the Bible that is immoral by today's standards is still significant. It is moral if you are a moral relativist interested in the historical context that it came out of. This stunt is a superficial treatment of a complex and serious subject.
| As I pointed out before, they already think that. This isn't going to change anything for those people, so it can't be a back-fire in that regard. |
Re-enforcement that comes directly from the atheist community doesn't even have the potential to make things worse?
| Only if burning anything in protest is bad. Would burning a Hummer in protest of Detroit's promotion of gas-guzzlers also be symbolically bad? |
That seems like a false comparison to me. Book burning has a particular symbolic meaning associated with censorship. This stunt is only slightly better in that they aren't burning the pages, they are simply ripping them out. But the act is similar enough to book burning that I think the symbolic association still resonates.
| No, it means he chose to not kill people like the OT says to. Our secular laws couldn't prevent him from stoning anyone, they only provide a punishment if he does. And really, in the interview I heard, he actually asked a person if it was okay if he "stoned" them with a pebble. I must have missed the Commandment about asking permission first before carrying out God's Will. |
Again, that he even felt compelled to ask permission only further demonstrates how irrelevant a literal interpreation of the Bible is to today's morality and cultural norms.
As I said, I didn't get the idea from the NPR interview that what Jacobs was doing was more than mere comedy. |
It's the Bible - the holy book of the dominant religion in America and the book which is claimed to be the basis for one of the most powerful, conservative movements in the United States. This stunt can't help but make some commentary and inspire a lot of critical discussion. The author just did a fantastic job of being non-offensive and amusing.
| Those same fundamentalists claim that reading the New Testament literally shows that Jesus' sacrifice fulfilled the OT laws, so they don't apply any longer. |
All the more reason why ripping out those pages is a lame stunt. What are these atheists showing? That they disagree with slavery and unprovoked violence, and sexism, just like 99.9% of everybody else in modern society? Whoop-de-do. You know, maybe that's the biggest problem with this protest; it just makes the atheists look like idiots. Yeah, no shit almost none of the ethical norms from ancient Jewish culture apply anymore. At least the conservative Christians deal with the OT texts through interpretation. The atheists just rip it out and throw it away. Gee, that's intellectual! That's mature!
| I do know that there are plenty of ultra-orthodox Jews who do, indeed, try to live by Mosaic law, up to and including violence against law-breakers. |
And you think this stunt actually shines a critical light on such communities? Do you honestly think this stunt and the publicity it receives will inspire anyone to suddenly become aware of such communities and start fighting against them?
| I would not hesitate to criticize an atheist stunt which relies upon breaking the law (say, a group that calls itself the Antigideons that goes around stealing Bibles). |
I apologize if I implied that you would support such a thing. I didn't mean to suggest that.
| I've seen a lot of criticism within the atheist movement about the Ground Zero cross lawsuit. I also remember hearing atheists describe the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit as stupid and lame even before the issue of standing came up, back when it looked like it actually had a chance of being a winner. With a community as large as ours, there's no chance of getting everyone on the same page. Jon Stewart could probably have a field day with a nutcase like Officiant. It's impossible to police against those who self-identify with a cause for all the wrong reasons. |
Fair enough. But I know David Silverman, and he's no Officiant. In addition to being a smart, charismatic, and generally good guy, he's a major spokesperson for the Atheist movement. I wouldn't be worried if the Daily Show was making fun of some lone nutjob atheists, but when it is a PR spokesperson for American Atheists I start to feel concerned. Not trying to make too much of this. We might be getting into the arena of splitting hairs. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2011 : 22:00:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
This stunt is a superficial treatment of a complex and serious subject.
...
All the more reason why ripping out those pages is a lame stunt. What are these atheists showing? That they disagree with slavery and unprovoked violence, and sexism, just like 99.9% of everybody else in modern society? Whoop-de-do. You know, maybe that's the biggest problem with this protest; it just makes the atheists look like idiots. Yeah, no shit almost none of the ethical norms from ancient Jewish culture apply anymore. At least the conservative Christians deal with the OT texts through interpretation. The atheists just rip it out and throw it away. Gee, that's intellectual! That's mature! |
Well, marf, I was unaware that protests needed to be sophisticated, deep or about widely unknown issues. What did any of the civil rights marches show on their face? That some people agreed about some issue and could perambulate. Why should anyone have given a damn?
How many marches on Washington, D.C., have been done on weekends, despite the target audience for those protests often being out of town those days?
It is my opinion that public protests are generally silly when viewed under such a lens, but in reality serve as indispensable starting points for a conversation in which the sophistication and nuance can be traversed. Just like reporters ask, "what are you marching for?" I imagine that the best case scenario for the Bible-redacting protest would go something like this:Reporter: What are you tearing up the Bible for?
Protester: To bring awareness of the immorality in the Old Testament.
Reporter: Is that something of which we need to be aware?
Protester: Yes, given that there are people who seek to replace the U.S. government with a Judaic theocracy.
Reporter: There are?!
Protester: Absolutely. Let me tell you about the deceptively named "Constitution Party"... In other words, marf, I think that most of that 99.9% of yours is unaware of what the other 0.1% are trying to do and how well-funded they are, and that doing something you would call "lame" to get attention is what protesting has been about for ages.
| I do know that there are plenty of ultra-orthodox Jews who do, indeed, try to live by Mosaic law, up to and including violence against law-breakers. |
And you think this stunt actually shines a critical light on such communities? Do you honestly think this stunt and the publicity it receives will inspire anyone to suddenly become aware of such communities and start fighting against them? |
No, I was referring to Jacobs' stunt, there. Did the Year of Living Biblically shine any light on the problem posed by violent, Pentateuch-thumping Jews? As I noted, if he was trying to live by OT laws, then he wasn't shining any light on literalist Christians at all.| I would not hesitate to criticize an atheist stunt which relies upon breaking the law (say, a group that calls itself the Antigideons that goes around stealing Bibles). |
I apologize if I implied that you would support such a thing. I didn't mean to suggest that. |
Nononono. It was just an easy example of how I don't think that all publicity is good publicity. I guess I should have made it more over-the-top, like a guy on a street corner shouting "watch me eat this live human baby... for atheism!"
No, the truth is I've got a really low bar set for what constitutes acceptable protests. Most of them look, to me, to be what you seem to consider "stupid and lame," but a lot of them appear to get something done, so I won't criticize them. If stupid and lame is what it takes to get a regular person to turn into an activist, even for a weekend, I'm all for it.
In still other terms, if within a protest context, a protest is considered "stupid and lame," then from what I know, it has to be pretty fucking horrendous. The Bible Rippers, however, seem fairly run-of-the-mill to me.| Fair enough. But I know David Silverman, and he's no Officiant. In addition to being a smart, charismatic, and generally good guy, he's a major spokesperson for the Atheist movement. I wouldn't be worried if the Daily Show was making fun of some lone nutjob atheists, but when it is a PR spokesperson for American Atheists I start to feel concerned. Not trying to make too much of this. We might be getting into the arena of splitting hairs. |
The funny thing is, I'd never heard of David Silverman before you mentioned him in your previous comment. Heck, every time the group "American Atheists" is mentioned (here and elsewhere), I have to Google them because I can't remember their web site's URL and I've never thought to bookmark them. If they are on the forefront of the atheist movement, then I must be following some other movement.
So American Atheists and Backyard Skeptics are on nearly the same publicity footing, as far as I'm concerned. While I'd heard of the former prior to pleco's OP for this thread, I don't follow their activities or otherwise pay much attention to them, just like with the Backyard Skeptics.
Actually, I think the most I ever looked into American Atheists was when Dennis Markuze (of all people) decided that AA's turmoil with their president a few years back was a huge black eye for atheism overall. I went searching for a basis for that nutty claim, and found nothing but the standard internal politics that come with any organization of a certain size, got bored and didn't read more from them.
Until recently, when Officiant cited an American Atheist article in support of his nutty claims. Reading the article showed that it said the exact opposite of what Officiant says it does. This is a huge black eye for him (even though he denies it), and doesn't make me feel like visiting AA's site more or less often than I did before.
Wait... What were we talking about? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 06:34:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by marfknox
This stunt is a superficial treatment of a complex and serious subject.
...
All the more reason why ripping out those pages is a lame stunt. What are these atheists showing? That they disagree with slavery and unprovoked violence, and sexism, just like 99.9% of everybody else in modern society? Whoop-de-do. You know, maybe that's the biggest problem with this protest; it just makes the atheists look like idiots. Yeah, no shit almost none of the ethical norms from ancient Jewish culture apply anymore. At least the conservative Christians deal with the OT texts through interpretation. The atheists just rip it out and throw it away. Gee, that's intellectual! That's mature! |
Well, marf, I was unaware that protests needed to be sophisticated, deep or about widely unknown issues. What did any of the civil rights marches show on their face? That some people agreed about some issue and could perambulate. Why should anyone have given a damn?
How many marches on Washington, D.C., have been done on weekends, despite the target audience for those protests often being out of town those days?
It is my opinion that public protests are generally silly when viewed under such a lens, but in reality serve as indispensable starting points for a conversation in which the sophistication and nuance can be traversed. Just like reporters ask, "what are you marching for?" I imagine that the best case scenario for the Bible-redacting protest would go something like this:Reporter: What are you tearing up the Bible for?
Protester: To bring awareness of the immorality in the Old Testament.
Reporter: Is that something of which we need to be aware?
Protester: Yes, given that there are people who seek to replace the U.S. government with a Judaic theocracy.
Reporter: There are?!
Protester: Absolutely. Let me tell you about the deceptively named "Constitution Party"... In other words, marf, I think that most of that 99.9% of yours is unaware of what the other 0.1% are trying to do and how well-funded they are, and that doing something you would call "lame" to get attention is what protesting has been about for ages. |
I gree that this is what would be best. I also see this as a valid form of protest. It is provocative to a point but not provocative in order to elicit a response from the opponent.
Unfortunately, I have seen the media focus on the battiest person in the group instead of the normal protesters. I would fear that they would find an Officiant and the protest's message would get garbled.
| I do know that there are plenty of ultra-orthodox Jews who do, indeed, try to live by Mosaic law, up to and including violence against law-breakers. |
And you think this stunt actually shines a critical light on such communities? Do you honestly think this stunt and the publicity it receives will inspire anyone to suddenly become aware of such communities and start fighting against them? |
No, I was referring to Jacobs' stunt, there. Did the Year of Living Biblically shine any light on the problem posed by violent, Pentateuch-thumping Jews? As I noted, if he was trying to live by OT laws, then he wasn't shining any light on literalist Christians at all.| I would not hesitate to criticize an atheist stunt which relies upon breaking the law (say, a group that calls itself the Antigideons that goes around stealing Bibles). |
I apologize if I implied that you would support such a thing. I didn't mean to suggest that. |
Nononono. It was just an easy example of how I don't think that all publicity is good publicity. I guess I should have made it more over-the-top, like a guy on a street corner shouting "watch me eat this live human baby... for atheism!"
No, the truth is I've got a really low bar set for what constitutes acceptable protests. Most of them look, to me, to be what you seem to consider "stupid and lame," but a lot of them appear to get something done, so I won't criticize them. If stupid and lame is what it takes to get a regular person to turn into an activist, even for a weekend, I'm all for it. |
Sometimes stupid and lame gets the job done. The Stewart/Colbert protest on the capitol lawn was quite effective in getting its message out. It mocked the fearmongering protests very well and showed them to be invented rage. Satire can be an effective protest tool.
In still other terms, if within a protest context, a protest is considered "stupid and lame," then from what I know, it has to be pretty fucking horrendous. The Bible Rippers, however, seem fairly run-of-the-mill to me.| Fair enough. But I know David Silverman, and he's no Officiant. In addition to being a smart, charismatic, and generally good guy, he's a major spokesperson for the Atheist movement. I wouldn't be worried if the Daily Show was making fun of some lone nutjob atheists, but when it is a PR spokesperson for American Atheists I start to feel concerned. Not trying to make too much of this. We might be getting into the arena of splitting hairs. |
The funny thing is, I'd never heard of David Silverman before you mentioned him in your previous comment. Heck, every time the group "American Atheists" is mentioned (here and elsewhere), I have to Google them because I can't remember their web site's URL and I've never thought to bookmark them. If they are on the forefront of the atheist movement, then I must be following some other movement. |
Silverman I haven't heard about. Out here, Rob Sherman takes all the heat. He is well spoken and opposes violations of church and state. He brought suit against the moment of silence as it was written (which was religious in nature) and has complained about the Effingham cross getting funds for restoration.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 11:01:03 [Permalink]
|
Jerry Coyne comments on a rabbi's overblown and dishonest caricaturization of the event. Encouragingly, the commentators on the rabbi's article seem to understand the point of the demonstration better than he did.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/21/2011 11:05:04 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 11:19:20 [Permalink]
|
Dave, you are probably right that the Bible ripping is pretty run of the mill as far as these kinds of protests go. Perhaps I was initially over-reacting, partially because of the relatively recent Koran burning by Christian protesters. I still am totally unconvinced that this sort of protest does any good or really helps get more people aware of things like the Constitution Party, but hell, maybe I'm wrong and it does. I certainly won't be participating in any Bible ripping protests, but if others think it is a good idea, have at. It's a free country.
I have mixed feelings about your lack of awareness about American Atheists. One one hand, it rather saddens me since that organization really has done so much for secularism in America. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was its founder - certainly she was a highly visible figure. They publish a magazine, publish books, and probably most importantly, they fight legal battles for church-state separation, and they often win. And they've been a part of many coalition with other major national players in the American freethought scene. How they've fallen under your radar is beyond me. That said, they are definitely of the more aggressive type of Atheist (they insist on it's capitalization, and were the first to do so). They were doing the "New Atheist" approach long before it was popularized by Dawkins and Harris, and I have a lot of personal quibbles with that approach. Most irritating to me, AA's leaders have at times called "agnosticism" and "humanism" cowardly euphemisms for atheism, and slammed those of us who prefer those labels, so they often tend to attract a less subtle and intellectual membership. But they still on there on the front lines fighting vigorously for a secular America, and for that I feel they should be acknowledged. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/21/2011 11:19:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 11:26:48 [Permalink]
|
I hadn't seen the video (thanks, H., for linking to Coyne). One actual Bible page got torn. The rest were photocopies.Originally posted by H. Humbert
Encouragingly, the commentators on the rabbi's article seem to understand the point of the demonstration better than he did. |
Is it just me, or are all of the comments missing? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 11:28:00 [Permalink]
|
As a side note, I have a David Silverman story. He's sort of local and friends with my Humanist group's VP, so we invite him to our annual HumanLight parties. One year he attended with his family, we happened to have a reporter from NPR covering our event for a little human interest report on HumanLight. John Lennon's "Imagine" is a sort of Humanist anthem, and we sing it every year. During the singing, David Silverman shouted out the lyrics "Imagine no religion!" while singing the rest at a normal volume.
Thankfully, while the NPR story did have a soundbite of us singing "Imagine" in the report, it was not the part where David did that. But boy, was it a very American Atheist thing to do; It's not enough to criticize religion, that criticism has to be the main friggin' course. *sigh* |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 13:19:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Is it just me, or are all of the comments missing?
|
I can see them fine. Do you have some sort of ad blocker that may be hiding the comment panel?
In Coyne's thread, I thought one poster had a pretty good rebuttal for those claiming that true intellectuals and freethinkers don't go around defacing holy texts: Jefferson's Bible.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/21/2011 18:54:17 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 23:18:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
And tearing pages out of the bible signifies what? Atheists don't like the bible... Okay. Like that's a big secret. |
They're tearing pages out of Deuterotomy. The verses that advocate stoning sodomites and forcing raped girls to marry their rapists. That sort of thing. The dominionists and reconstructionists actually want those old Mosaic laws implemented in the United States, and both groups are getting more and more attention as time goes on.
|
That sounds more like a boogeyman, I'm fairly sure that's not at all a popular view. (see "they want sharia in America!" argument) |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2011 : 05:07:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
That sounds more like a boogeyman, I'm fairly sure that's not at all a popular view. (see "they want sharia in America!" argument) |
No, it's not popular, but it is well-funded and growing. The people who complain about creeping Sharia can only point to a vague "they" as driving the "problem," but Christian Nationalists have well-defined groups, named leaders and published strategies. Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry are, if not card-carrying members, at least very friendly with some of the big-shots in the movement. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Atheist group to rip Bible pages
