Should the Bible be spared from flames and poo?
There seems to be a bit of an uproar over on YouTube. In response to the Blasphemy Challenge author David Mills put a video of himself cursing and ripping out pages of the Bible which he used to pick up dog poo. An atheist by the name of KillTrend took offense and put up a video denouncing the act and stating the rest of us ought to do so as well.
I disagree. Burning, destroying and otherwise “disrespecting” a symbol is a longtime tool of rebellion. People burn flags. They blow up statues. They destroy all manner of things from the mythological “bra burning” of the sixties to the burning of effigies of despised political leaders today.
And when it comes to the Bible, there is probably no greater symbol of terrorism, brutality and subjugation on the planet. Why should it be spared from destruction by those who see it this way? I think the various reasons fall apart under closer inspection.
1 . People already have a bad impression of atheists. People always have a bad impression of groups who are opposing them, especially if the opposing group is seen as undermining the self-assigned rights and/or privileges of the groups being opposed. We saw this the Civil Rights movement, with the second wave of feminism and we are currently witnessing it with the equality movement for homosexuals.
This thought is, IMHO, an internalized mind-game. “If I show how nice and respectful I am, someday they’ll treat me nicely and respect me despite our differences”. But, the fact of the matter is that “someday” will never come because the point of this particular mind game is to create a situation where the oppressed group is too ashamed to act in a manner that will ensure that that “someday” arrives.
For example, Martin Luther King Jr was arrested in Birmingham, Alabama in April of 1963 for protesting segregation. While in jail several ministers published a piece condemning his actions and calling for all black people to abstain from the demonstrations. In short, Dr. King and black people were told to “play nice and someday we’ll quit treating you like crap”. Dr. King did not and the demonstrations grew. And here it is, nearly 44 years later and segregation is gone.
2. Destroying Bibles is like blowing up Buddhists statues. No, it’s not. While both involve the destruction of religious symbols, only one is done from the seat of power. The closest thing in America to the destruction of the statues is Mount Rushmore. How so? Mount Rushmore was once known as the Six Grandfathers and was a holy site for the Lakotas. The American government seized it and defaced it with the faces of white men. They might as well have stacked dynamite around it and blown it up.
In short, the defacement of the Six Grandfathers and the destruction of the Buddhists statues were done from seats of power by the ruling group. They were both acts of oppression and designed to subjugate opposing groups. In America, atheists have neither the actual power nor the social standing to oppress or subjugate theists. Comparing the rebellious destruction of the majorities favourite symbol by a member of a despised minority group to similar (in appearance only) acts of the majority is absurd.
3. Destroying symbols doesn’t “prove” anything. This may be true, but destroying a symbol isn’t about “proving” anything. It’s about defiance. Women shave their heads not to prove that popular definitions of what’s “womanly” are wrong, but to defy those popular definitions. The destruction of a woman’s hair by the woman is an act of defiance. So is the destruction of holy book by people demonized by that book.
Such destruction is not be seen in the same light of Christians destroying the Koran in western countries such as America. As with the statues and mountain above, Christian destruction of non-Christian symbols such as the Koran are acts of oppression, not defiance.
4. Atheist Bible destroyers are not unlike Fred Phelps. Wrong. The motivations are quite different and quite important. Destroying a Bible is a defiant act that repudiates the idea that it is special and deserving of respect. Standing on a corner with a sign that says “Gays Die, God Laughs” is an oppressive act that is designed to intimidate homosexuals and showing up at a non-gay persons funeral with a sign that says “God Hates America” is an aggressive act designed to intimidate non-gays from fighting the oppression of homosexuals. The two are only similar in the shock they are capable of producing.
So, in conclusion, it is my honest opinion that the destruction of the Bible by atheists is not similar to the behaviour of majority groups as they relate to the ideas and symbols of minority groups. The motivations are quite different. The majority wishes to silence opposition and uses such acts to intimidate. The minority wishes to be be heard and uses such acts to get the attention of those who will listen. They are similar in appearance only.
Popularity: 6% [?]
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader. You can also subscribe to the comment feed for this post or leave a trackback to your site.
Comments
K.C.:
Hemant, the Friendly Atheist, has joined the fray, criticizing this post. Since I agree with just about everything you say here, I left him a reply, which I’ve copied here for your enjoyment.
Cut the not-holier than thou stuff, Hemant. David Mills was having some good clean-up fun.
By the way, I’m not convinced that was a little girl’s laughter in the background. What evidence do you have to jump to that conclusion. Maybe it was a girlish adult?
Anyway, why must all atheists act as a friendly bloc? Some of us find the ideas in the bible offensive. If Mills had cleaned up shit with a copy of Mein Kampf, would that be OK? Or would you be afraid that we’d offend some Nazis?
I don’t see any reason why we need to look for acceptance from the godiots. That’s not to say that we have to go out of our way to be insulting. But, please, let’s not act offended if one of us states his or her case using strong language, verbal or symbolic. All our discourse doesn’t have to be effective in terms of getting “our message” across. Some of us don’t even have a message; we just want the godpushers to keep their voodoo out of public affairs. Sometimes, it’s just fun — or necessary — to blow off steam. Being nice may get you invited to parties, but it won’t convince any supernaturalists that their sky buddy makes no sense.
So as of now, I’m going to start using a new term: an Uncle Jeez. That’s an atheist who kowtows to the religious.
Don’t be one.
Keep up the good work.
Exterminator,
Sorry about the problems posting. I think it was something about that theme as it’s been a pain in the backside from the get go. I’m going to have to do some tinkering with it before putting it back up.
As to the dispute, I think it’s bullshit. Of course, I think anything that gets Frank Walton’s seal of approval is bullshit, but I’m a bit biased against that little shit.
I’d caution against slamming Hemant and other atheists who share his opinion though. It’s something they (theists) have done for a long time - getting us to fight each other over dumb shit like this video or the title of Richard Dawkins book (OMG!!! He put DELUSION right there in the title! Mean Atheist! Mean! All you nice atheists better clutch some pearls or I’m going to cry! Cry, I say! )
K.C.:
Yeah, I agree with you that the whole dispute is bullshit. Mills, a wonderful self-promoter, pulled off a great publicity stunt, and some in our community (you and I included) bit.
I don’t think, though, that atheists need to guard against attacking one another. There’s no reason why we must speak in a unified voice, since we’re not following any set of commands from on high. I get outraged when an atheist worries about how our words and actions look to the people who have been using political systems for thousands of years to ram their supernaturalism down our throats.
I’m not a friendly atheist. Any friendliness I manifest is completely unrelated to my atheism. I’m not interested in being charming in the hopes that my personality will help me spread the non-gospel. I don’t care what my neighbors believe. In fact, my atheism would be an entirely private matter were it not threatened every day by governmental intrusion. Under the Nazis, a smiling Jew was treated no differently than an angry one. Friendliness didn’t end slavery; it didn’t give women the vote; it didn’t end segregation; it didn’t work against Joe McCarthy and HUAC. And it won’t end the attempts by the world’s godpushers to pick my pockets, wash my brain, and bomb my cities.
With that rant — giving me the space for which I thank you — I end my comments in the super-pooper-scooper debate. I will now return to my regularly scheduled deprogramming.
Some of the dispute has taken quite a personal bent if my email’s any indication and that was what I was cautioning against (you said something about calling people “Uncle Jeez”) more than anything.
I call it bullshit because the reaction is completely out of touch with reality. These fascists destroy lives and kill people, but never is there a greater outrage than when an impolite atheist goes and makes one of them cry.
I’m willing to bet that more Christians have been upset by the Blasphemy Challenge than those upset about the beatings and rapes that took place under one of their roofs.
It’s just absurd, you know?
I agree completely with everything you’ve said here. What Mills has done is essentially no different a statement than burning a flag. I wrote an entry about this on my website today and pretty much side with you against people like Ed Brayton and The Friendly Atheist, although I respect those two bloggers immensely.
[...] the “Mills Incident” as an example. He ripped out a page of the Bible and used it to pick up dog poo. Another [...]
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
[...] Bligbi, however, is defending Mills and videos similar to his: Burning, destroying and otherwise “disrespecting†a symbol is a longtime tool of rebellion. People burn flags. They blow up statues. They destroy all manner of things from the mythological “bra burning†of the sixties to the burning of effigies of despised political leaders today. [...]