Atheist activism is hardly news these days. Folks are feeling increasingly convicted about making their disbelief public, and more specifically, pointing out the damage done by religion in the past.
But it seems the most recent publicity campaign by a group called American Atheists has gone a little too far, even for those not in the religious sphere.
Human rights groups howled when the following billboard appeared in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
Following a public uproar, the billboard promptly was replaced with one for the local symphony.
There are some more obvious concerns this kind of campaign raises, while others are more subtle. The point of the billboard is well taken, at least for me; the Bible has some messed up stories and rules in it. But cherry-picking isolated quotes like this from scripture is something that most in mainline Christianity consider a no-no. It's called proof-texting, and it's seen as tantamount to using the Bible as a weapon to further a personal agenda.
So in a way, the atheist group that did this is guilty of the very transgression for which they would criticize, say, a religious group for using the Bible to discriminate against the LGBTQ community or women. To me, this hollows out an otherwise reasonable point and an opportunity for discussion, and it also serves to discredit the organization that paid for the ad.
I've struggled much of my life with things like the treatment of slaves and women in scripture. And though I still see those kinds of rules or stories as patently wrong and dehumanizing, I have benefited from learning some historical and cultural context around the scriptures that helps me understand why they're there.
The early Rabbinical laws were primarily about creating a sense of order in society. And sometimes, the rules were meant to attenuate chaos or violence that tended to spiral out of control. For example, the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" law sounds really harsh, and is still used by some to justify direct retribution. But that law is actually a response to the "avenge sevenfold" tradition of the culture which said, "You kill one of my sheep, I can kill seven of yours." To stem such escalation, this type of law was meant to mean ONLY eye for eye, tooth for tooth. No more of this avenged sevenfold stuff.
Think of it as a step toward something that Jesus ultimately fulfilled with his Great Commandment to hang all other laws on the principle of loving God and neighbor first. It's kind of like Clinton's old "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy." It was less than perfect, and many of us who advocated for unrestricted equality despised it. I don't even think if you asked Bill Clinton himself, he'd say he loved the bill. But he saw it as a necessary step toward an ultimate goal, which recently was achieved in the American Military.
Now, if you looked back in a hundred years at "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and considered it in isolation, without that context, you could easily argue that Clinton was actually trying to oppress LGBTQ folks, rather than afford them a graduated measure of equality.
The same might be said about something like this "Slaves, obey your masters" rule. I don't know if the authors of this meant for it to actively oppress other human beings in the name of God. I suppose it's possible. But given the cultural norms of slavery at the time, and given the value of greater order -- more so than the value of any individual life -- it's reasonable to assume that this rule was an attempt to stop some cycle of disorder and abuse.
Now, to call that a divinely ordained law? I'm with the atheists on that one. That's messed up.
The problem is in presenting this kind of Biblical reference this way, there's no opportunity for dialogue. And it appears there's no desire on part of the atheist group to engage in one. Again, in this way, the group reflects more of the characteristics of the fundamentalist Christians they object to so much by engaging in a one-sided shouting match, rather than actually putting in the work to talk to each other and work for common ground.
Finally, there's the matter of tokenism, which is really why the human rights groups got so bent about this campaign. Though the underlying implication from the atheist group is that religion does not value all human beings as they should (a valid and historically supportable position), they reduce the symbol of the slave to being a convenient vehicle for their personal agenda. For me, this places them in a similar boat, once again, as those they aim to criticize.
We can all do better than this. Really. Fundamentalism is ugly and dangerous, regardless of it's religious stripe, or even opposition to it. It places the our collective humanity second chair to ideology. And in this particular case, it de-fangs an otherwise worthwhile position, simply because the atheist group in question ends up looking so curiously like the very thing they claim to hate.
Follow Christian Piatt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/christianpiatt
Atheists' slavery billboard raises tempers in Pa. - The Washington Post
Atheist group's slavery billboard in Harrisburg offends African ...
Extra, Extra: American Atheists "Slavery" Billboard Doesn't Go Over ...
Against American Atheists' Slavery Billboard | Camels With Hammers
Atheists 'Slaves Obey Your Masters' - Unexplained Mysteries ...
Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” 1 Samuel 15: 1-3
Killing women, children,the disabled, cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys are par for the course for Yahweh. Pointing out this fact is the duty of any informed person.
At woman's formation, since Adam wasn't told about the operation (Genesis 2:18-24) but fell asleep, it's possible it was a dream meaning, to live in groups man would have to leave dormant either their masculinity or femininity for creating magnetic opposite attractions we call love. It's implied with "a man" must leave parents and cling to their spouse and become one flesh since he had no parent and we've never seen man's two gender become androgynous because of marriage. That interpretation is also the reason for homosexuality.
Everyone is a slave to something, I am to freedom which require me to do everything possible to obtain and remain free. Most United Statesman are slaves to money, shopping, things and many to various religions. When we put slavery in that perspective is isn't only one man claiming ownership of another but living with the premise "this is mine" is also. The slave master is as much a slave to his slaves as they are to master, therefore, when we add Revelation 22:11 to the discussion, it tells us basically, remain a slave to whatever you are a slave to.
This is a two-way street here folks. I see nastiness and hypocrisy from both sides.
By the way, the billboard was taken down because of the depiction of the African slave was offensive, not because of the atheist message. I don't think this writer made that fact clear.
But people wishing to use the Bible as a "True and infallible source of rules for Life" need to prove that it is a consistent document (in which case, they all seem to imply it's only one big document, which is patently untrue), and which is impossible, while to show it inconsistent and fallible, there are myriad examples.
In the end, the guildeline to live as close to what Jesus would do seems a great start, but using the Bible as a tool for intolerance and prejudicial judgement seems anathema to every example given us by him. Basing real public policy on a fictional book and using that book as justification for such ideas is not only circular logic, but terrible policy.
Also, LeftyHeinz, that is the most passive-aggressive hate note I have ever seen. Kusdos, and I hope you stay out of my state for your entire life.
It's *your* book. You can't claim it's the word of god and then complain that people are quoting it against you.
Thus, God is obligated by His commitment to perfect peace and harmony in Heaven to confine those who have chosen self as their sole end to a place appropriate to their character. Since unbelievers love darkness rather than light, God gives them over to darkness. Since they love themselves supremely, God gives them an eternity to satisfy themselves. Since they love wickedness, He gives them wicked companions. Since they reject righteousness, God gives them a place devoid of righteousness. Since they love to mock the blessings of God and His love, God gives them a place devoid of Him and His love. You see, God even loves the unbelievers and gives them what they desire. Eternal misery and suffering is the most loving thing that God can offer the unrepentant sinner. God is love.
These people who put up this sign are pretty much the same as the over religious people trying to convince you that they are correct. Why care what others believe, try to take care of yourselves.
Not only was slavery in the U.S. based on specific Bible passages, but its legal rationale was rooted in Christian beliefs and those beliefs were why most of the hundreds of antebellum defenses of slavery were written by clergy. I've read a number of these defenses, and one thing is clear: When abolitionists tried to (re)interpret the Bible in ways to make it anti-slavery, they got their clocks cleaned. As slavery defenders routinely pointed out, the Bible contains pro-slavery passages and also is silent in situations where anti-slavery views could have been expressed. Jesus is never quoted as saying: "Slavery is wrong and all slaves must be freed." It was the abolitionists who had to "proof-text" the Bible and offer alternate translations of words to make "slave" become "servant."
The legal rationale, BTW, was that Africans were pagans and therefore Christians lawfully could enslave them. English judges said this in three 17th-century lawsuits. This was not some new doctrine but rather very old: "Slave" comes from "Slav," because so many pagan Slavs were captured in medieval crusades and sold as forced laborers. Christians simply continued the "Slav" policy in regards to Africans.
Though noble in the abstract, these approaches have proved incapable of either stopping the right-ward drift of the media and the country or of creating a sustainable progressive movement capable of enabling Democrats to enact a realistically progressive agenda. If anything, they've led us down the myopic road of a type of "secular fundamentalism" that has not grasped the fact that right-wing religious, political, and economic extremists have merged and integrated their agendas, but has rather chosen to downplay the importance of religion to the peril of the movement.
Anyway, I go into a lot of detail into this in another article, which if you have the time please check out. Would love to know what you think:
"CRUSADER CHRISTIANS, GOP/TEA PARTY CULT, & THE LEFT"
http://open.salon.com/blog/ronrobinson/2011/08/02/crusader_christianity_tea_party_cult_the_left_wip
Cheers,
Ron