Lack of Respect

If you really think that is an accurate depiction of Christian/Atheist interactions, then you haven’t been reading the comments on your own blog.

Hmmmm…..you call this blog ‘friendly atheist’
😉

I’m pretty friendly usually, but I do feel that way with some people, especially lately, and especially with conservative religious.

Simple z says:

But the comic strip doesn’t say “conservative religious”,
it only sports a man with a cross,
could be any christian, according to the pictures.

I think that the label “conservative religious” in this case would be superfluous. The more liberal individuals and denominations are rarely (yes, I know I am generalizing) the ones to call atheists “Blind Idiot, Rat Fink, Pervert, Commie, Blasphemer, Immoral Creep and Scum of the Earth.” Yes, according to the picture, it could be any of the multitude of christianities from liberal to conservative, progressive to fundamentalist, Unitarian to Southern Baptist. But the words, to me, at least, paints the label ‘conservative’ (not to mention fundamentalist, christianist, dominionist) quite adequately.

When I first saw this over at Freethought Today I got a good chuckle out of it. It’s still funny and oh so true in many instances.

it only sports a man with a cross,
could be any christian, according to the pictures.

I don’t agree… it could only be a Christian who hurls those epithets at atheists.

It asks the question, quite vividly, if some of those pleading for respect are people who show us respect, or if they just don’t want atheists to stand up for themselves or argue back with as much force as they get.

I actually think that sites like this are the antidote to problems like we see illustrated in the comic.

MikeClawson simple z Odgie I think what the cartoonist is trying to say is that the work of Dawkins etc is mild in comparison and is a reaction to what your kind have been doing for the past 2000 years. But that is just a guess!

For some reason I don’t find that comic funny. I find it rather sad. 🙁 I don’t know why, but it gives me feelings of sadness.

I find it to be hilarious! Everyone seems to be analyzing it…but for me, I literally laughed out loud! 🙂

Now, there are Christians who don’t engage in this behavior. And a lot of them read and post on this blog–and Hemant’s site is all the better for it. But they are a minority. Make no mistake about that.

hmm… well that’s odd, seeing as how fundamentalist Christians number only about 190 million- a mere fraction of the over 2 BILLION Christians in the world. wtf, atheists don’t believe in science either? can’t do a Google search?

Bad that was a really good post, thank you!

It struck me that this cartoon could have just as easily been drawn the other way, perhaps with an atheist beating a Christian over the head with a copy of “The God Delusion” and spewing words like “Irrational! Blind Faith-head! Child Abuser! Fundamentalist! Jihadist! Idiot!” etc. And then demanding respect and claiming persecution by the religious when the Christian lashes back.

Perhaps a better approach would be for both sides to lay down their bludgeons and their vitriol and actually treat each other with human dignity and respect right from the start. Or even take to heart the advice someone once gave to love one’s enemies and treat well those who persecute you. Otherwise I don’t see much hope for the cycle of verbal (and sometimes literal) violence to ever actually end.

I’d like to respond to each paragraph of this post separately.

What the cartoonist was responding to is the fact that there are literally millions and millions of Christians who believe in what the religious nutjob in the cartoon believes. They’re in every level of our society, and they feel perfectly comfortable in spewing their anti-atheist rhetoric with impunity. What Dawkins did in “The God Delusion”, and what Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and Mehta are doing with their books is to encourage non-believers to do exactly what the atheist in the ‘toon is doing. Standing up to the B.S.

Christians aren’t being persecuted by atheists in the US. But atheists, agnostics, and other disbelievers are being persecuted by Christians. We see it every day, with “In God We Trust” on our money, right-wing nutjobs (who are very well-respected by a large segment of our population) trying to amend the constitution so that people like me can’t get legally married, trying to outlaw abortion, etc.

Sure, YOU might not be doing that, but there are lots and lots of other people who are, in the name of Christianity.

And you’re right…it’d be nice if the vitriol were put aside. But I certainly don’t see the majority of Christians doing any such thing. And I don’t see them doing so anytime soon. (Do you?)

Only one state over from me, in Wisconsin, the same Christians I’m talking about (and are lampooned in the ‘toon) managed to pass their ugly anti-same-sex marriage amendment. To get it repealed will take a lot more effort–and votes! Why aren’t the majority of CHURCHES, MOSQUES and SYNAGOGUES in Wisconsin start to campaign for the this amendment’s dismantling? Let me tell you why. Because the majority of Christians, Muslims and Jews are hunky-dory with that law.

What that is, is simply this: an imbalance of power. And satire is a powerful tool to fight that.

The cartoon was satire.

There’s a reason why monarchs and despots and the people in power used to lock up political cartoonists and satirists. Being made ridiculous, being turned into the butt of a joke—that’s politically disempowering. This is something, I think, both of us can agree on. The Christianists ought to be disempowered. They deserve disempowering. Richly.

And any little cartoon that tries ought to be published, re-published, in as many places as possible. Maybe even nailed to the doors of their churches.

Well put Robin.

Though “would never”? Well, not in those words of course… but quite honestly, some reactions I’ve seen here to criticism of Dawkins et al. does come across that way to me.

If you’re talking about me it’s because I have an allergic reaction to strawman/weakman arguments.

It’s why I take on anti-evolutionists: I don’t want believers unwittingly colluding with anti-theists. There are strong arguments for God, and weak ones. The weakest ones (IMO) are those which argue for the impossibility of humans and chimps sharing common ancestry, or that dinosaurs and humans lived together in the town of Bedrock.

I’m like, COME ON! That’s too easy! It’s too easy to disbelieve THAT version of Christianity. Give me your best arguments, not your worst!

I imagine I don’t make much sense to people sometimes. I just feel that truth is sometimes worth getting the best out of an argument, and not just defeating the weakest assertions of your conversant.

Some may view the atheist in the comic as overreactive, but I don’t agree. Here is my interpretation (which is a bit psychoanalytically creative at times, but oh well).

The first frame is completely allegorical of treatment atheists endure ad nauseam from fanatics, somewhat in the media, but especially in person (in my experience, that is; I’ve seen wanton negativity appear from nowhere).

The other frame conveys the need for self-defence; in this case, the gloves come off. What does the wierd-X-shaped stick represent? Rinky dink, makeshift arsenal, which when properly disposed of doesn’t hurt anybody. 🙂 I view breaking the stick as no more of a “bad” reaction than crushing the straw that had been used to launch spitwads.

If you didn’t like the reaction, what other alternative would you have liked? The atheist turning the stick into board with nails, only to have the fanatic retort, “Be careful — you don’t know how to use that!”? 🙂 Or, if the atheist puts up a shield (analagous, say, to ignoring it, which is passive enablement), there’s still discordant banging noise to contend with (not to mention it takes a lot of energy to keep holding it). It doesn’t make sense to take the stick (ammo) away, only to give it back if the fanatic promises to be nice from now on. (As the current occupant of the Oval Office once said, “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” But I digress.)

Kudos to Robin and Mike for their constructive discourse; that’s what I look forward to as I scroll through the comments.

grazatt said,
“MikeClawson simple z Odgie I think what the cartoonist is trying to say is that the work of Dawkins etc is mild in comparison and is a reaction to what your kind have been doing for the past 2000 years. But that is just a guess!”

My point is: Why call the blog FRIENDLY atheist when it’s the same kind of christian bashing as everywhere else? What’s special?

12 in a dozen atheist blogs are already like this. I thought this would include more dialogue so i linked to it.
Hence the remark with “you call this blog ‘friendly atheist’ ;)”

Otherwise, i usually read this blog with interest.

Simple z, the truth is, many Christians, not all, do do this sort of crap and unfortunately, some atheists return it, sometimes just as cruelly- ie the UnRRS. I find it painfully sad that humans can be so cruel to each other.

IMHO, belief or unbelief doesn’t matter. It’s what one does in life that is more important. There is one thing I can appreciate about my older son’s new found philosophy of Buddhism, even though I think it’s just as bizarre as any other religion, and that is, the gods don’t matter because they aren’t going to help you anyway. IMO, this is an admission that, yes, there are a lot of little invisible gods running around that humans created, but it doesn’t matter. Buddhist also include that you have to do things yourself, not rely on any of the gods to get through this life. I can appreciate that too.

The point that I’m trying to make is that all of this bashing back and forth is just hurting each other and these manmade deities don’t matter. Actions speak louder than words and can do just as much harm as sticks and stones, irregardless of the old saying. It is far better to ask questions, no matter how offensive you may think they sound (of course a little tact helps too) than to live in ignorance of others. In the end, one won’t be remembered for the god they did or did not worship, but their actions in life. So many humanitarians are remembered for what they did and not for which deity they worshipped or did not worship. I could think of many where the focus is on their actions and not on their beliefs.

Treat them well. Be nice to them when they are rude to you. Help them when they are in need. Bring them a plate of cookies. Strike up a conversation about something you share in common.

In other words, worm your way into their lives with such an attitude of hospitality and friendliness to the point that they will become ashamed of their unloving attitudes towards you. Once they can put a human face to the “gay issue”, it will be harder for them to think and act the way they do.

Because I’ve been quite visible in the gay community, I run across these people a lot. And a lot of them are genuinely nice people, who don’t see their attitudes as being hateful.

They call it “Hating the sin, and loving the sinner”. They’ll be the nicest people in the world to your face, but the moment you leave, they’ll be perfectly happy to sign that petition to ban same-sex marriage. Or abortion. Or any other of those other bigotries they justify to themselves under the rubric of “social conservatism”.

Ultimately, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here, Mike. I think, when confronted with the attitudes I see in the ‘toon, what the theoretical atheist did was absolutely morally justified; and he’s no longer obligated to respect the religion of his tormentor. And to point out the hypocrisy of his tormentor’s actions.

And I would say exactly the same thing, if the situations were reversed. But that’s not the country we’re living in.

Fwiw, Mike I have similar thoughts.

I’ll note that the site I blog at is and continues to be more “friendly” than this site. Perhaps it’s because I’m aware that I post as a guest of a Christian ministry.

Sometimes I’m frustrated, and sometimes I’m not always the friendliest version of myself… however I do try to stay on the friendlier side of the site norm when posting both there and here.

See my posts recently on the site I blog at… especially my start at a multi-part series on the Little Book of Atheist Spirituality. I attempt and continue to attempt to change the tone of the broader discussion. At the same time, I understand that I have no desire to be an atheist “concern troll”. I do not see my function as fixing the “atheist movement”. I’ll call out a “low blow”, but I’d much rather recognize positives to promote than to harp on negatives… especially repeatedly.

I’ll note that while the OffTheMap ebay atheist blog has been and continues to be more positive than this blog… its readership and participation has dwindled to a bare trickle, while this blog is among the top-read blogs in the atheist blogosphere… some days surpassing even Richard Dawkins’ site.

Sometimes I think it might be wise to adopt a serenity prayer type of approach to the conversation. I recognize that I am working to attempt to set a better example. Sometimes I don’t myself live up to that example. Often the broader conversation does not follow my example. The relative popularity and participation of the ebay atheist blog and the friendly atheist blog tell me that maybe the conversation that most people WANT to have is the conversation they are having, not the conversation I would like.

But I recognize that my secondary goal has been to change the conversation. My primary goal was always to help gain the tools to be able to discuss faith calmly, respectfully and in an articulate way that (when I want) doesn’t make enemies. This whole thing has been an excersize for me in learning how I can talk to my parents should my atheism come up, and should there be a conflict about religion… my parents aren’t the best “dispassionate discussion” types.

If the conversation has provided me with these tools, then I’m learning what I wanted to learn. I can’t help but say sorry to you that sometimes when I push, somewhat I’m trying to learn what sets people off, and I apologize for making you a guinea pig sometimes! 😉

But anyway, sometimes I think it’s okay if the conversation isn’t what I’d like it to be. I think people are making the conversation they want. And if Greta Christina is right, and the anger we see in this discussion is necessary, then I’ll let her be right.

And one more thought. What exactly is being implied by taking the cross out of hand and breaking it? When the zealot attacks, he is using words and other forms of communication. So, the cross is allegorical. There is no actual cross to grab. Just ignore the fool. If it is at work, then file Harassment charges. Or if its too pressing, then file charges. Or, do what I do; Enjoy the show. Unless of course this is a call for social change. What are you asking to be done? That all Christians would never again be allowed to voice an opinion that is different than you want, or that says they don’t agree with something you are doing. Am I not allowed to have a voice as you are? Am I not allowed to disagree with any or all points of your belief as you do of mine? I don’t think you want something this extreme. I hope not. I pray not.

Sometimes turning the other cheek only gets you slapped harder.

Anyone ever notice that the so-called moderates are always the first to wag their fingers at an atheist who shows the slightest amount of backbone towards their fundamentalist brethren? You almost never see them wagging their fingers at the fundamentalists? Apparently it’s only rude if your talking about their religion.

Go to any board or blog that has the fundy bent, and see if you can count on one hand how many moderates criticize the opinions of the fundamentalist posters.

The comic would be more accurate if there was a person off to the side yelling at the atheist about showing respect.

Guys

in my country, Sweden, the matter is different, the other way around from the US:
It’s considered childish, stupid, uneducated, and mean, to believe in anything supernatural (a God, a spirit, etc)
So christian bashing has been a part of all my life, it’s a natural every day ingredient. I wonder what it’s like for you on the other side of the pond.

The people who abuse and harass homosexuals in Sweden, are NOT pentecostals, baptists, catholics or whatever, from what i read in media reporting:
it’s macho nationalists, no one else.

But this is a different story, i know.

In sweden, most atheist blogs do their obligatory boring bashing every day and are tiresome because of their commonness, one can’t separate one from another, actually.
It’s just wining every day, going on and on about “You believe the world is 6000 years old” and “A fetus is not a human being” etc etc
I’m tired of this, because i have never ever thought the universe is younger than 13 billion years etc. European christians don’t recognize these accusations at all.
And another thing: They seem to assume that ALL atheists are FOR free abortion: Such prejudice against their own kind!
I know two swedish atheists who have told me that they absolutely loath the killing of fetuses.

My point with the above mark was merely this:

Insert a comic strip like the one above in a post, and you are bound to get comments with questions about the word FRIENDLY in your blog name.

Even funnier than the cartoon is the Christians – many claiming to be moderate – who are telling atheists how to be. Hey, you’re the majority. You have a president and most of the legislature on your side. Our culture is soaked in your theology so don’t give me that ‘persecuted’ stuff. You’re no more aware how you come across than a fish is aware of water.

There’s nothing unfriendly about breaking a weapon that is used against you. And if you doubt the reality of the cartoon, read Ray Comfort’s blog, listen to the Pope, watch Bill O’Reilly.

And yes, there is an actual weapon that Christianists use against unbelievers; it is their theology combined with US law. They want children to learn creationism in school. If the law permitted it, they’d have biology textbooks that said the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. They want to keep kids ignorant of sex (a dangerous ignorance if ever there was one) and force women to adhere to their religiously-driven roles. Gays they’d just as soon stay out of sight. And for some reason I can’t figure out, Christianism has gotten mixed up with invading other countries that don’t like us. On and on and on.

Siamang said:

Mike said:

There is no actual cross to grab. Just ignore the fool. If it is at work, then file Harassment charges. Or if its too pressing, then file charges.

What if he is your father? Ignore the fool? What if he is your family? Leave them? What if it is your friend? Laugh?

I’m sort of having that problem right now with my mother- through a series of snail mail evangelistic material without an letter of explaination or “I love you” or anything attached. It happens every now and then, but lately it’s been a series, day after day. 🙁 No, there is no cross to grab and even IF it was, I would be disrespecting my mother to act like that, but it would be nice if it would stop. Almost 42 y.o. and I don’t know how to tell my mother to stop without being disrespectful. Anyone else, I’d tell them to stop and not care about being respectful, because it’s not respectful to me. So those are good questions, Siamang. I’ve “turned the other cheek” by just throwing away the information, which is just Evangelical Fundamentalist propaganda with no psychological, scientific foundation. That’s not making it stop though. So what do you do when it’s your mother- the fundie and you- the non-theist? Maybe that is why the comic hurts me so much- because I live in the Bible Belt and my relatives are the worst of the lot. It’s bad when relatives do it and at the same time you believe in respecting your elders.

Respecting your elders is not a necessarily religious. It’s cultural- or many cultures still believe in it, right down to the Native Americans. Things like this cause a Catch-22.

HappyNat said,

January 31, 2008 at 7:16 am

What exactly is being implied by taking the cross out of hand and breaking it? When the zealot attacks, he is using words and other forms of communication

Mike,

The cross is “not meant to be taken literally” in either panel. Christians don’t really hit atheists with crosses (at least I don’t think they do), but some pummel us with hateful preaching. The atheist about to break the cross symbolizes standing up to the hate/disinformation.

No the cross could be religious propaganda even and the breaking of the cross could be the atheist sending it through the shredder or placing it in file 13. Trust me, I’ve done that a lot this week. 🙁

No, there is no cross to grab and even IF it was, I would be disrespecting my mother to act like that…

I most certaily would not. You need to flat out tell her that her behavior is unacceptable.

About 10 years ago my mother started preaching to me and I told her that if she couldn’t keep it to herself, she would not be welcome in my home. She decided she would rather be friends with me than try to re-convert me. My in-laws on the other hand, can’t stop needling us about religion and so they hardly ever hear from my husband. We haven’t ex-communicated them or anything, but we do not visit them or talk to them much because we don’t want to be subjected to constant heckling.

You don’t have to put up with shit just because it comes from your parents.

Surely the point is no one killed in the name of atheism. (No not even Stalin- persecution of the Church was against another powerful organisation, as all dictators do, not per se based on religeous point of view.)

A collegue at work was telling me that her son who worked for a major world financial institution was basically told his lack of religeon would hold back his career. A number of US states/cities have laws banning atheists. President Bush Snr publically stated that Atheists are not (in his opinion) as patriotic.

Placing Dawkins instead of the Cross is not an accurate analogy. There are no 24 hour Atheist channels, there is no public rejection like there is for Athiests. The US public, when surveyed, said they would rather vote for a Muslim than an Atheist.

When some one like Dawkins says “These are the observed facts, and this is where this mythology does not tally” he is some how aggressive and abusive. Yet Atheists have to suffer Theists constantly telling them they are wrong.

The Christian in the cartoon isn’t literally hitting the atheist- that is a representation of the moral aggression atheist can suffer. The atheist isn’t literally breaking the cross- he is arguing against the things it represents. If you think that this cartoon is a verbatim representation of the writers view then you have completly misunderstood the point of the cartoon. It is an allegory.

We haven’t ex-communicated them or anything, but we do not visit them or talk to them much because we don’t want to be subjected to constant heckling.

My mother would me, which maybe alright since we rarely see each other and most of the time she calls me. It’s been almost a year since I saw her and that was at my grandmother’s funeral. That’s how rare it is- no shared holidays or anything like that. If she does call, it sometimes turns into the Inquisition. 🙄 So, maybe it would not be so bad if she completely shut the door. Who knows, but you know it’s bad when a Christian friend sees this and can’t stand that my mother puts me through such crap. Even she says my mother is wrong in her behaviour. However, I think my friend is wrong in saying there is nothing I can do about it.

I would think that would be obvious, MikeC!

I think the correct response to this cartoon is HahahhaAHHAHHAhohoohoHOHHO. Ha Ha.

I think the wedding of the church with political power was not only the worst thing to ever happen to the church in the history of Christianity, it is also a betrayal of everything the message of Jesus was about in the first place.

Yeah, as I understand the Christian message, that’s pretty accurate. It’s a grim situation.

bullshit

So how many hours would you say you spend at fundamentalist sites telling them they should be less strident?

Just curious.

MikeClawson said,

January 31, 2008 at 12:34 am

You almost never see them wagging their fingers at the fundamentalists?

bullshit

Well, Lobo, I wouldn’t say Mike would get along so hot with Fundamentalists. He committed a horrendous sin- at least according to the ones I know. 😆

Used to be a lot more than it is now, once I realized that no one was listening.

Quitter.

Seriously, though. From your frame of reference, maybe the passive approach you advocate (yes, it is passive) fits in well with your view of the world. But it is inherently a christian perspective. As an atheist, I see no practical value in that approach. History is soaked in the blood of people who thought passivity was the way to deal with the zealots.

If only the dangerous ones could be convinced to have a live and let live attitude. But the truth is that it’s not possible. The truth is that they aren’t interested in doing anything other than bringing everyone else to heel with how they want the world to be. Passivity does nothing but encourage them. The more you give, the more they want.

You don’t really have any business telling atheists how to deal with our issues.

But your argument does makes a good case for the War in Iraq for instance. No point in talking to our enemies peacefully. Might as well just bomb the shit out of them.

Really, we can do that to our own government? I thought we were only allowed to vote them out (except Florida, where we can’t even do that).

So there’s my flip comment in response to yours – did you really think that was what Lobo was suggesting? I suspect not, I suspect it was just the frustration talking.

But still, I think some people are a little too steeped in the golden rule. Nice is good, but effective is better. I think what Mike advocates will work really well, with him and others like him. I don’t think it’s going to do squat with the ones trying to shoehorn their religion into our constitution.

As far as Gandhi goes, either he was calculating in his choice of tactics, as decrepitoldfool said, or he was lucky in that he had the right opponents for his tactics. What tactics will work for us? I don’t know that any one single homogenized way will, but I don’t see that being respectful of those who insist upon unconditional respect for religion is going to accomplish anything except letting them, once again, frame the conversation and dictate the terms.

So, for those that want to be ultra-nice, you all go right ahead, and I hope it works for you, truly. If and when I see a way that’s tremendously successful, I may change mine, but until we have something that works, I don’t see why your way should be the only way.

No, but the logic is the same.

No, it’s not. It’s a continuum, not a dichotomy. It’s not just a choice between doormat and psychotic. There are a thousand stops along the way between those two, and more than a few side roads, but you don’t seem to acknowledge that there is any other acceptable way but yours.

If our goal is respect, then we can’t achieve that through disrespect.

Why not? I look at the history of the civil rights movement, and what I see is disrespectful people standing up for themselves, refusing to be downtrodden any longer, and finally getting some respect.

If our goal is peace, then we can’t achieve that through violence (whether literal or verbal).

I remember the 60’s, and those anti-war demonstrations were not verbally peaceful, but they were successful, eventually.

There’s more than one way to be the change you want to see in the world. When someone stands up to somebody trying to make his religion into law, I don’t care if he or she is respectful or not – all I care about is that they stood up. Your way is not the only way, and your arguments so far that it’s the best way are just not convincing.

Wow! Lots of trade overnight.

Mike Clawson: “But is getting fired from a church for saying something like this good enough for you?”

Something very similar happened to me back in my Christian ministry days. But don’t worry, that had nothing to do with my eventually becoming an atheist.

Lobo to MC: “You don’t really have any business telling atheists how to deal with our issues.”

Forgive me for using your statement as a jumping-off point. An abstraction of that idea is that nobody has any business telling anybody how to be (not that it stops anyone). Being human comes with an automatic license to say: “You’re not in my skin so hush up”. But groups are not totally distinct. I’m an atheist- environmentalist- bald guy- bicyclist- science fan- bunch of other sets- person who therefore overlaps with a lot of complimentary and contradictory sets. Probably we all are. So “Us/Them” boundaries are very porous and a fanatic could be defined as someone who draws one boundary that supercedes all others.

Claire: “But still, I think some people are a little too steeped in the golden rule. Nice is good, but effective is better. I think what Mike advocates will work really well, with him and others like him. I don’t think it’s going to do squat with the ones trying to shoehorn their religion into our constitution.”

I reluctantly came to that conclusion myself some time back. I wanted to think better of humanity. I have still been dismayed by the fact that on many atheist forums, if you aren’t helping stack the bonfire then you’re a condescending dirty so-and-so, and the only two options are being ‘nice’ and flinging dung at the other monkeys. I don’t think we need to cede any ground to the Christianists, but they aren’t any more impressed by our use of the f- word than we are by their incessant scripture references.

In fact, I have given up all hope of ever influencing the hard-core Christianists and now simply want to make it easier for people who are on the fence to see them for what they are. I think we should consider using less ammunition and take better aim. But if there were a perfectly effective tactic, we’d all be using it because the answer would be obvious.

Ghandi’s tactics worked with the British because despite the monstrous things being done in a distant land by Brit military and corporate interests, British culture did enable individuals to realize how indecent it all was. His nonviolent tactics threw the atrocities into a particularly harsh light of comparison.

Historical examples are a good source of inspiration but not necessarily as a guide. As Mark Twain said; “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.” And some changes would have taken place sooner or later with or without the individuals who got credit for them. (Anyone who believes the Soviet Union would still be going strong if Reagan hadn’t said; “Tear down this wall!” please raise your hand) Civil rights have been credited to Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, Eldridge Cleaver, Malcom X, even George Wallace. In truth they probably all had a hand.

One particularly dangerous development is the possibility of “respect religion” laws all over the world. The UN had some kind of resolution on the table about that, the Pope has been calling for everyone to “respect” religion (which I assume means don’t draw cartoons about it) and even Christianists in the US have been calling for limitations on free speech – but of course they only mean to restrict criticism of Christianity, not other religions.

MikeClawson said,

February 1, 2008 at 12:57 am

Active, non-violent peacemaking is not the same as passivity. Unless you want to claim that people like Dr. King were merely passive.

I agree and MLK Jr. (another one of my heros) was hardly passive.

Might as well just bomb the shit out of them.

He did it again guys! 😆 I’m telling you, Mike wouldn’t be very happy among the Religious Reich. They’d be yelling at him to repent, IF they even spoke to him.

And who says I’m just talking to atheists? My advice is for human beings in general, regardless of religious or non-religious affiliation… and especially for my own self, as I tend to need constant reminders to respond in love.

Well, love is the greatest of these. No, I’m not making fun of you, Mike. It might not be much, but I have a point by point these things out to others. The Fundamgelicals that I know, would be ranting and raving about your “swearing” alone. However, love is a humanistic value. Don’t see much love going on with the Religious Reich.

Claire said,

I don’t know that any one single homogenized way will, but I don’t see that being respectful of those who insist upon unconditional respect for religion is going to accomplish anything except letting them, once again, frame the conversation and dictate the terms.

No, Claire, but IF they were to stop and think, maybe they would realize non-theists aren’t as bad as they make them out to be. Although some extremists do need a good tongue lashing every now and then.

MikeClawson said,

February 1, 2008 at 3:11 am

So, for those that want to be ultra-nice, you all go right ahead, and I hope it works for you, truly.

“Nice” really isn’t a very good way of describing what I’m getting at. Was MLK merely “nice”? Loving both the oppressed and their oppressors in a way that brings justice to both (while often also risking harm to yourself) is not merely “nice”.

In all honesty, I think MLK Jr made the oppressors look bad by instructing the Freedom Fighters not to fight back when they got hit with belly clubs and alike. It got media attention as the Lunch Counter people just sat there and suddenly got a beating without fighting back. It’s sort of up there with “he who gets the last laugh” only it wasn’t funny.

If our goal is peace, then we can’t achieve that through violence (whether literal or verbal).

Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.
Martin Luther King Jr.
US black civil rights leader & clergyman (1929 – 1968)

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Martin Luther King Jr.
US black civil rights leader & clergyman (1929 – 1968)

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars… Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
Martin Luther King Jr.
US black civil rights leader & clergyman (1929 – 1968)

Of course, I’m preaching to the chior by affirming what you are saying, but others who don’t understand where MLK is coming from might get it.

I’m curious though. Do other atheists here agree with Lobo’s opinion that peacemaking and non-violent resistance is “inherently a christian perspective”? Is loving one’s enemies solely a Christian virtue? Is there some reason atheists shouldn’t be “pacifists” (assuming that by “pacifist” we mean active peacemakers, not passive doormats)?

To be honest, Mike, I see it quite the opposite with many Christians, esp those of the Religious Reich. They do not love others, much less themselves, from what I can tell. If anything, they want to drop the big bomb and “force” Jesus to return. Too bad they don’t realize that the only deity that will be decending from the sky, if they do that, is the BIG BOMB, and not Jesus or what have you. They can be some of the cruelest and the most oppressive people I’ve ever seen and that’s not talking about Muslim extremists.

I think atheists can be pacifists and probably do it much better than the religious. If one were to study the Humanist Manifestos, they will see that Humanists adhere to pacifist ideas, but they are not doormats. They find other means to retaliate against violence and hatred, just as Gandhi and MLK Jr did. I think I mentioned the story about “Finlay’s Conversion of Thomas”? Well, apparently it made the papers in 1933. Finley, a very devote Christian, threaten to hit Thomas if he denied one more time there was a God, by saying, “Thomas, you say just once more that there is no God, and I will knock the HELL out of YOU!” The Christian decked the Humanist and the reported put it in the papers. Who came out looking better? Violence seems to be the method of choice with Christians who insist on converting people. Humanist can do it better and more peacefully. 😉 I like Thomas. Never met him, but I like him!

Claire said,

I look at the history of the civil rights movement, and what I see is disrespectful people standing up for themselves, refusing to be downtrodden any longer, and finally getting some respect.

Yes, but most did it with non-violent methods. Not violence. And Malcolm X started the School Lunch Program. He did not turn any child away on the basis of colour. If they were hungry, he fed them. So, even Malcolm had his methods of non-violence. He wasn’t all about violence, BUT he did not agree with MLK Jr about not defending ourselves if we are getting a beating. I hate to admit it, but even Malcolm had his good qualities.

I think you’re missing the point, Claire. If you sudy the Civil Rights, I think you will find it was the Objectors to equality who were doing most of the violence. Oh yes, there were the moments like Watts and East St. Louis (I saw the one in E. St. Louy), but for the most part, it was peaceful on the protestors’ side. I’d go over MLK Jr’s philosophy too before you judge it to be wrong or what have you.

It sounded as though you didn’t appreciate pacifism for some reason, Claire.

Not at all, Mriana. Some people have a gift for it, like King and Gandhi, and can do it effectively, and I think they were truly great, and the world is better for them. I just don’t like it when people try to tell me that by being what they consider disrespectful, that I am in some fashion trampling on the legacy of those people. I’m all about the non-violence, but I’m not going to be respectful of people who want to diminish me because I disagree. There isn’t just one right way to create change.

Added on after seeing the comment above: yup, what Siamang said….

As far as the original cartoon goes, do you folk who complained not recognize an editorial cartoon when you see one? Yes, it’s critical, yes, it has a point and an edge and a target, but that’s what an editorial cartoon does. It’s not “Peanuts” and it was never supposed to be.

Would be a bit more violent with Muslim characters – probably a scimitar and a beheading with the same text.

haha what a perfect pic! ^^