Billboards Brusquely Bashed Or Blocked

http://atheists.org/blog/2012/03/01/billboard_to_challenge_year_of_the_bible

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/07/atheist-billboard-gets-bumped/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-billboard-to-protest-pennsylvanias-year-of-the-bible-70724/

http://www.wgal.com/news/30624435/detail.html

In the past two weeks, two atheist groups, American Atheists and the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, have put up three billboards, one of which seems to be fine, another which has been moved to a nearby area because of a refusal to allow it to be put up by a local Jew, and the last which was vandalized not 24 hours after it had been displayed. Already my mind returns to the American Atheists’ patriotic signs which were run in a small segment of thestates they had planned to spread their message last July . While that went somewhat better than this recent series of outreaches to Jews and Muslims along with protests against legislation of 2012 as the “Year of the Bible” in Pennsylvania, the opposition to it is not so different, though the defaced billboard was a bit more charged with emotion than the one reaching out to many Jews who hold the culture as important, but internally reject the spiritual side of it. Each one of these billboards should be talked about in some detail to explain the circumstances and why atheists should continue to fight back against prejudice that still remains acceptable in this day and age.

The message and image that held the most controversy was in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with the first in a prepared series of signs that protested the House of Representatives in the state signing a bill that would declare 2012 the “Year of the Bible”. The sign has a picture of a black person in what I can only assume is some ancient device to keep them in bondage. At the top of the billboard is a quote from the bible, specifically Colossians 3:22 “Slaves obey your masters,” Technically this isn’t what the entire verse says. A quick check of a few online bibles yields this as the full text, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord,” The point seems the same; obey your masters all the time and do it because you love God. Apologists for the verse say that Paul, the author of the particular book of the Bible, was talking to a particular group and was not referring to slavery as we understand it today, but something more involved with military conquest. And of course, there is the argument that true Christianity wouldn’t advocate slavery, even though we have historical evidence that devout Christian slave-owners used this verse, among others, to justify their practice for centuries in America. But this is irrelevant and fallacious to the point the verse is establishing: if you are a slave, don’t seek liberation in the physical world, but wait to be liberated by God as you are obedient to it. This is a message of passivity, in contrast to what developed later on in America with black slaves in relation to the Bible. They saw it as a message of liberation and this even inspired people like Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth to work towards freeing slaves and advocacy of abolishing slavery in this country. But the billboard also had this included to make the point clear about what the message was: “This lesson in Bronze age ethics brought to you by the Year of the Bible and the House of Representatives” Part of what probably inspired people’s indignation at the sign was that it had three parts to it, two of which were easily recognizable and legible even when driving. The third part, the last I mentioned, might have been neglected by many passerby in favor of the image or the quotation of the Bible they most likely hold in high regard. Some people even went so far as to call the billboard a hate crime, which is so painfully ignorant it almost induces a headache. Most of what made this billboard such a controversy is because it was set up in a black neighborhood and, predictably, most of the populace in the area reacted negatively and made this about racial persecution instead of what the billboard was supposed to be about: racism in a supposed holy text. Even if the image was toned down in some way, people might object that the verse wasn’t complete or that the message was still racist, not even realizing that the creators of the sign opposed racism as much as those who reacted with immediate anger at something that admittedly struck them at their core in a sense. But this should not motivate people to commit property damage to make their point. As a local constitutional scholar observed, they could’ve funded a billboard of their own for a month, which is how long the Pennsylvania billboard was supposed to last. This act is just another example of how hypersensitive an issue race still is in our culture, even nearly 50 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. People will immediately leap to irrational conclusions after incomplete observations of a situation like this and perpetrate the stereotype that black people are always looking for insults to their character, which is partly a stereotype of Jewish people as well, ironically.

The second billboard to have an issue involving it, though not nearly as serious as the first, was in a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn. American Atheist president David Silverman was there to see it erected, but it didn’t. The cause? The Orthodox Jewish landlord refused, which was admittedly his right. But was it justified? I don’t think so. But coincidentally, the billboard was moved to an area with even more visibility and still relatively near the Jewish demographic the sign is directed towards. The sign in question has the word “God” in Hebrew as well as the phrase “You know it’s a myth…and you have a choice” in both English and Hebrew. At the very least, the Muslim community, including an imam in the area, had no problem with the sign in their area, with the same words and message in Arabic. This would no doubt surprise many alarmists about Muslims trying to infiltrate America in some insidious way. Overall, the development is a sign that atheists are making some headway in being respected by parts of the religious community.

But there is something to be said about one billboard being vandalized and another one subtly protested and then ironically making itself more well known. If people would just ignore atheists, then they wouldn’t get such good publicity, so in a sense, even negative attention is welcome if only to get the activism noticed and recognized by the public at large. So in the grand scheme of things, American Atheists and Pennsylvania Nonbelievers got the message across, even if many found it offensive, which is inevitable no matter how simple the message is. Even if you simply try to communicate that atheists believe murder is bad, someone will spin it in a way that makes them seem better or makes atheists seem bad by comparison, such as associating us with Joseph Stalin, as if we’re the same as a power mad dictator. The plan is still to do at least 8 to 24 more billboards, likely in other areas in the coming months, protesting the Year of the Bible. If people realized that the Bible is not such a perfect text at all then maybe they’d realize how wasteful it is to declare this year special and give it the ignominious mark of being associated with such a book of twisted morality as the Bible. Not to mention, shouldn’t you want to keep your holy text sacred and not denigrate it by using it as a political tool? Two strikes against this on both sides, methinks it should be supported by both sides too. Until next time, Namaste and aloha

Atheism, Architecture and Adoration

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/atheists-temple_n_1231848.html?ref=religion

http://www.dezeen.com/2012/01/25/alain-de-botton-plans-temples-for-atheists/

http://artinfo.com/news/story/757687/author-alain-de-botton-plans-to-build-temples-for-godless-londoners

I’ve never spoken much about atheism as anything religious, since it certainly isn’t a religion. But this isn’t to say there isn’t a religious quality to atheism in the same way there is for theism, both being a position on the existence of something supernatural. A London author, Alain de Botton, who wrote “Religion for Atheists” suggests that atheists should be able to utilize things that the religious use for other purposes that are spiritual, but nonetheless secular. This is similar in a sense to a position of Andre Comte Sponville, who wrote “The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality,” wherein he claims that atheism can have a spiritual aspect to it in understanding the spiritual to be something we all experience as beings that are able to make judgments and interpretations about the world around us. Botton takes it a step further and affirms that atheism should be able to make a temple in the nominal sense, to represent and give presence to an ideal, such as perspective. Historians of atheism and France might bristle a bit at this idea, since there was something like a religion of reason in France back in the late 18th century. Called the Cult of Reason, it was intended to replace Christianity, but within 2 years of its existence, it was thoroughly repudiated and they were executed, presumably for blasphemy or treason. Botton doesn’t appear to want to create a temple for an atheistic religion, but simply for values that atheists hold dear, almost sacred to the extent that you would want a building to make it very clear. I’m not entirely in support of this, if only for public relations issues, but considering the French context, there is some possible reasoning behind this and something for atheists across the world to consider about what they can utilize from religion in order to make themselves more noticed in the world at large, beyond writings and people.

The main basis of Botton’s plan at the moment is to build a series of so called “temples” in the United Kingdom. Not temples in the sense of worshipping anything, but a place of contemplation. Ironically, this is somewhat the intent of Buddhist temples, contrary to our initial ideas of idolatry or such involving the statues of Buddha that are usually quite prominent. It is not Buddha that Buddhists worship, but Buddha is a prominent figure and an exemplar in the tradition that all adherents aspire to be like. Inside the atheist temple is still a mystery, but the overall design on the outside is supposed to represent the age of the earth, 46 meters tall, each meter symbolizing a million years. The virtue embodied in this structure is that of perspective, something Buddhists have a parallel of sorts with mindfulness. If you do not realize that humans have been on earth for a minute fraction of the time we have evidence of the planet sustaining life for, let alone its physical existence which goes back over a billion years, then perhaps you are focused too much on human achievements without conceding that we are still a young phenomenon in the grand scheme of nature and the universe. This is not to deny the importance of humanity. If humanism is in any sense a result of atheism, then it necessarily follows that we should recognize humanity as something intrinsically valuable, even sacred in a metaphorical sense.

Religious architecture is something many atheists, especially British born ones, such as the late Christopher Hitchens, can appreciate even if they disagree with the sentiments and beliefs that inspired their design. Atheists don’t have to sit by and do nothing; they can build monuments to ideals that all religions and philosophies can find value and agreement on, perspective being one of them. Humanity could be another one in the future. This plan of building atheist “temples” might go differently in America, possibly because of how building permits and taxes are associated with structures designed for worship as opposed to those sponsored for other reasons that don’t fall under the exceptions churches get for tax breaks. Not to mention when you invoke religion without the devotion, people become understandably suspicious. In the U.K. it might be progressing towards a separation from religion and piety, but the two are still connected a great deal in the U.S., so it would be difficult for the American public to conceive of it as anything other than a representation of so called secularist “religion”. There may be a cultural bifurcation between monuments serving a dual religious and secular purpose and houses of worship with a primarily religious purpose, though with Botton’s idea, it is a merging of architecture and art, as done in many churches already, especially with stained glass. It doesn’t need to be called an atheist temple, but perhaps a secular temple, which has a paradoxical ring to it. Secular means of the world in the non sacred sense; profane, which in its oldest sense literally meant outside the temple.

In America, this sort of project might not be well received even by the atheist community, the main justification being that in America, focusing on education through general means instead of lowering yourself to the level of the religious is the preferred method. If you suggest that you need these sorts of objects and practices to justify your skepticism and value of reason as a virtue, you’ve betrayed the separation you maintain from your native religion. Returning to Sponville, a Frenchman like Botton, there is a possibility that even David Silverman, a fairly outspoken and strict atheist himself, would admit there is a personal spiritual side to atheism, though not in the traditional understanding of the term that involves the supernatural. But even Sponville grants that atheism should not be seen as a religion primarily because it does not have rituals, tenets or anything that someone identifying as an atheist is automatically expected to do or believe by other people sharing that label. It’s so unlike Christianity or even Buddhism when you get down to brass tacks, both of which have at least some expectations that would render me something of an anomaly in Buddhist temples anywhere, since outright atheism is somewhat discouraged against as I understand it. Something more like agnosticism seems to be at least the norm, not to mention the potential misunderstandings that can come to Westerners who investigate and participate in the sheer diversity of Buddhist meditation practices, from India to China and Japan especially.

In the long run, the difficulty of advancing the cause of skepticism, secularism and even the destigmatization of the word atheism and its derivatives, is potentially hurt by this project in London; but if done in a particular way by the American atheist population, it might actually present similar ideals, but in a way accessible to a more religious populace. The term temple creates ambiguities, so another term would need to be developed or utilize a pre existing one that reflects the virtue behind this practice of valuing perspective and other secular values without involving worship. More questions than answers yet again with this topic. Until next time, Namaste and aloha

WDAD: What Do Atheists Do About Religious Norms? Part 1

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutreligion/p/StudyReligion.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/christmasholidayseason/p/AtheistsIgnore.htm

http://irregulartimes.com/further6.html

http://atheism.about.com/od/ideasforatheistactivism/a/AffirmSwear.htm

Being an atheist in America is still difficult even after attempts by many prominent nonbelievers over the decades to normalize it as part of modern culture. Madalyn Murray O’Hair comes to mind, as well as Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. Christopher Hitchens has American citizenship as well, originally from Great Britain, and Richard Dawkins, a British native, also has made strong strides for nonbelievers. American Atheists is one of the most prominent groups to promote atheism as a culture and community that also shares many values with Christian Americans. But there are many persistent preconceptions people have about atheism that cannot be solved with even the prominent ad campaigns American Atheists has done, as I spoke about in “Atheists Patriot Ad Campaign,”  There are so many, in fact, I have to divide this into two parts. This week will be issues of atheists studying religion and whether that is hypocritical, whether atheists can celebrate holidays of a religious origin and whether atheists must swear on the bible in court.

Something I encounter virtually every time I speak about my undergraduate major, religious studies (sometimes phrased as religion), is that if you are studying religion, you’re presumed to have considered going into ministry. The idea that religion has to be studied from the position of a believer always irks me, since it suggests that one cannot really study religion in an academic context of its effect on culture, on people, as philosophy, as literature, etc, without believing that it reflects reality. The default notion historically for studying religion (understood intrinsically as Christianity and Judaism by association) was to minister to people about theology, to be someone people could consult about these sorts of issues. Pastors can serve that purpose, but only in a limited framework, since their primary goal is counseling more than actually educating people overall. I am in no way doing a disservice to religion or even insulting adherents of any particular religion if I study it and reach a conclusion that I personally don’t believe it, but still find it interesting to read about. A good 20% of my personal library is texts about Christianity, primarily theological or apologetic in nature, if only to see what believers present as enumerations of beliefs and defenses thereof. I can finish any of those texts with an improved understanding of Christianity and yet remain an atheist at the end of it. I would say my study of religion actually helped me a great deal in confronting my own beliefs and comparing them with texts presenting other convictions from their individual perspectives. I gained skills to analyze things that benefit me even today and that is nothing for anyone to denigrate by claiming I’m being disingenuous. If that’s the case, then many Christians who do the same thing in their spare time and ultimately conclude they don’t agree with it are basically as guilty, even if they don’t do it academically. They’ve still looked at something they disagree about with a partly discerning eye and come away a more knowledgeable person (I hope).

Another issue that persists even in spite of pretty clear secular manifestations of such things as Christmas and Easter (the two most prominent religious holidays celebrated even by so called religious people who only come into church two times a year) is a prejudice of atheists being supposedly hypocritical in taking part in religious holidays when they don’t believe in God. While Easter may have more explicit connections to God, Christmas is agreed by even theologians and many more fundamentalist Christians to not be historically justified or have any theological relevance to Jesus. Jesus was more than likely born much later or earlier than the winter, especially with cultural considerations of the shepherds in relation to their sheep. The date decided through church practices in the past coincided with Saturnalia, a pagan practice that Christians sought to co-opt and it has remained that way in spite of historians of varying faiths, Christians included, concluding that it is purely a matter of popularity, not dissimilar from All Hallow’s Eve in the Catholic calendar following Halloween chronologically. A certain group of Christians don’t even celebrate either Christmas or Halloween, for instance, suggesting that they have been so intertwined with non Christian religious practices and are not worthy of devotion. There’s also the observation that Jesus never said to observe anything related to his birth, but only related to his alleged resurrection as he spoke to his disciples. Easter is the more contentious of the holidays, since it is agreed upon by all Christians to focus on God and its involvement with the world through Jesus’ Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection. But, like Christmas and Halloween, there is a way to celebrate Easter without being clothed in reverence to a deity. Merely celebrating spring and new life coming to be through that season seems sufficient to me. I don’t have to get up at the crack of dawn to appreciate spring, since the sunrise will happen every day regardless, as far as I’m concerned. Regardless of the sacred overtones or undertones of any day, it doesn’t exclude atheists from participating in a different, but similar, way. I can get married, but that doesn’t require I pledge my fidelity before God anymore than me getting candy eggs at Easter means I have to believe Jesus came back to life. It is in no way contradictory to celebrate a holiday’s non religious virtues and ideals, since, in all cases, they have already long since been separated by the practice of consumer culture inculcating in us the desire to buy not only candy and presents in convergence with Xmas, Halloween and Easter, but decorations to adorn our house to let others know that we celebrate the holiday. But this in no way establishes (mostly) whether you’re Christian or otherwise. Similarly, I can share time with family and have a good experience, but I don’t need to have extraneous beliefs attached to a special day like Xmas in order to appreciate it. The mere shared experience of happiness and enjoyment is special in itself.

The final question asked (for now) is something actually more easily solved by historical progress. Atheists, from what I recall, were historically not trusted to give oaths, though outspoken atheists didn’t exist prominently until probably 50 years ago or so. But now atheists are trusted to give oaths, albeit technically they are called affirmations in legal terminology. The distinction lies between making a claim without religious sentiment that you will tell the truth and nothing but the truth as opposed to swearing to God, which some Christians would argue contradicts what Jesus says in Matthew 5:37 “Simply let your yes be yes and your no be no,” If atheists can assert that they will tell the truth because it makes sense to and that there will be repercussions if they are found to be lying; while Christians seem to think they have some moral high ground when making an oath to God and also doing it partly because they might be charged with perjury; perhaps the former is simpler than the latter. This is one of those questions that has a simple answer and yet is complicated by a basic lack of education. If you are in a court of law, you have no compulsion to take any religious oath, and if you want to put your hand on a bible and swear to both your god and the court that you won’t lie, I can’t help but chuckle, because it’s unnecessary on its face. Why can’t you just not lie because you don’t want to be lied to? Is it that much of an obsession that you need to tell God you won’t lie in a criminal trial?

Atheists have no problem with a religious culture existing and being practiced by people, but they do not need to be practiced by everyone in that sense and there shouldn’t be any pressure to conform by believers. There are secular manifestations and practices of religious holidays and norms, such as the alternative of affirmation versus swearing on the bible for atheists and the like. Not to mention there’s common ground to be found in sharing time with friends and family that transcends those borders between the believing and the unbelieving. Next week, we’ll confront the norms related to patriotism and also that little superstitious phrase uttered when you sneeze with its own history and irony when saying it to atheists. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

WDAD: What Do Atheists Do About Religious Family?

http://agnosticatheist.wordpress.com/2007/04/06/atheist-coming-out-to-religious-friends-and-family/

http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/06/coming-out-as-atheist-to-your-christian.html

http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2010-04-ask-richard-my-christian-family-feels-threatened-by-m

http://www.askdrrobert.dr-robert.com/christianparents.html

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/07/religious-parents-atheist-children-and.html

Atheists already deal with people’s mistaken ideas about them spread by apologists and other “well-meaning” believers in God on an almost daily basis, but how does this factor in with one’s family? My own family isn’t terribly pushy about their Christianity for the most part, and this is mostly due to me being, for the most part to extended family, a closet atheist. I haven’t even told many people outside of those that could figure out through Facebook and look at my profile to see I identify with Zen. In that case, family wise, I would estimate only about 20-25 people at most would know that I’m not Christian, which is pretty much the default faith of most people raised in Tennessee anyway. I don’t see many people having a problem with it at all and I’ve only lost one Facebook friend through their unwillingness to engage in civil debates with me without exploding. I can’t speak for those who have come out, which comprises more of the difficulties and questions that are raised in regards to atheist’s relations with their religious family, excessive or otherwise. But I think I can provide some advice nonetheless as one who engages with the religious commonly.

Atheists who have already come out to their families encounter proselytizing and general skepticism that someone could actually stop believing in God and Jesus. Accusations are flung ranging from the person being possessed by Satan, affected by the secular humanist agenda or doing it out of rebellion. There’s also worry that they’ll go to hell or that they don’t have any basis for doing good, both of which are either irrelevant or unjustified. The insistence that they’ll change their mind with time, when they “grow up” makes me chuckle, since those believers have only grown up physically at most, but mentally, they haven’t truly matured, since they refuse to accept even the doubts that arise as to whether God actually exists or cares about them, pushing them aside. If they are unwilling to face the anxiety and emotional distress that might arise from adopting a perspective where there is no God and only humans in a world which they have the power to improve or destroy, then perhaps they haven’t really grown up in any real sense, except perhaps taking on some responsibilities that any human being is expected to as they reach a certain age. We all leave the nest of our parents, but this doesn’t mean that we sever those connections and dispositions that sometimes persist in spite of the separation we experience by paying our own rent, getting our own groceries and working a day to day job to support ourselves. Many people, since they have lost that direct connection to their initial providers, instead take on the belief that there is a spiritual/supernatural parent always watching over them which comforts them in some way. I don’t deny people’s right to believe this, but even as a pluralist, I cannot completely allow people to hold these beliefs in spite of evidence and arguments to the contrary. Plenty of people live a life full of happiness in spite of losses and don’t make any pleas to a deity to protect them or help them through it, but persist in spite of the existential despair. That humanist tenacity, particularly the secular variety, is admirable to me, though I suppose this goes without saying when in the position of being an outsider to a religion that offers not only the community of similar groups, but spiritual and existential solace in hearing someone preach that there is someone watching out for them and that loves them unconditionally (but only until they die, after which they separate the child from their love eternally if they haven’t loved them back).

I could understand in part when a family member feels defensive or disappointed when you have a family member that believes very differently than you about the supernatural. It’s one thing to have someone who converts to Judaism in a Christian family, or even Islam (popular in the 21st century as the new target that previously ranged from Judaism to Catholicism 50 years or more in the past). But even someone converting to Buddhism, which I have in part, let alone becoming an atheist (reverting back to a state they were already in before) poses a bigger issue to parents who might feel that the child is rebelling against them, or if the child is otherwise obedient, that they have somehow failed God in not raising their offspring to be good Christians. But I’d respond to all those parents: if your child is an otherwise good citizen and is respectful to you in spite of disagreeing with you about whether Jesus saves or God exists, then you’ve done a better job than many parents do in letting the school or the media serve as the babysitter for their spawn, regarding them as little more than a nuisance or free labor. If you genuinely love your child, I don’t see why you should become hostile in any sense just because they have changed from the religion you thought they ought to adhere to. Accept them as they are, like God accepts people. And before you respond that God expects change, don’t compare yourself to something that’s supposed to be all knowing and all powerful. You are neither and thus you don’t have any basis to do anything but pray to that God; not that it will necessarily have any effect on your child’s beliefs. If your child hasn’t become a criminal, they are in no imminent danger.

In terms of preconceived ideas of what atheists are, the best way to dispel those myths is to behave as you normally would and let your behavior speak for itself in terms of your atheism. You haven’t ceased to love your family, you haven’t become less moral, and you aren’t trying to convert them to atheism. But you must establish that you won’t change your beliefs just to make them feel better. You chose your beliefs and you will stick with them even if your family doesn’t agree. In the worst case scenario, your family would disown you and if you’re an adult, this is fine, however troubling it is at first. If they are not willing to accept you in choosing atheism, then perhaps they aren’t truly family in the sense of a group of people who persist in unconditional love in spite of the occasional ups and downs. If you’re not an adult, this can pose a problem in that you have to tolerate such intolerance that it borders on criminal behavior. In this way, being an atheist in a situation where you are dependent on religious family is actually a motivation to become independent sooner than if you don’t have this problem. My own immediate family isn’t so religious that they don’t permit that I have my own beliefs, so there is in a sense not as much motivation to become independent, though I definitely desire it a great deal if only to avoid more religious infighting that might occur in the future as I further mature.

So in my experience, atheists do have problems sometimes with religious family, but as they have become atheists, they seem to have become at least more understanding, though there are many atheists closeted to even their immediate family for fear of ostracism. And I say to them, do not be afraid. You have support in other atheists and even other theists who may disagree with you, but nonetheless grant you that freedom to choose your beliefs as an individual instead of thinking you must conform to satisfy their selfish wishes. Atheists and tolerant theists are your friends, even your family in a sense. Don’t let the so called “support and love” through your family members’ religious evangelism become a barrier to openness about your atheism. That’s the first step to making atheism more accepted and more well known in the world at large. Once your family begins to understand that atheism is only part of you and doesn’t determine other things about you, then they can start telling non family members about how you’re still the same person, you just don’t believe in God like many others might. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Atheist Movie Advances Minority

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/08/new-atheist-movie-the-ledge-evangelizes-godlessness/

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2065669401/

I haven’t seen a movie that focused explicitly on religion that didn’t have an atheist character that was generally portrayed in a negative fashion. Take C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia adaptations. Skepticism and doubt about the magical nature of Narnia and its existence was seen as a bad thing from the first movie released (not chronologically the first, but we won’t get into that). Edmund’s skepticism in "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" about the magic in Narnia is slowly withered away. I can respect the idea of experiencing something and maybe slowly coming to accept it, but just because one is skeptical and regards things believed in without apt evidence as questionable should not be a reason to judge someone as less trustworthy themselves ethically or such things. It’s that sort of attitude towards atheists that director Matthew Chapman is trying to dissuade, similar in some ways to how Ang Lee was trying to give a new perspective on gays in 'Brokeback Mountain," I loved that movie and would probably like it even more now with my continued appreciation of gay people and their struggles on a day to day basis, only somewhat relatable myself, since I chose my beliefs, but my gay friends did not choose their attractions, they only chose to accept them. The film "The Ledge," which debuted at the Sundance Movie Festival this year, promises to be a dramatic experience, pitting an atheist anti-hero against a Christian anti villain of sorts (that’s a bit more debatable even by Christian standards if I understand what this character does in the film even slightly). There’s romance, betrayal, suspense and everything else and thrown into all of it is a series of conversations between a strong evangelical Christian with marital issues and the atheist who seduces the Christian’s wife and could be said to liberate her from what appears to be an abusive relationship, at least from what the trailer presents to the viewer.

The overall intent of the film being to advance atheists as a minority is admirable, but many might say that the character in the film, from what I’ve seen of clips, is still a stereotypical “angry atheist”, raging and railing against all the atrocities and illogic that exists in Christian history and doctrine respectively or similarly. Of course, the Christian character, they might admit, is a bad person, since even the trailer implies that he is threatening to kill his wife and himself if the atheist who seduced the wife doesn’t stand up on a ledge for a couple of hours and then jump off, killing himself. The psychological attack upon the atheist’s disbelief in an afterlife and the satisfaction the character might be getting only makes him seem that much more hated a character. Of course that stereotype is not necessarily always manifest in such a direct way. But in the few scenes I’ve seen between the Christian and atheist, there are presumptions and lines of attack on the atheist, saying that he isn’t seeing things the right way, is misguided and otherwise cannot truly be fulfilled if he doesn’t accept God and Jesus into his life.  

The woman is in the middle of all this, is not explicitly said to be a Christian or not for purposes of drawing the viewer to watching the whole film (and paying money). Similarly, there is a police/detective character who is talking to the atheist character, telling him that he shouldn’t kill himself and then slowly learning the actual events behind the man’s life that led him to this decision based on his love for the woman. It could be said that the atheist is more heroic in that he appreciates life much more since he is willing to even consider sacrificing himself to stop the Christian villain from killing the woman and himself in a twisted murder suicide rooted in infidelity and insecurity about the stability of one’s relationship. The religious beliefs or lack thereof of the other two important characters are important, but the main focus from the trailer is emphasizing that Christians 

are not always in a morally superior position, nor are atheists less morally aware of things.

People will argue back and forth about the stereotypes, atheist and Christian alike. Of course the movie isn’t meant to present a catch all representation of either atheists or Christians, but simply tell a story where a genuine Christian uses their beliefs to justify testing people and is therefore a villainous character. Christians may respond that this isn’t a real Christian, since he wouldn’t take it upon himself to judge the atheist in some twisted game where life and death are in the balance. And atheists can say that the main hero doesn’t necessarily fit a general bill of atheism, since not all atheists disbelieve in an afterlife, whereas the trailer seems to imply this atheist in particular doesn’t believe in an afterlife, adding more qualifications onto atheism than the basic one of disbelief in God.  But at the end of the day, the goal is met in communicating that sacrifice is not unique to Christians with their martyr founder in any sense. Any allegations that atheists could not be motivated to give up things for others in a big way like the movie portrays are from people that think that the movie exaggerates atheists to be more than they are. In some sense, perhaps this is true, but atheists are human beings like anyone else and love can make them do crazy things. This doesn’t undermine the validity of their beliefs or give them any more strength. It simply shows that there is more common ground than many presume about theists and atheists about ethics. I’ll keep my eye on this movie for the future. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Atheist Patriot Ad Campaign

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/30/atheists-flying-ad-campaign-meets-strong-resistance/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/atheists-explain-flying-ad-campaign/

While talking about patriotism usually brings up images of Christians from our history, there has always been a minority group which is still not always considered as devoted to our country as others, and has even been accused of not being patriotic by George Bush Sr. at one point (allegedly). This group, you might guess, is atheists. July 4th went pretty normally for my family, interjecting a prayer which I simply listened to with the same silence and impartiality I regard any pleas to divinity. But unbeknownst to me, again, American Atheists ran a campaign across 27 states about atheist activism and culture of sorts. But out of the 78 people who’d fly these planes, only 17 agreed, meaning 10 states might have been left out of the campaign.

The gist of this 4th of July celebration involved flying banners from planes that read either “God-less America” or “Atheism is Patriotic”. It must’ve been difficult to come up with short and concise phrases for this campaign. I actually like the first better than the other, since it brings up much more contention about whether your religion, or lack thereof, has anything to do with your patriotism, which is probably why some of them didn’t run the signs, Christian or not. “God-less America” has a combative ring to it as well, but not to the effect that you make theists feel attacked with “Atheism is Patriotic” The pun on “God Bless America” is a nice touch, but people can get offended at most anything in terms of making atheism stand out in contrast to the theistic majority.  If you added “too” at the end of the second saying, maybe you’d get the idea across of shared patriotism in the country, but people might think you’re trying to take God completely out of the country, which would only exacerbate the rumors people spread of anti-God secularism.

With politics and religion, there always seems to be a point of contention in terms of one’s personal adherence to a religious belief, particularly metaphysical, and one’s belief about ethics or values in a secular context. The value of patriotism seems to be held primarily, if not solely, based on the belief in God for some reason. I fail to see the relation between holding any value and your belief or lack thereof in some ultimate value-giver, such as God. If a value is held, such as the justice and greatness of the United States (not exceptionalism, mind you), democracy or individual inalienable rights, one can believe it even if you don’t believe we were created or have souls. One can hold a variety of political positions and believe or disbelieve in God, ranging from anarchist Christians to socialist atheists and vice versa. Many people could actually just as easily accuse Christians of being anarchist, centrist or socialist more than people might commonly accuse atheists of being communists. And capitalism, as I’ve noted in “Conservatives, Christians and Capitalists”,  is a shared love of both atheists and theists. It seems as if the ontology or general nature of the values one holds as an atheist are accused by Christians to be groundless because they don’t believe in a law-giver, creator or such. But holding those values doesn’t require grounds beyond basic goals of advancing human flourishing, to use more Aristotelian and Greek philosophical language. To value humans does not require you believe they are absolutely unique and special beyond other animals. More importantly, to believe laws are binding upon society does not require you believe in a transcendent law maker like God is commonly described as.

In engaging with theists about patriotism, it’s a good start to find shared “American” values. Atheists could believe that democracy, freedom of speech and religion, free market economy and other such general beliefs are good and make America an awesome country in its overall goals. If theists don’t recognize this, it puts them in the position of trying to argue that being American requires you also believe in God, or that in order to really love and appreciate the values of this country in any way, you have to believe in God. So this particular crowd thinks that I’m either being willfully deceptive or my beliefs are unjustified by my nontheism, it appears. I noted previously that in philosophical terms, the grounds of a belief don’t require any divine consciousness behind them to have efficacy. They only have to have a practical goal in mind. If humans conceived of this idea of freedom and a government based on freedoms like voting (as long as you’re registered) and other such things (as long as you’re officially a citizen of the country), then shouldn’t those laws be valued because they have people’s interests in mind? No one has to say they’re perfect, because the understandings of laws can change through a popular misunderstanding that persists through history, such as the theme that has become more prominent in the aftermath of the 60s or so of the “Christian nation” and the true “Christian” goals of the founding fathers.

I follow the law not because I’m afraid of jail or punishment by police or the legal system, but because those laws make sense and have reasonable justifications for their existence in most cases. It’s the isolated examples of state constitutions that still have unconstitutional religious test requirements of people in state government that bothers me; it’s the thought process that went behind the decisions in the early and late 50s to make America seem like more of a theistic or, more specifically, Christian, country that bothers me. We may always be a Christian majority nation, and atheists may grow in numbers elsewhere, but no theist should ever make such a claim that an atheist would not be willing to die for the values of this country, because these values don’t need God to compel humans to act for other humans. We merely need the ambition that the country’s very inception inspires in us to begin to act for our fellow person and make the country, dare I say the world, a better place. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.