Was the Atheist Billboard Quoting a Pro-Slavery Bible Verse Racist?

While the thing made me uncomfortable (which I generally am when people use the image of slavery for a political purpose – they usually don’t know what the hell they’re talking about), I pretty much agree with AJ’s analysis. It is RACIAL, it has racist ASSOCIATIONS, but it does not have the effect of exacerbating existing racial power disparities, and the image of an African slave is appropriate in PA, which has  a long and fractious history with slavery.

You know what would have made this billboard flow better?  If, above the verse, it said, “The Bible says,” Having the billboard start right off with something that is definitely harsh certainly does leave the quick glancing driver wondering WTF is that all about.

What boggles my mind is that, okay, people might get upset about it when driving past it. Good, it’s supposed to make them upset. But they then complain about it, which means that they have the option, time and ability to actually sit down and investigate what the purpose and message of the billboard is. If they’re STILL upset, based on their initial reaction about it being about racism, then they’re willfully ignoring the message of the billboard and I can no longer sympathize with them in any way.

Who’s even to say that it’s an American slave depicted? Lots of other nations had African slaves.

“If you’re upset about the message, don’t take it out on the messengers.”

So – it’s okay for me to call you a *&(%#$%+, because it’s your problem for having issues with being called a *&(%#$%+?

http://www.atheists.org/press_releases/Atheist_Group_Calls_for_Apologies_Following_%26%238220%3BInsults%26%238221%3B_by_Charlie_Sheen,_Katie_Couric

How would you respond if a local Christian group put up a banner which says:
“‘There Are No Atheists In Foxholes’ – Katie Couric. Join The American Army And Do Your Christian Duty By Your Country”.

Should I be angry at Katie Couric or at the group who’d put up such a banner?  

It doesn’t work that way, Hemnat. The group has to take responsibility and have some thought about how the message can (and will) be interpreted, rather than what I consider to be bad advertising. 

i think it’s the graphic that they used. It’s just disturbing. So that then reflects on the messenger, not the message.

That’s not racist at all. African Americans were slaves in America, which is what the billboard is targeting. How is it racist to pick a picture of one race over another? Should they just have put pictures of every race? Why does that matter? It’s like saying it’s sexist to have an over-emotional female character. It’s not. The billboard isn’t saying the African race is worse than any other race, it’s just referencing the slavery problems America had. It’s pretty well-known that African Americans have a tendency to be religious in general; why is it racist to point out to them that, according to the bible, they should all be slaves? To point out to them that this book they’re [supposedly] following is not so wonderful or moral as they seem to think?

I think it has worked brilliantly, it has garnered enormous attention and coverage by the news media. Go American Atheists! Perhaps it would be a good idea to get better graphic designers in future so that the message gets across as desired however.

One has to be careful when you deal with issues of race.  American never acknowledged and actively dealt with its race issues.  In fact to this day we blame black people for their high incarceration rates etc. Also the argument about blacks having slaves is such a shit argument and a cop out that I find it difficult to even be cordial.
When I first saw it, I though it was too close to the line.  I understand wanting to have a shock value but putting blacks in shackles has still not been addressed here.  There is still a lot of anger and hatred bubbling just below the surface and always will unless we do what countries like Germany did. 
It was not “racist” but is showed poor tact.  If the caracter  was white I think people would have been a bit more interested is seeing what is trying to be said.  A black face immediately offended.  

The billboard you just made up would be supporting the phrase.  The American Atheists’ billboard is trying to take a stand against accepting such statements as moral.   Apples and oranges, try again.

So if the slave was depicted as white (or yellow, or brown, or beige), suddenly it ceases being racist at all!? Should we use image of little grey man, ET, or King Kong instead?

Where is the billboard put up again? The United States, am I right? The kind of slaves that most americans are familiar with are the black slaves!

Yep, not smooth at all.  We are not yet in an era where racism is a complete thing of the past so why even go there.  They might as well have painted a big fat red target on themselves.

 What disturbs me the most about this fiasco, like all previous such fiascos, is that nobody has apologised. How hard is it to own it, admit you did the wrong thing (however noble your intention may have been), say sorry, and move on?

Oh, I forgot. Atheists are rational, evidence-based people. They never make mistakes. It’s always everyone else who is too stupid or deluded to get it.

I agree. Don’t make it easy for people to misinterpret the message.  Especially while speeding by at 50+ mph.

I’m almost offended you’re giving the discussion any airtime, actually. This is SO NOT RACIST that you’re wasting our time by posting about it!

While I think the billboard is poorly designed from a persuasive standpoint, there is nothing misleading or racist about it.  The only people they ought to apologize to are the American Atheist donors whose money they didn’t use as effectively as they could have.  People can’t be held responsible for how those who don’t like the message will misinterpret their words.  That’s an absurd standard.  

Also, Colossians was written in the 1st Century CE.  I don’t know why it’s being described as “Bronze Age ethics”.

They talked about this on the Blacking it Up podcast today. The hosts were not amused, nor were most of the people in the chatroom. The main issue was the image. People felt that it was exploiting the tragedy of slavery to promote someone else’s agenda. It’s not an antislavery billboard per se — it’s an atheist billboard using slavery to make a point. And, given the demographics of the atheist movement, I’d bet it was mostly a bunch of white people using the image of a shackled black man for their own purposes. Can you see why that makes people uncomfortable?

 Yes! The smashing babies against rocks passage should reach across all demographics.

 Agreed. Americans hear the world “slavery” and we think of the slavery of blacks in America. If the billboard had had a picture of, say, a white girl trapped in the sex slave industry, it would have just been even more confusing for this billboard.

Actually, there is an apology:  http://www.panonbelievers.org/2012/03/07/billboard-apology/

 +1

I think people are mostly just gobsmacked by the now-bizarre image of a person in slave restraints. (It sure made me do a double-take!)

 “Grey.”

“What?”

“They’re grey. Little grey men. Not green”

-Exchange between Fox Mulder and (I believe) Tom Colton, during either “Squeeze” or “Tooms”*

*I’m quoting this from memory, so it may not be entirely accurate.

PZ had a good thread on why this billboard is bad, regardless of whether
it’s racist: freethoughtblogs dot com/pharyngula/2012/03/08/kylie-doesnt-get-it/

That’s not an apology. It’s what’s commonly referred to as a notpology. This one takes the most common form: “We’re sorry you misunderstood us.” A real apology requires taking responsibility; it might look like “we’re sorry we didn’t make more of an effort to show that we want to support black communities.”

They could have just gone with the “Take my daughters, but leave the angels alone!” quote. That is a powerful gut punch to anyone who drives past it. There is no perceived sense of racism in that quote. It shows pure malice for one’s own blood and the “taken out of context” card will be much, much harder to justify.
The Bible isn’t starved for depravity like this, the Billboard designing guys just need to hunt down one example-just one- where the implications are so damning that the Bible will be held to judgement and NOT the atheist community for bringing it to public attention.
And next time, Billboard designers, just come out and say “The KJV Bible in your pocket says…. (and then quote)”
“The Bible you swear to tell the truth on says ….(insert vile example here)”

I’m not an American, but if these points are valid and acceptable, please forward them to the right folks.

OK, why is this racist? Because …
 
a) Atheists assume that Bible-Thumpers have actually read the bible … whereas many, many Xtians have never even heard of Colossians.

b) It does not condemn slavery, therefore readers assume that atheists must be FOR slavery.

c) Since the complete mapping of the humane genome has proved conclusively that we are all members of the human race, racist now means “for anything I am against, and against anything I am for”.

d) If the words THE HOLY BIBLE SAYS … were on the billboard, instead of just the reference, maybe more people would realise that most religions promote slavery.  

 I think it is clear that people willfully misinterpreted it.

 “I’m sorry you willfully misinterpreted this billboard, despite it’s message being crystal clear. I’m sorry the bible contains such offensive material”

apology done.

 So including a bible reference doesn’t count?

When taking the overall mindset of someone who believes in something that is, as it was once said “So unbelievable, no one in their right mind would believe it”, front lobe activity is hypersensitive to anything that threatens what one cannot explain but guides one’s life. Simply put, the entire ad was a waste of time.

Poorly done. I certainly get it, but I can see how a person driving by would be a bit confused and assume possible racism. Whether or not this is “actually racist” doesn’t matter. The fact that we’re having this conversation shows that it was poorly done. Billboards have to be very very simple. A person driving by just needs a tag line. The arguments that atheists want to make seem too complicated for billboards. They’d do better with a newspaper ad or something like that.

You aren’t under the impression that no white has ever been enslaved are you? Africans were taking slaves directly from Britain up into the 1800s. Approximately a million Europeans were taken as slaves to Africa.

“Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.” according to Robert Davis at Ohio State University

Slavery wasn’t invented by whites or based on racism. Black Africans and pre-colonial native north and south American Indians practiced it, along with Asians, east Indians, etc. The bible quote wasn’t likely about black slavery in the first place. Slavery was a local phenomena everywhere first and then was practiced over longer distances. Europe was subject to wave after wave of invasions before the colonial period started. It was the rise of technological superiority that resulted in the colonial period, not some inherent moral inferiority of Europeans. They just got better at it.

Thanks, TooManyJens.  I knew I must have been missing something.

How would you respond to someone who asked you to stop seeing things through an atheist lens, because it distracted from their point?  Racism is something that affects people in the here and now, and acknowledging that is as important as 
acknowledging  religious bias.

You are spot on. Especially when the atheist movement has such a problem acknowledging and rectifying racial injustice within its own ranks. And now, all of a sudden, it’s ok for a mostly-white organization to use the historical oppression of black people when it suits them? No. Not okay. And white people should certainly NOT be the arbiters of what is and is not acceptable in that area. 

With plenty of reasonable people chiming in that yes, it actually is racist. 

 Exactly. Racism and racial tension exist, and to pretend that they don’t is to avoid living in the real world.

Racist? Personally for me, No. For it’s the truth. Offensive? Personally for me, No. For it’s the truth. Inappropriate for public eye where children would see it… Yes. Inappropriate.

Absolutely agree. Our goal should be to catch people’s attention and then persuade them with reason. The quote would have been enough to do that. The image just smashed people over the head. It was designed to provoke revulsion and disgust, and I think a lot of people would be annoyed at what they perceived as emotional manipulation. It would be like a Christian billboard having a picture of a mother holding a graphically dead child, with a quote by an atheist saying that there is no such thing as life after death.

This was what I was trying to link to:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ds1KEC__fII/S2wFXmpJjTI/AAAAAAAAANg/CABcL1zKhqY/4.-The-Lynching-of-Young-Blacks-Indiana-1930_thumb%5B2%5D.jpg?imgmax=800

Weren’t most slaves in the “good” book  Jewish? Or atleast middle eastern looking?

It was at an intersection, not on a highway. Plenty of time for people sitting at the red light to discern the message.

Racist?  A hate crime?  No.  Racially provocative, yes.  And even that might’ve been easily defused had the billboard been sponsored by a black atheist group. 

I totally “got” the billboard, and that very Biblical verse is a talking point I frequently use.  But what do you think was easier for the average half-assed theist? Taking offense at an ugly, racially charged image, or critically contemplating its accompanying Bible verse.  People who’ve been conditioned to believe what they’re told rather than think for themselves are predisposed to the former.   That image stole the thunder.

Hindsight is 20/20, so I see this as a teachable moment.  We’re going to have to get a bit more emotionally intelligent and less snarky. 

It’s not racist and they’re not “exploiting” slavery. SHEESH

That’s a thing that’s been bothering me too, with all the criticism of it being hard to understand while zooming by. All the pictures I’ve seen of it shows it not being a “highway billboard” – and if it’s at a intersection, that undermines much of the misinterpretation even more.
I mean, there are cars parked underneath it and the vandals obviously stood on a car to scrape most of it down. In my travels in the  US I haven’t seen a highway billboard where you could do that.

That was a brilliant reverse Poe! Well done!

It’s a little difficult for people from the modern era to get their heads around this idea, having been brought up with the image of New World plantation-era slavery and the post-Hague-Convention idea of “rules of war”.

The Ancient Near East was, unsurprisingly, nothing like that. Slaves were generally people who had been conquered. Indeed, slavery was partly developed as an alternative to killing every male of fighting age in a captured city. Moreover, slave-owning was highly regulated. In many nations (including Rome, Greece and the Hebrew system), slaves had some guaranteed civil rights and could own property and land, for example.

After the abolition of slavery and the advent of nation states, members of opposing armies were still routinely killed until the Second Hague Convention codified the notion of “prisoner of war”.

Slavery wasn’t a good thing, but it did take some crucial social and technological developments before people envisaged an even better alternative.

Well, if that’s the case then that makes all of the difference in the world. How dare these imbeciles pay more attention to cross traffic than a random billboard.

 Regarding #3: In many failing inner city schools the expenditure per student exceeds the successful suburban schools.

It should be no surprise that performance in less desirable neighborhoods, even without budget disparity.

In general intelligent, ambitious people tend to wind up making more money, often significantly more than less intelligent people. There are exceptions in both directions, but the overall pattern holds. And they naturally concentrate in the ‘better’ neighborhoods.

Intelligent people are far more likely to have intelligent children, over 50 % of intelligence is hereditary. Add to that the children that are growing up in a household where the environment is more likely to be intellectually nurturing and ambitious (these are, after all, households that have demonstrated those characteristics through acquired income)

Is it any surprise that you will find significantly more high performing students in the wealthy area schools than in the poor areas?  Race doesn’t even have to get into it, simply statistics.

Trying to push more money through the system will only help so much. You are dealing with a different, self selected population. When you add to that the negative effects of criminal elements which tend to settle into these neighborhoods, you have a situation that no school budget can fix.

So in your mind being white automatically makes a person guilty? Because that’s the only way you can jump to your conclusion merely on the basis of organizations being mostly white without knowing the reason why they are mostly white. The KKK is mostly white for very different reasons than the atheist community. In fact there is zero evidence that the current ratio has any nefarious cause.

They did apologize and no apology was owed.

Well it is the Iron Age, and what’s a little exaggeration among friends. It’s not like they went all the way back to copper or stone.

Rebecca that first response was totally inappropriate. He wasn’t saying you pick one entire race over another. Also the reason why you do the choosing matters to whether it is racism. They wanted to use a picture of slavery. As he pointed out if you are going to do that you need a group or a single individual. With a group it is not likely you would be able to find a mixed race group of slaves that would be recognizable as such. So group or not you are dealing with a particular race being chosen. The way you think not matter what race was picked it would have been racist, since it mean picking one over another. You have any handy images of white slaves that people in the US are going to recognize. You are aware that there wasn’t much white slavery here, right?

That is incredibly stupid on so many levels.

[Slavery] is not a subject
owned by blacks. In fact it is racist to think it is.

Whites
are not the moral inferiors of blacks, and we do not owe them deference in
everything we do.

[White
people’s] noses are constantly rubbed in the lie that we are responsible for
some black kids dad skipping out on him.

These
are all straw men arguments.  No one is
arguing any of these points.

Blacks
shove uncomfortable images in the faces of others all the time.

While I don’t
think this is true, this logical fallacy is called “Two wrongs make a right.”

If you
think that image is uncomfortable for blacks well it is even less comfortable for
whites, as are pictures of white slave holders.

This is just not
true.  I don’t think that it’s a fun
conversation for anyone, but I think that generally speaking it’s more uncomfortable
for the victims (or their descendants) than the perpetrators (or their descendants),
being that they were the ones actually on the receiving end of abuse.

Our
point of view is that slavery is bad and that the bible advocates it, and that
it was used to justify slavery.

I
think everyone understands and agrees with this point.  The vast majority think that it is quite
clever to protest the year of the Bible with posting controversial Bible
verses.  What people have a problem with
is the execution.  A picture of a black
slave in a choke collar ads a racial component to the billboard that wouldn’t
be there with a more neutral image (like handcuffs, or a ball-&-chain, or
no image at all).  Also, while the verse
was huge, the other important information was relatively small.  At a quick glance what one would see is the
message, “Slaves obey your masters,” and the black slave in a choke collar.  I don’t believe this is the message that the
atheists were intending to send, but it seems pretty clear to me that a
reasonable person could come to that conclusion.  Racism is not just about intentions; it is
about how a reasonable person might interpret the actual behavior as well.   It is
up to the messenger to make sure that the message is not ambiguous to be reasonably
interpreted in another manner.

Well
excuse us for not always taking a point of view that is not our own…. yet I’m
constantly accused in some fashion or another of being a racist. Same for being
a sexist.

You don’t have to
take a point of view that’s not your own—but you should at least listen and
respond to what people are actually saying. 
What are you doing and saying when people tell you that you are racist
or sexist?

” If you’re white, you don’t get to decude what is racist.”

“Shut the fuck up”, she argued.   That means you White.

“These are all straw men arguments.  No one isarguing any of these points.” – Rebecca
False they are argued all the time.   Indefensible statements like ” If you’re white, you don’t get to decude what is racist.” are made all the time. BrianMacker

This does not prove to me that anyone is actually making these claims–in this argument specifically or any “liberal” blogger generally.   A citation would be helpful.

Blacks shove uncomfortable images in the faces of others all the time. -BrianMacker
“While I don’t think this is true, this logical fallacy is called “Two wrongs make a right.” – RebeccaPresenting uncomfortable images is NOT wrong.  – BrianMacker
I was not saying that it was wrong.  What I was saying is that justifying an action because that person would do the same to you is a logical fallacy–called  “two wrongs make a right”.  Hopefully this is clearer.
You are totally clueless.   Intent and truth and a whole lot of other factors matter, other than just comfort or offense.    Your moral reasoning is vacuous.This would fall under the logical fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule, where you substitute verbal abuse for a real argument.
The only statement you have that addresses my point at all is ” Intent and truth and a whole lot of other factors matter, other than just comfort or offense, ” but you don’t explain what you mean by this statement at all.  I’m not sure where truth and comfort even enter into this discussion, because we weren’t talking about lying or discomfort.  You also don’t give a reason why intention of the speaker should matter more than the interpretation of the listener.  I’m listening to what you’re saying, but please reign in your abusive language.

I would say my first response was rather flippant, but not necessarily inappropriate.  You don’t need a image of a slave to depict slavery: Chains, retraining devices, tied arms, for-sale imagery, etc.  If you must have an image of a slave, but can’t find a proper on the public domain, you can draw one.  I doubt anyone would have trouble interpreting a person in shackles next to the word “slave”.  Or you can go without a graphic–graphics are not mandatory on billboards.

” A citation would be helpful.”
That was a citation from this thread.  MommaAnarchy made that statement.   You want more just look up “racial justice”, and “only whites can be racist” or any number of other google searches.

“I was not saying that it was wrong. What I was saying is that justifying an action because that person would do the same to you is a logical fallacy–called  “two wrongs make a right”.  Hopefully this is clearer.”

Well that is where you made a mistake.  I wasn’t justifying it.  I was showing they are hypocrites who don’t even obey this rule themselves.  

I used to live in a black neighborhood and some of the black kids would go out of their way to act tough and give belligerent stares at whites as they walk past on the street.   Then they accuse the white kids of being racist for walking to the other side of the street when they see these assholes coming.  

Meanwhile they would also harrass the black kids who would be nice for “acting white”.   Also harrass them for getting good grades on the same basis.

I had a black kid come up to me and ask me for a dime in a way that said, “You are my bitch”.  He was two grades above me and quite bigger.  Not wanting to fight over a dime, I just gave it to me.  My sister saw this and said “You aren’t going to let him ask for it that way are you?”   I then, stupidly took her advice and tried to enforce some politeness.  I asked him to give me the dime back until he asked for it nice.  Next think I know he is beating on me, I am surrounded by blacks screaming, beat the white boy, which he obliged them.   They didn’t care that it was this 8th grader beating on a small 6th grader.

They behave like this and then are like “I don’t get it”.  No stupid, you don’t get it.   You are the one who is racists.   Any black who says a white person can’t “get it” is as much a racist as any white.

Why? Because they hypocritically don’t get the quite obvious point of view that others don’t like being threatened and beat up on merely because of their race.

Meanwhile we have idiots on the left saying minorities can’t be racist because they are in the minority.    Tell that to the racist Jewish father who got mad that his daughter was dating an Italian (google and listen to that racist tirade by a minority).

“This would fall under the logical fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule, where you substitute verbal abuse for a real argument”

No, that was an accurate assessment, supported by the second sentence.  You in fact DID ignore other factors to zero in on racism just as I claimed.  That was the support, and the assessment matches that support.

Using the image was not racist because the intent was not racist.   There are other factors that also would tend to indicate it is not racist, like the glaringly obvious fact it was anti-slavery.

So claiming it has basis in racism is in fact clueless.   The clues being right in front of your face.

“The only statement you have that addresses my point at all is ” Intent and truth and a whole lot of other factors matter, other than just comfort or offense, ” but you don’t explain what you mean by this statement at all.”

I shouldn’t have to explain that.   It should be obvious.   I’m giving you and the rest of the readers a little credit that I don’t have to babytalk to you.

“You also don’t give a reason why intention of the speaker should matter more than the interpretation of the listener.”

You are kidding right?  

I don’t get offended by pictures of white slaveholders in general.  I get offended when the intent of the person showing it is to imply that I personally have moral responsibility for such things.   Intent does matter, and should matter to when one gets offended.

There is a big difference to say, discussing the word nigger, and using it in that context, and actually calling someone a nigger. 

Instead of understanding intent there are an enormous number of idiots out their who get offended at the mere use of the word.   So much so people are afraid to use it propery and have to say N-word.

Worse, idiots are hearing people say words like “niggardly” or see them reading anti-racist books with titles containing things that “offend” them and making charges of racism.

This is batshit crazy bullshit, and it is all based on the utterly stupid idea that “the interpretation of the listener matters”.  A concept that you have swallowed, hook, line and sinker.   Interpretation only matters where the listener is actually properly interpreting the words.   

Had the billboard said, “Kill all the Niggers – American Atheists” then the intepretation of the listener would match the intention of the writer.    The reason being that the intent is written right into the information being communicated.   That is something one can rightfully be offended at.

Frankly, I don’t know how to make this point non-abusively, because you need to understand that other people don’t enjoy being accused of racism even tangentially and especially at a drop of a hat.    The mere accusation of racism can ruin careers and yet some people throw such charges around like loose change and expect others not to view that as abusive.

Think about it this way.   You don’t get to call other people racist without solid evidence for the same reasons you don’t get to call people niggers.  Pretending you are being polite while doing so and then requiring the other person to ” reign in your abusive language.”  is quite rich.

If you don’t intend to be supporting this PC nonsense then show that intent by stopping your use of it, and defense of it.

How about you concentrate your oppositional efforts on people who support true racism, like MommaAnarchy who made the truly racist statement, “If you’re white, you don’t get to decude what is racist.”     What racist claptrap that is.

I’m black, and found the message hit home as it intended. Americans are too pc and far too sensitive about things. The bulletin may have been in lacking in tact – but many bulletins in fact, are – but it was in no way racist. To say so is ignoring its very message.

It’s really unfortunate that any criticisms of this billboard are dismissed as anti-athiest. I am an atheist and an anti-racism ally. The bottom line is that this billboard objectifies black slaves and their ancestors. The depiction of a specifically African slave in Western shackles conflates the system of taking prisoners of war as slaves described in the Bible (which was incredibly common among nomadic tribes, including some Native American tribes, and generally included welcoming the slaves into your tribe at the end of their term) with the systematic kidnapping and exploitation of one race of humanity by another. All slavery is objectionable, but the ramifications of Western slavery undeniably resonate today and contribute to reactions to this billboard. Yes, it’s true that white slave-owners attempted to use the Bible to pacify their slaves, but it’s also true that the Bible gave hope to educated slaves and informed the morals of abolitionists.

But I don’t think the American Atheists care. All press is good press, right? Even if it contributes to the idea that atheists are privileged white men who don’t give a shit about anyone not in their club, which I know is not true. That’s why I’m so sad when we shoot ourselves in the foot with ill-conceived publicity stunts.

It’s a quote from the supposed “Good Book”. I don’t see how atheists could be blamed for something written by a christian.