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

Liberty and Libertines of Faith

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/28/knight.beck.bunch/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/30/6245/


With Glenn Beck’s recent rally as a source of yet more politico-religious fervor and controversy, I thought it appropriate to comment on others’ commentary on the importance of the gathering that happened to coincide on MLK Jr’s “I Have a Dream Speech” at Lincoln Memorial. There were obvious observations that Lincoln was not exactly the most limited government supporting president, along with the potential opportunism that Beck utilized to make his alliance of Tea Party supporters seem less racist since they are honoring MLK Jr. The civil rights leader’s niece, Alveda King, was in attendance, along with Sarah Palin, somehow rounding out the general consensus that this was a mixed bag of political minds. Beck called for people to return to God, honor and to ally together to accomplish this task. At first glance, there seem to be sympathetic ideals within this message, particularly the concluding virtue of cooperation. But the presumption that America has somehow turned from God and honor seems not only mistaken but short sighted.

The loss of honor alleged is potentially the only justified claim in some sense. Any loss of honor would be due more than likely to inaction on the part of people that tend not to care about politicizing everything that happens in the news or just don’t feel that they make a difference in the system of voting for representatives that supposedly speak for them but then turn around and do the opposite. In this way, Beck at least tried to bring back a sense of worth in the individual to try to change things one person at a time.

However, when you start shifting from political apathy to religiously censured morality, you’re just shifting the conversation from fruits to vegetables. It’s not as if people demographically have become more atheistic or generally shifted away from their Abrahamic religions they were raised in, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic or otherwise (since Beck is Mormon, which was an issue I won’t even get into). The claim that people need to “turn back to God” seems to be founded on a particular idea of how one follows “God” to begin with. Not to accuse anyone of explicit theocracy, since there is in the rhetoric of such people as Beck an equally dangerous ideology of theonomy. This is only distinct from theocracy in that it puts the power more squarely in the hands of the clergy, whereas theonomy just places the authority of the law within a sacred text instead of socially/communally derived contracts. For all intents and purposes, the two are almost inseparable. Advocating some kind of civil religion that the majority of the citizens agree upon seems to me still risky and problematic in that you assume that the minority will go along with the suggestion that even though there are groups in America that have no belief in God or no interest in God, they should just quietly sit to the side while the God believers revel in the fact that they can be so outspoken about their theism, while the atheists and agnostics are silenced either by apathy or desire to stay within social propriety, as if being a nonbeliever in God was a sentence to social ostracism or exile from the community; which by the way, it should not be at all. As one of this minority, I cannot stand by apathetically when some people take their liberties too far and abuse them to the detriment of people not like them only in their particular beliefs.

If anything, America should seek out ideals that are shared by everyone as much as possible. Liberty, equality, individualization without fear of isolation or alienation by peers, minority protection along with majority rule, as well as others I could list off that, regardless of creed or lack thereof, I imagine that people ranging from devout Christians to pragmatic hedonists could agree to being ideals that America should advocate. The fact that we can allow tolerance to the extent of permitting the practice of things we would find otherwise reprehensible outside of adherence to laws is already a legacy we should have pride in. A return to honor or God should not be the first thing we should be concerned with. Rather, a return to liberty and liberalism (particularly in the classical sense it was founded in around the point of America’s founding) should be our goal for the future. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha

Sikhism and South Carolina

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/16/ragheads-and-republicans-is-sikhism-a-sickness/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/15/haleys-path-to-christianity-leaves-some-evangelicals-uneasy/

South Carolina has been involved in controversies before, many of them seeming to involve sex scandals, such as former governor Mark Sanford and his mistress in Argentina last year around this month. This year, governor candidate Nikki Haley has run into both a sex scandal also, but more relevantly a controversy about her religious faith as well. Born Nimrata Randhawa to Indian immigrant parents, she was raised in Sikhism, the fifth largest religion in the world, begun in India, following the teachings of ten gurus who sought God through meditation on the symbol Ik Onkar. But in her early 20s, she converted to Christianity (Methodism to be precise) and allegedly only goes to Sikh services a few times a year out of respect to her parents (like I did on that Easter service this year, right?). But one Jake Knotts decided to throw out the new popular racial slur that has not yet become as taboo as the n-word or the k-word for Africans and Jewish/Israeli respectively, raghead. Similar in nature to the sand n***er epithet thrown at Middle Eastern people, Senator Knotts was supposedly using this in jest, though frankly, this guy used it in relation to Obama as well, which means he still buys into the long debunked hypothesis that Barack Obama is actually a Muslim and is lying about his faith to infiltrate the United States (or something like that nonsense, I never can get it clear). The term was originally used to refer to Indian immigrants, many of whom were Sikh (pronounced Seek, not Sick, which I mistakenly thought myself for about 4 years as a religious studies major).


Knotts’ attempt to apologize and appear regretful will probably save him as much as Ted Haggard’s homosexual de conversion therapy and resurgence as the pastor of a small church recently. But Haley has been on the defensive about persistent questions about her faith recently. South Carolina preachers and voters are a bit too inquisitive about something that shouldn’t be any more important than whether she’s a Muslim or a Jew. Albeit, Sikhism doesn’t share a sacred text or prophets as the Abrahamic Triad does, but it believes in a deity, albeit it is referred to as a monistic or pantheistic religion, where God is identified as synonymous with the universe and not separate from it as in the other theistic religions more commonly known to Americans. But Stephen Prothero’s short commentary on this reflects my thoughts in a more succinct fashion. If Nikki Haley has to be so precise in her wording of her Christian faith so as not to confuse what are potentially ill informed or willfully ignorant voters, then South Carolina is still behind in terms of advancing a basic principle of equality under the law. If Haley is willing to serve America and her country or state in an honest and straightforward fashion, her association with Sikhism and previous adherence to its tenets (in whatever way that might have been) should make little to no difference in terms of whether you vote for her or not. It’s as if her opponent just used the tactic of name calling to make himself seem like he made an honest mistake and recover, while he puts the spotlight on his opponent (though he’s not running for governor of course) so as to make her less trustworthy and give more credence to the candidate he’s backing. That’s not only unfair in that it’s a bait and switch move, but it borders on mudslinging: even if he apologizes, he made an attack on her character based on her past and more importantly her ethnic heritage. All Indians are not Sikhs by nature, nor are they all Hindus or Buddhists or Jains by nature. Haley made a conversion and people should take her word at it. The sex scandal is practically an easier thing to deal with, since she promised she would resign if it was ever proven she was unfaithful to her husband. But with religious/ethnic discrimination still present in America, she will have a difficult time persisting in her popularity with the voters. Here’s hoping she wins out as the honest woman she has shown herself to be. Until next week, Namaste and Aloha.

Tennesee + Racism + Obama=Awkward Emails

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35743820

While I had only heard about these emails in passing, reading this article reminded me that this has happened three times. I’m not certain of the contents of the email regarding so called “white pride” but it could be construed as less than favorable towards the situation of the United States as having a president with African American ancestry since it suggests that whites have to band together on white pride. Although that could be taken as simple racial solidarity, it’s bad wording on the part of whoever started the notion. I do remember reading explicitly about the email that has President Obama’s eyes as the only thing visible in a black background. I believe it had something to do with him hiding (from responsibility?), but I can’t be sure without further research. The conversation is revived with this recent (in fact Sunday morning) article that speaks of a representative of Tennessee hotels and restaurants as well as a CEO of the Tennessee Hospitality Association sending an email to various people, including close friends. The contents involve comparing the First Lady to a chimpanzee, the partner of Tarzan Cheeta if I understand correctly. Now in all fairness this isn’t exactly uncommon emails between close friends who happen to be conservatives and if that was the case, then this wouldn’t be on the news. The fact that this person sends the email to people in the media and local governance sends a message that isn’t going to be changed so quickly in a few days or even weeks.

Tennessee’s notoriety for racism and white pride is not unjustified, but my own personal experience of these things in relation to black people is only representative of what is a medium sized town’s tri-county high school. And prior to starting this rant of sorts, I don’t consider myself a Tennessean proper or an American. These things are relative and I could’ve easily been born elsewhere in the world, so my comments on how these incidents affect Tennessee are more an issue of race relations than stereotypes of the Southeast.

There were many jokes on the bus involving the n-word as well as a common affirmation that the Confederacy was something to idolize, though one doubts if these people necessarily appreciate the Old South for the same reasons historical and literary scholars do. I can’t say this reflects anything beyond a context of ill educated and otherwise impoverished home life in my humble opinion, but with these emails, the notion of Tennessee being as bad as Kentucky or Alabama or even Mississippi in terms of race relations becomes relevant. Sensitivity and consideration are necessary in sending these emails around. I myself don’t do much in the way of passing around chain emails or sending out messages with some humorous/satirical image about a person in the media. But when I do get such emails they’re of a personal nature (and not really making pseudo racist statements about people of color).

When a representative of state government and relations sends out an email and forgets that they’re sending it to people that work in journalism (those in particular) and thinks that it will be fine is not taking things seriously enough. I can get a chuckle out of otherwise offensive jokes within the right context (Family Guy, South Park and the like come to mind) and when the news media isn’t involved, the propagation of internet memes is an intriguing and creative way to spread around culture through the wide expanse of the World Wide Web. But it smacks of brute idiocy or degeneration of empathy to think you can send this email to anyone and they’ll just chuckle about it and not say a thing. Especially if you’re in a position of responsibility to both represent your state’s image (albeit in the form of hotels and restaurants) and also heading an organization promoting hospitality, which doesn’t come across well in sending out such a set of pictures. Aren’t CEOs a bit too busy to use their time in the way a college student or political activist would be doing in the same context? Or maybe it’s easier to do that job than I think. Either way, I doubt this will stop anytime soon and people will be more interested in news involving shootings in churches or other such stories and forget all about this “minor” issue, sweeping the issue under the rug, proverbially speaking. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.


(Here's an example of this new satire of Michelle Obama that I found)