I’ve mostly steered away from the recent news stories detailing various atheistic advertisements currently being displayed around the world (like the atheist buses, the atheist billboards etc.). The reason is not a lack of interest, but more my ability to update this site regularly enough to give accurate and up to date coverage. They’ve not gone unnoticed, and neither has the cautious and overly pandering nature of the wording.
I can understand the reasoning for the wordings used, especially given the trouble encountered in many locations where atheistic campaigns were planned, but I for one would favour a more aggressive approach. OK, perhaps not aggressive, but at least on par with the stronger wording we see from pro-religion ads all around the country.
I’ve come up with the following, both are designed (to use the term loosely) to fit the mostly Christian area in which I live and work, and I’m pretty sure they’d play well. Both play on the idea that most Christians haven’t read the Bible, or if they have read the Bible, only choose to believe the parts that they agree with. The Bible is one of the most powerful arguments for atheism in existence.
The Atheist Billboard
The billboard (click to enlarge) reads:
Exodus 21:20-21
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
God. Loving slavery since 4000BC.
This billboard is aimed mostly at the black community. Specifically, this is inspired by the recent Gay marriage ban in California, seemingly driven by the black community on the grounds of religious belief. I feel it’s important for the black community in particular to realise that the oppression of homosexuals that they support is based on the same grounding that lead to them being oppressed previously. The justification they are using, was also used by white farmers who kept black slaves.
The Atheist T-Shirt
The T-Shirt (click to enlarge) reads:
Back.
Jesus said, “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea†(Mark 9:42 NKJV).
Front
Jesus (heart)s Drownings
The quote on the T-Shirt is taken from the post where I asked how Christians could possibly love something that would drown their families, and the aim of the T-Shirt is to cause a reaction. People will see the front of the T-Shirt and think, Jesus is about love, he wouldn’t advocate drowning someone, only to see that, the Bible says he does. It’s also a play on the typical “Jesus hearts you” T-Shirts and posters.
Your Turn
Both these designs are reactionary, attack pieces. They imitate the typical ads you see on the sides of Churches all around the country. While I’d like to take the higher moral ground, it’s sometimes fun to fight fire with fire. So with that in mind, what would you like to see promoting atheism?
Blank billboard image by mediaboytodd. Plain T Shirt image from Erika Hall.
These summaries are maliciously wrong:
1. God. Loving slavery since 4000BC.
2. Jesus condoning drowning anyone.
I have already explained the second to you, and you seem to have ignored it.
Slavery is a phenomenon which the Judaism inherited, and it is clear that at each step of the way (including the very beginning which the billboard quotes) it has been consistently controlled and then abolished by Christianity. Slavery died out of Christian countries by the middle ages (and then scandalously revived again in the 17th century). It has been (and continues today) alive in other cultures, but has been condemned by Christians from the earliest centuries. Indeed two early popes had been slaves. I am more than happy to provide a balanced and fair account of slavery and Christianity if you require it.
If you can not understand the difference between: “it would be better for him if…” and “I say that he should be…” there is something wrong. Hyperbole is frequent in Christ’s writings. To my knowledge (though there will always be fundamentalists who get it wrong) noone has ever had a millstone tied to his neck by a Christian for causing him to fall. It is obvious to any fair-minded person (!) that it is the seriousness of this that Christ is reinforcing, not the spiteful and vengeful mentality that only someone who had no knowledge of the Gospel could ever read into it.
Jonathan – You’ve explained your interpretation, nothing more nothing less. My counter to that is, of course, “it’s in the Bible”. And the overarching point stands. We know that black Americans have used literal interpretations of the Bible as a motivator for voting against gay rights. Therefore, it is only fair that they be made aware of other aspects of the Bible. If they take one, they should take it all.
As for Christianity abolishing slavery, well that’s up for debate. As I’m sure you’re aware there are Christians who, based on the literal teachings of the Bible, advocate slavery. In fact, not only does the Bible condone buying and selling people as if they were property, but many many churches “owned” slaves and actively traded them. Perhaps your perception that Christianity, and more specifically Christians, were responsible for the abolishment of slavery is based on the film “Amazing Grace”? A film that has been widely discredited.
I’m sure you’re also aware of the opposition Thomas Jefferson was met with from Christians when he attempted to abolish slavery (notably before Wilberforce, and we know Jefferson was no Christian). But please, let’s not let facts get in the way of your interpretation of your religion.
How about:
Religion is a hate crime.
Religion can not exist without deception.
Atheist, now don’t you become a fundamentalist on me! Merely to say “It’s in the Bible” is like saying that the Bard approved of murder because “it’s everywhere in Shakespeare”. Context matters, history matters. Now I accept that interpretations can differ about disputable points. But the following statements are broad enough not to need interpretation:
1. Jewish culture approved of work as a good thing, unlike the surrounding cultures, and therefore slavery had a different connotation. (eg compare the attitudes of Cicero). I can give any number of examples of non-servile workers in the Bible including Jesus’s father himself for that matter.
2. the instructions on slavery you quoted in Exodus (see also Lev 25 and Deut 15) are restrictions on the way slaves could be treated. I am not sure if this is the first time the idea of ‘rights’ could be applied to slaves exists, but it is clearly there. It is not just interpretation to see that masters had clear responsibilities in their regard. I invite you to read the text again for yourself.
3. In the New Testament, slavery is not seen as a part of Christian living (read Philemon, a letter of St. Paul to a slave owner) even though its existence in Roman culture could not be overturned until after Christianity became legally permissible by Constantine around 325AD. Slaves (unlike Roman slaves) could marry (with the associated rights) and were buried alongside non-slaves in Christian burial grounds (such as the Roman catacombs).
4. prior to Constantine, several early popes had previously been slaves (Pius in the second century, Callistus in the third).
5. entire religious orders were founded to purchase the freedom of slaves, and also invented the concept of the hospital to look after all the sick (including those without the funds to pay for treatment).
6. Church councils throughout the sixth century deal with maltreating slaves. By this time (as the Barbarian invasions had slowed down and order could be restored), the system of slavery gradually gave way to feudal society, in which there are no slaves, just serfs. This was an outstanding Christian achievement, and that’s should be acknowledged even if you also wish to point out atrocities on other occasions.
7. To be fair, I did point out that slavery was reintroduced into Christian countries in the 17th century and that is a scandal. Still, it was condemned by many Popes throughout the centuries, including during that time. Some prominent ones are: Pius II (1462: “a great crime”); Paul III (1537); Urban VIII (1639); Benedict XIV (1741); Pius VII (urged the Congress of Vienna to suppress the slave trade in 1815); Leo XIII (1888 urged all remnants of slavery to be repressed).
8. I did see “Amazing Grace” and enjoyed it. I know Wilberforce did indeed work tirelessly to bring an end to slavery, but am not sure of the accuracy of the other details of the film and that was not at all the source of my information.
I am more than happy to provide more details on any of these points if you don’t believe me. Regarding your other points:
9. I am unaware that there are Christians who advocate slavery. Nor am I aware that the Bible actually condones buying and selling people (by all means set me straight on this – we both have copies).
10. I am woefully ignorant of American history, not being from that country, but I can quite believe the opposition from the South (which indubitably had many Christians) to the abolishment of slavery, given its necessity in the cotton trade. Still, I can not condone their use of other human beings which contradicts the dignity that they have received from God (where else does it come from, by the way? That was half the trouble with slavery in the pagan world). I bring this up, of course, because of your mention of Thomas Jefferson, the main writer of the Declaration of Independence. He was not Christian, but he was deist. It enshrines these words which every American ought to be truly proud: they are great words:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Note again that “unalienable rights” have their foundation in a Creator who endowed them. Slavery can only exist where
Finally, your statement “let’s not let facts get in the way of your interpretation of your religion” is a cheap shot and unworthy of you. I am more than happy to accept the facts, even the less than savory ones perpetrated by my religious forebears. However, I am also proud of the many great things they have achieved, and among them is the near abolishion of slavery in countries with a Christian heritage. Slavery is still very alive and active in other parts of the world (and in fact the modern economical system bears with it a new kind of slavery – but that is a separate question). I reiterate, that I am more than happy to futher substantiate any of my numbered claims above.
Psy, I’m sorry I don’t understand your two statements. Are you simply asserting them out of context? Aren’t you the one who complains about h*** being a word that Christians use to hurl unreasoned abuse? In any case, of course I categorically deny both of those statements. You are welcome to substantiate your hefty charges, adn which time I will have something to actually answer. Merely stating them is (do I really need to say it) totally unsatisfactory.
Jonathan, where have you been hiding all your life that you don’t see racism, and bigotry rampant in the US. The lies and deception, the cover ups, the law suits. My statement are factual and self evident to anyone who has walked out in the real world. Try walking through any random small town in the deep south wearing an atheist or Islamic tee-shirt without getting beat up, even here in the 2nd least religious state I have seen religious people yell racial slues in the street, shun long time friends because they found out they were gay, The use of lies and propaganda to pass questionable religious “ehtics” into law. I have no hatred of the people, I do disapprove of religion and what it has done to them. How about your own constant assertions that atheist hate what ever we disagree with to assert that we are the enemy and you are the victim. Look around and think about it.
It seems that once again we are talking cross purposes. I am only responding to the two assertions made by Atheist, that are factually incorrect: 1) God has loved slavery since 4000BC. 2) Jesus wants people to be drowned. If you want to stray from the topic, you need to be clear about that. How do you know that it is religious people yelling “racial slurs” in the street anyway? These are two separate issues. I accept that some theists are (inexcusably) racist. I also think that there are many atheists who are too. That goes for any number of issues. If you are trying to say that religion is racist by its very nature (and that atheism is not) you’re going to have to work very hard to convince me!
“If you want to stray from the topic, you need to be clear about that.”
To clarify I was responding to this topic:
“So with that in mind, what would you like to see promoting atheism?”
T-shirts and bumper stickers would work as these slogans are short and to the point. I don’t stop to read long drawn out advertisements and these can be read at a glance whether you want to read them or not.
How do I know these were Christians making racial slurs? Because I know them personally and one actually made the mistake of yelling n*gg*r from the passenger seat of my corvette. I found it odd that he denied being a bigot or racist. But denial in spite of the facts is what faith is all about.
=If you are trying to say that religion is racist by its very nature (and that atheism is not) you’re going to have to work very hard to convince me!
I can not use reason to dispel something in your mind that was not put there by reason. “Reason is the enemy of faithâ€. ~Martin Luther. Exclusionism and inequality are common traits brought about by abusive indoctrination tactics as shown in the studies I have mentioned in other posts. Don’t feel you need to respond as I have read any number of arguments for and against on other forums that I have visited and I have no agenda of convincing you or anyone else. Its for my own understanding of myself and the world I live in.
Ok, I’m sorry, I understand now. The slogans are “short and to the point” perhaps. Unfortunately they are also false. It’s like saying “Scientists are six feet tall” or “All Spanish speakers live in Spain” just because some do. You can go from the universal to the particular but never the other way (though science tries to approximate this by repeated experimentation).
“I can not use reason to dispel something in your mind that was not put there by reason.” Yes you can, it’s called reasoned debate, not just name calling. I totally disagree with Martin Luther (and the whole Reformation for that matter). Also don’t try to pretend that you just make comments on a public forum whout an agenda or purely for your own self-knowledge. If that is really the case, I suggest you keep them to yourself.
Jonathan, don’t feel that you have to apologize to me for anything also feel free to demonize atheist like the hate assertion, the subtler the better as it is good practice for myself and others at picking it out.
=I suggest you keep them to yourself.
Some may see this as a subtle attempt to suppress my opinion which brings me to another generalized slogan ‘Religion is Oppression’ that many will deny but I think Proposition 8 is a recent example of this.
Don’t think for a second that your comments are wasted on me, many of yours and others have led me to interesting articles and videos related and unrelated to the original subject. Thanks for the lead to a ‘Reform’ article that suggested that it was a stepping stone to modern civil rights which I was unaware of, sadly I didn’t save the URL.. Also another comment on this forum led me to a video on the brain that I thought was a unique perspective. “Talks Jill Bolte Taylor: My stroke of insight”
Thanks for your input and leads to other material.
Jonathan – My “Well, it’s in the Bible” comment wasn’t referring to the presence of slavery in the Bible, but more the presence of that specific line. And of course, you’re right in that it is a restriction on the treatment of slaves, but of all the restrictions to put in place, this seems particularly misjudged. To allow (some would say condone) beatings, potentially on a regular basis, seems outside of the “loving God” image.
To respond to your points in order:
1. I don’t think I, nor anyone else were suggesting all Christians in Bible times had slaves, so I fail to see the relevance. Unless you are suggesting that because the Jewish people see work in a positive light they were doing their slaves a favor?
2. See my opening paragraph.
3. This is one of the many contradictions in the Bible, and a subtle one at that. Again, Christians choose to believe the most socially acceptable interpretation. But we’ve had this discussion elsewhere, and I’m sure you are aware of my issues with the contradictions in interpretations of the Bible and the numerous contradictions.
4. I don’t believe Pius has ever been proven to be a “freedman”, I thought it was only ever assumed because of his associates? But I’m happy to be corrected. I also think the life Callistus lead was not that of the typical slave of the time. But that’s largely irrelevant. If both were slaves, it really makes you wonder why stronger actions were not taken to outlaw slavery earlier. One would have thought their personal experiences would lead them to denounce slavery and use their positions as Popes to enact change.
5. Whilst that may be true, there were also numerous Churches actively purchasing slaves and trading them for profit. The practice was too widespread for it to be a rogue group within the community, and even if it was not policy, it certainly wasn’t punished.
6. Again, if such progress was made in the sixth century, one has to wonder how and why we (and I say we because atheists are not faultless when it comes to slavery) regressed to such a point.
7. So was the reintroduction of slavery a breakdown in the organizational hierarchy of the Church? Or a case of “Do what I say, not what I do”? Or a case of taking the Bible’s word over that of the current Pope? And obviously the Pope only represents a set, albeit a significant set, of theists, so his condemning of slavery would only have been heard by some.
8. I find it always best to approach “facts” stated in such films/books/articles/websites, from both sides of the fence, with a “prove it” attitude. A healthy dose of salt comes on handy.
9. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT spells it out pretty clearly:
I’ve heard of Christian groups who currently advocate slavery but am a loss to remember their specific affiliation. if it comes to me, I’ll be sure to let you know.
10. Jefferson is actually a fascinating case. He clearly struggled with religion, and rebelled against Christianity specifically, despite being raised a Christian. It’s debatable whether Jefferson can be called a theist or not, we don’t know whether the creator he refers to was meant to be a reference to a personal God or a God of nature. We do know he rejected the divinity of Jesus and went to great lengths to establish the separation of Church and State, a divide that is sadly and alarmingly closing. Belief is very clearly a personal thing, and without an affiliation to any major religion it’s difficult for us to guess his beliefs after the fact. “God” can mean many things to many different people.
Yes, I closed with a cheap shot, but it was just to keep you on your toes. I’ve had numerous conversations and debates with theists over the years and a common trait amongst believers is to dwell on the good whilst ignoring the bad.
PSY – Perhaps I was a tad verbose with my campaigns, but I thought they would resonate more with my target audience with some evidence to back up my assertions.
As for your hate crime slogan, I’d have to agree. For lack of a better source, I looked up “Hate Crime” on Wikipedia, which defines it as:
We clearly belong to a different social group to theists. There are numerous examples of discrimination against atheists, be it in the political, judicial or economic systems. It’s also worth pointing out that “hate crime” doesn’t necessarily equate to a crime driven by hate. More often than not it’s a crime driven by fear of the unknown and fear of people who are different. Ultimately, it’s a crime driven by difference.
It’s also worth pondering whether the belief generally held by Christians that atheists will go to hell counts as a hate crime, or at the least, hate speech. It’s one thing to deny someone a job because of their beliefs, it’s something entirely different, and more sinister, to state that they will burn in hell for eternity.
The Jill Bolte Taylor talk at TED was absolutely fascinating by the way. A truly unique insight into her experience.
=it’s something entirely different, and more sinister, to state that they will burn in hell for eternity.
Yes it is, I’ve heard it used as vengeance or retribution but most often a tool of manipulation used on children, the weak minded and people who are more emotional by nature. I would label it emotional abuse, as I mentioned earlier my children have experienced it at a young age.
This is where I am somewhat perplex by yourself and Jonathan agreeing that children are not capable of critical thinking. At age 5 I was also exposed to the threats of hell routine at my first and last trip to Sunday School. I still clearly remember thinking ‘these people are nuts’, I knew it was a trick, a con, a play on my emotions, a deception even at that age as both my kids did.
Its an indoctrination into authoritarianism as I’m sure you know brings on fear of uncertainty and an amplified fear of death, prejudice and a long list of other disorders.
I’d call it a mental abuse crime.
Off topic again I’d like to mention one of my favorite debate opponents who would often threaten me with hell when confounded by my arguments. Sadly he past away last summer but I respect this man highly as I learned a lot from him and a lot about myself. I won’t give his name or internet name but he was involved with Voyager II for many years and became a priest after he retired. This gave him the advantage of being able to argue both science and religion and insight to the thinking of both believers and nonbelievers. I still find myself unable to put myself in the shoes of believers and comprehend their point of view.
Also these debates aren’t limited to believer/nonbeliver. Jonathan mentioned his interest in Philosophy, I have seen this third party totally confound and confuse an entire forum at times.
I am way out practice with debating and hopefully be back up to par soon, I am an extremely spacial thinker and communication is not 1st or 2nd nature to me. One of the drawbacks of IQ distribution.
Atheist, thank you for your interesting points.
I understand your missapprehensions about beatings etc… and I have to admit not being entirely comfortable with them either. Still, it is consistent pedagogically. In forming a community and leading them away from their old ways, God’s way is to do so slowly and patiently. It takes time for people to ‘catch on’… even today all evangelisation ought to “where the person is at” to use the awful catch phrase.
Continuing the same numbers:
1. My point about Judaism and work is actually quite a profound one. There are cultures (still) who think it demeaning to work and therefore this must be left to a lower class of people (a different race, say, or caste or intellectual aptitute). Thus for a Jew, slave and free are co-workers to a degree. The slave was never a mere chattel. Moreover (see Ex 21:2) a slave could go free in the seventh year of service, and there are also some Jubilee commitments (every 50 years) about freeing slaves and returning all land etc. Jewish Law also lays out other rights. Finally, there is only one word in Hebrew for both ‘slave’ and ‘servant’. In most cases, context shows that the latter term is really more appropriate.
3. Do you mean a contradiction between Old and New Testaments on the question of slavery?
4-6 really go together here. You ask why, if Popes were slaves (or at the very least associated with them on equal terms) “why stronger actions were not taken to outlaw slavery earlier.” You must remember that the earlist popes had zero political power at all. Christianity was illegal and regularly persecuted. Even later, when Popes and Councils were able to have effect, still they generally had to rely on cooperation from the rulers for any effective action. In this, a genuine separation of Church and state is respected. Imagine how much worse things might have been without the constant influence of the Church.
7. Slavery in the 17th century is a phenomenon I know little about. Certainly it had something to do with the voyages of discovery and meeting new peoples. I know that slavery was already an ongoing trade within Africa, and maybe merchants simply ‘took advantage’ of what was on offer…. I doubt that it was a Church initiative, but an economic one.
9. Thanks. Yikes! See my response to 1, though. There is no ability in Judaism to enslave anyone, but to purchase those already in that condition.
10. I agree that Jefferson’s God was rather individual. The point is, however, that he recognised that human dignity originates in his creator. I also agree that his views on separating Church and State to be admirable, and quite different to what we currently think of today. Most people (yourself included) seem to think that that means that God should be a purely private thing and out of the realm of government altogether. That is not what Jefferson thought. He simply accepted that judicial and ecclesial powers were complimentary and not to be confused or overlap, just like the office of President and the Supreme Court should be separate. The very fact that your founding documents (with Jefferson’s strong influence) have the word “God” in them so regularly proves this. God, religion, and Church are not identical terms. Separation of Church and State is not the same thing as separation of State and God.
Yes, I closed with a cheap shot, but it was just to keep you on your toes. I’ve had numerous conversations and debates with theists over the years and a common trait amongst believers is to dwell on the good whilst ignoring the bad.
Psy and Atheist – why would not your hate crime slogan be itself an example of hate crime if you accept the (less than satisfactory) Wiki definition:
“Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim [religious believers] because of his or her membership in a certain social group…”
Surely you are not blind to the discrimination against believers also in the political, judicial or economic systems?
The problem with the (Marxist) concept of “hate crime” is precisely indicated in your next statement where you make a belief a crime, ie (that some Christians think that all atheists will go to hell). What, pray, should be the punishment for such a crime?
What is your real motivation for doing this?
What would you care what other people believe in?
If you have money to spare, use it to help the animals (they are totally neutral in the religion debate)
There is GREAT motivation.
Think of all the social ramifications that the bible interferes with. Stem cell research and gay marriage, to name a few of the current issues.
Believing in flying reindeer or the Easter bunny is FINE if you want to. But I don’t want THAT PERSON taking part in making laws that affect us all and the American way of life – based on the teaching of their imaginary friend.