Activism: part of the problem or the solution?

     I am going to bring light to an isolated movement in which public activism is being used to incriminate a government body for appropriating a Resolution to recognize the sectarian pluralism within the state of Pennsylvania. I will argue that certain forms of activism, even with good intentions, can have a negative effect on one’s message.

     Public activism is no doubt an exalted and effective platform of the American people’s democratic right to voice their opinion in opposition of any public or private organization and laws. So important is this right that it is immortalized in the First Amendment of the American Constitution, in effect erecting the first unassailable contract between a tripartite government and its people. But what this contract cannot do, in terms of public activism, is ensure responsible, relevant and compelling exercise of this free speech. Rather, this accountability arises from the thoughtful reflection of the individuals and groups who regard their message to bring about broader change. The quintessential mantra of any attempt to organizing an effective movement is if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

     Consider H.R. 771, titled ‘The Year of Religious Diversity’. In particular, the following verbiage seems to pay homage to important historical figures in Pennsylvania’s history while attempting, innocuously, to highlight ideological/religious anecdotes along with that history:

WHEREAS, William Penn's Declaration of Rights in 1677 assured that "no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent"; and

WHEREAS, In order to assure that government would abstain from favoring one religion over another, William Penn also declared that "no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment or modes of worship”;

     William Penn is a relevant figure in the discussion of First Amendment rights because Pennsylvania was named after him and his reflections not advanced the freedoms bestowed by the Constitution but to Pennsylvanians as well. What William Penn did not say, which is in H.R. 771, has become the source of discontent for several Atheists:

WHEREAS, These revered books impart great wisdom and beauty to believers and are appreciated and respected by nonbelievers..

     In a conversation with Ernest Perce, Pa State Director of American Atheists, he argues that this kind of verbiage puts many nonbelievers in a relationship with sectarian holy books (see H.R. 771 for the list) that is egregiously misrepresented. To the contrary, Mr. Perce is planning to publicly exhibit his disdain toward one book in particular, the Koran, by placing it on the ground and whipping it with something akin to a medieval dungeon whip. According to an online article, Mr. Perce will “thrash the Quran with a nine-tail whip 85 times and a single whip six times to protest the resolution's number.”

Some of you may remember back in May a controversy, which I about blogged about here, that erupted over a billboard depicting a black slave wearing a barbaric looking restraining device around his neck, framed with the quotation from the Christian Bible, ‘Slaves obey your masters’. The billboard was subsequently defaced and since, Pennsylvania NonBelievers has backed away from the controversy claiming that they were not really part of the design process.

I mention these two examples, not to pick on Mr. Perce, American Atheists, or any other group, but to explore what these protests mean to believers and nonbelievers alike.

In light of these public displays of activism, I don’t think resorting to these extremes is the appropriate response to challenge these alleged missteps by Pennsylvania’s government. Does this mean activism is sacrificed for the sake of remaining docile in our attempts to raise awareness for important issue? I’d argue it’s not. I spoke with Vlad Chituc on this topic, a recent Yale grad and contributor to the blog, NonProphetStatus, and Vlad agrees with Mr. Perce that the “PA house shouldn’t be passing this, or the year of the bible resolution,” but at the same time “whipping a Koran in public is not a helpful way of addressing it.” If it matters to the readers, I also agree with these thoughts.

     I have also had the pleasure of speaking to Brian Fields, President and Board member for Pa NonBelievers. Adding to what Vlad has said, Brian, who is no stranger to activism, say that “the purpose of a protest is to communicate an objection to an idea. Communication requires that one consider how people will generally react - To plan your goals, and then anticipate what is necessary in the language and of your protest to reach those goals.” And I believe that this gets at the heart of why it is important assess, reassess, and possibly recalibrate your compass to ensure that what you aim to communicate in your activism is represented  in a way that is relevant and in some sense palatable to those you wish to compel to action.

     As Ben Franklin said, we must “never confuse motion for action.” How apt this quote is, because the biggest fear should not be whether or not our rights are being infringed upon - we have a Constitution and laws which serve to guide citizens in the judgments of these matters. Rather, the biggest fear we should have is becoming ‘The Little Boy Who Cries Wolf’. We have such a precious right, and I feel the worst thing that could happen is not to have this right oppressed by a tyrant, but to have this right become its own tyrant. This tyrant becomes ineffectual in public activism and discourse, because the seriousness of a situation may one day need the collective attention and collaborative effort crossing ideological lines. But with extreme behaviors like whipping and burning religious books, or broadcasting obscure public messages, you not only alienate those who are in your corner in the bigger fight to protect our rights as believers of this or that, but you also build walls which break down the necessary dialog between you and your neighbor - who may disagree with you ideologically, but still has the same passions for defending freedom and liberty. This is not a sentiment born out of my own intuition, but is exemplified and resounds in a quote by a Muslim in Pa who heard about this story. Akram Khalid, member of a Muslim group, is disheartened over Perce’s planned action - the matter in this article - but patriotically says of the First Amendment, “This freedom requires that we act responsibly and not incite people to actions that are against what we all in America stand for.”

     In a twist of irony, I find it both amusing and sad, that in the current political climate of divisiveness and cultural ambivalence, we can find such a sense of democratic pride and procedural respect from a group of peoples consistently shunned for intolerance, violence and bigotry. Especially compared to the behaviors of a group of people who claim logic, reason and sanity are on their side, but have less of an idea of how to carry the torch of freedom and liberty in a manner worthy of admiration.

     To everyone out there who has protested or wants to protest, make sure you ask yourself one question as you stand whatever ground you fight for: Am I part of the problem or part of the solution?

Activism: Part of the problem or part of the solution?

     I am going to bring light to an isolated movement in which public activism is being used to incriminate a government body for appropriating a Resolution to recognize the sectarian pluralism within the state of Pennsylvania. I will argue that certain forms of activism, even with good intentions, can have a negative effect on one’s message and activism in general.

     Public activism is no doubt an exalted and effective platform of the American people’s democratic right to voice their opinion in opposition of any public or private organization and laws. So important is this right that it is immortalized in the First Amendment of the American Constitution, in effect erecting the first unassailable contract between a tripartite government and its people. But what this contract cannot do, in terms of public activism, is ensure responsible, relevant and compelling exercise of this free speech. Rather, this accountability arises from the thoughtful reflection of the individuals and groups who regard their message to bring about broader change. The quintessential mantra of any attempt to organizing an effective movement is if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

     Consider H.R. 771, titled ‘The Year of Religious Diversity’. In particular, the following verbiage seems to pay homage to important historical figures in Pennsylvania’s history while attempting, innocuously, to highlight ideological/religious anecdotes along with that history:

WHEREAS, William Penn's Declaration of Rights in 1677 assured that "no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent"; and

WHEREAS, In order to assure that government would abstain from favoring one religion over another, William Penn also declared that "no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment or modes of worship”;

     William Penn is a relevant figure in the discussion of First Amendment rights because Pennsylvania was named after him and his reflections not advanced the freedoms bestowed by the Constitution but to Pennsylvanians as well. What William Penn did not say, which is in H.R. 771, has become the source of discontent for several Atheists:

WHEREAS, These revered books impart great wisdom and beauty to believers and are appreciated and respected by nonbelievers..

     In a conversation with Ernest Perce, Pa State Director of American Atheists, he argues that this kind of verbiage puts many nonbelievers in a relationship with sectarian holy books (see H.R. 771 for the list) that is egregiously misrepresented. To the contrary, Mr. Perce is planning to publicly exhibit his disdain toward one book in particular, the Koran, by placing it on the ground and whipping it with something akin to a medieval dungeon whip. According to an online article, Mr. Perce will “thrash the Quran with a nine-tail whip 85 times and a single whip six times to protest the resolution's number.”

Some of you may remember back in May a controversy, which I about blogged about here, that erupted over a billboard depicting a black slave wearing a barbaric looking restraining device around his neck, framed with the quotation from the Christian Bible, ‘Slaves obey your masters’. The billboard was subsequently defaced and since, Pennsylvania NonBelievers has backed away from the controversy claiming that they were not really part of the design process.

I mention these two examples, not to pick on Mr. Perce, American Atheists, or any other group, but to explore what these protests mean to believers and nonbelievers alike.

In light of these public displays of activism, I don’t think resorting to these extremes is the appropriate response to challenge these alleged missteps by Pennsylvania’s government. Does this mean activism is sacrificed for the sake of remaining docile in our attempts to raise awareness for important issue? I’d argue it’s not. I spoke with Vlad Chituc on this topic, a recent Yale grad and contributor to the blog, NonProphetStatus, and Vlad agrees with Mr. Perce that the “PA house shouldn’t be passing this, or the year of the bible resolution,” but at the same time “whipping a Koran in public is not a helpful way of addressing it.” If it matters to the readers, I also agree with these thoughts.

     I have also had the pleasure of speaking to Brian Fields, President and Board member for Pa NonBelievers. Adding to what Vlad has said, Brian, who is no stranger to activism, say that “the purpose of a protest is to communicate an objection to an idea. Communication requires that one consider how people will generally react - To plan your goals, and then anticipate what is necessary in the language and of your protest to reach those goals.” And I believe that this gets at the heart of why it is important assess, reassess, and possibly recalibrate your compass to ensure that what you aim to communicate in your activism is represented  in a way that is relevant and in some sense palatable to those you wish to compel to action.

     As Ben Franklin said, we must “never confuse motion for action.” How apt this quote is, because the biggest fear should not be whether or not our rights are being infringed upon - we have a Constitution and laws which serve to guide citizens in the judgments of these matters. Rather, the biggest fear we should have is becoming ‘The Little Boy Who Cries Wolf’. We have such a precious right, and I feel the worst thing that could happen is not to have this right oppressed by a tyrant, but to have this right become its own tyrant. This tyrant becomes ineffectual in public activism and discourse, because the seriousness of a situation may one day need the collective attention and collaborative effort crossing ideological lines. But with extreme behaviors like whipping and burning religious books, or broadcasting obscure public messages, you not only alienate those who are in your corner in the bigger fight to protect our rights as believers of this or that, but you also build walls which break down the necessary dialog between you and your neighbor - who may disagree with you ideologically, but still has the same passions for defending freedom and liberty. This is not a sentiment born out of my own intuition, but is exemplified and resounds in a quote by a Muslim in Pa who heard about this story. Akram Khalid, member of a Muslim group, is disheartened over Perce’s planned action - the matter in this article - but patriotically says of the First Amendment, “This freedom requires that we act responsibly and not incite people to actions that are against what we all in America stand for.”

     In a twist of irony, I find it both amusing and sad, that in the current political climate of divisiveness and cultural ambivalence, we can find such a sense of democratic pride and procedural respect from a group of peoples consistently shunned for intolerance, violence and bigotry. Especially compared to the behaviors of a group of people who claim logic, reason and sanity are on their side, but have less of an idea of how to carry the torch of freedom and liberty in a manner worthy of admiration.

     To everyone out there who has protested or wants to protest, make sure you ask yourself one question as you stand whatever ground you fight for: Am I part of the problem or part of the solution?

A very special thanks to my Vlad for editing...not his comments, but my grammar...LOL.

"And justice for all"

So on January 23^rd, 2012…….The House of Representative in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania unanimously adopted a resolution that calls 2012 ‘The year of the Bible’. Why? House Representative laid claim that “the Bible, the word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation of peoples.” Never mind the challenge to its constitutionality which is being argued by everyone on both sides of the debate; I would like to draw attention to the idea that our Representatives have gone out of their way to recognize the minority influence on this country and not the majority. Who is this unspoken for group that accounts for more of the population than any sectarian group? Why it’s the citizens of our country that represent the pluralistic, multicultural, multi-religious states and country. The resolution states that “renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through holy scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people….” This seemingly innocent excerpt is much more damaging than any of the Representatives could possibly imagine. Why? Because this phrase is set to only unite ONE sect of our very diverse Commonwealth and nation. As an Atheist citizen, I share my district, my state and my nation with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, African Americans, Chinese Americans, etc. who contributes to the striving businesses and unrelenting community support that is what makes our collective unity in this Commonwealth and nation transcend the recognition of any one religion.

So I am going to make a new resolution. My resolution is to make 2012 ‘The year of all Pennsylvanians’ as to recognize the influence of all cultures, religions and ethnicities that have come together in lieu of their differences to make this Commonwealth what it is today. This state belongs to everyone and everyone deserves to be recognized, not just Christians and their pandering Representatives. I don’t believe in God, but I believe in our better natures and I believe that the solidarity of the peoples of Pennsylvania goes far beyond recognizing a book that has been interpreted more than any other piece of literature where its meanings are disputed daily. What is not disputed is that with or without that book the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and this nation is built upon and strives toward greatness because of its diversity and solidarity…not because of a book.

Billboards, Slaves and Atheists oh my!

In case you have been locked in your basement, my home state of Pennsylvania has been involved in two controversial matters regarding issues surrounding the separation of church and state. The most recent case involves District Judge Mark Martin’s decision to rule against an Atheist that was allegedly attacked by a Muslim man for dressing as a Zombie Mohammed during a Holloween parade, citing a lack of evidence for the charge of harassment. The troublesome part of the ordeal was the near 30 minute didactic lecture that Judge Martin gave to the plaintiff claiming that the First Amendment is not to be used for insulting the Islamic culture or religion in a public defamatory display. A firestorm has since erupted and the Atheist community unfortunately responded in typical reactionary fashion by overly exaggerating the details of the case and calling the judge a Muslim. This was to be expected, but the reaction of American Atheists, a national non-profit atheist organization and Central Pennsylvania based atheist group, Pennsylvania Non-Believers, has, it appears, reached peaks of ignorance and hypocrisy of unfathomable measure regarding another issue.

What began as regular business in January, 2012, with the the Pennsylvania House of Representatives adopting 11 resolutions in recognition of groups and individuals around the state, including a resolution titled, ‘2012, The Year of the Bible’ has elicited a response of disapproval from all faiths and non faiths around Pennsylvania and the country. According to a conversation I had with my local Representative, who did vote positively for the all 11 resolutions, she had indicated that Representative’s offices have been barraged with phone calls and emails demanding an explanation for this resolution. The resolution was not championed by her, so she did not have a comment on the motives of her fellow Representatives. I did let her know that I was displeased with the verbiage of the resolution as it is not a means of collectively recognizing all Americans and/or Pennsylvanians for their part of the creation of our democratic state, but instead exacerbates the kind of deleterious religious and cultural divides, placing one group’s unique contributions over the other. After our discussion, she kindly apologized and even empathized with the message that this kind of call for recognition of unity is not the unity exemplifies the efforts of a pluralistic society.

Now my 45 minute phone call was enough to quell the concerns that I had regarding the resolution, and I hope that my Representative takes mine and other resident’s feedback seriously so that these matters do not have to be addressed again.

However, other members of society have decided to use discernibly different methods to send a message to the Pa State House of Representatives. Early this week, in a co-funded effort, American Atheists and Pennsylvania Non-Believers unveiled a billboard portraying an African-American slave with some barbaric restraining device around his neck while also displaying a verse from Collosians which asks that “Slaves, obey your masters.”

Now, I am not a Bible scholar and I want to state up front that I am not going to be doing much arguing from Scripture. When I do, I will enlist the help of other sources to back up my claims and arguments. But, taking that I am not a biblical scholar, I was still confused about the message that these atheist groups were trying to send by placing an African American slave on a billboard with some verse from the bible imperatively stating that slaves should obey there masters. It was not long until I realized that American Atheists and PAN (as the call themselves) wanted to use this public display to demonstrate that the Bible, more specifically, the New Testament, has verses that imply immoral behavior. To further the relevancy of this billboard, several members of these groups have come out to state that slavery in the United States was endorsed by verses like this, and that endorsing the Bible as a book that should be revered in the year 2012 for its contributions to humanity comes with the cost of acknowledging a checkered past of endorsing slavery here in the United States.

What, if anything, is wrong with this picture?

Well, for starters, American Atheists and PAN will be found guilty of contributing the same kind of divisive rhetoric based on faulty information by ignoring the facts as those who sought to use the Bible as propaganda to perpetuate the practice of slave owning/trading. My support comes from the most notable man to use the Bible to justify slavery in the mid 1800’s, Jefferson Davis, and the interpretation of the allegory for which it was really intended.

The justification for slavery in the United States, according to this Wiki article, began in the 1930’s by then Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi. Davis' main claim is that the story of Ham in Genesis was the biblical justification for the enslavement of African Americans as Ham is interpreted as being black. But when I did a little bit a research I found that this interpretation is not actually the one that has the greatest consensual agreement. In the context of Ham being cursed, the objective of this punishment was to justify the subjugation of the Canaanites by the Israelites. If my historical memories serves me right, and forgive me, it has been some time since 6^th grade history class, the Civil War was not fought for the rights of the Israelites to conform to the Unions precedence and ultimately abolish the slavery of the Canaanites. Jefferson Davis, using his scholarly interpretive methods, I am assuming, saw this as a chance, I want to say last ditch effort considering the fact that this kind of argument was only beginning to make its way into the public forum around 1830, to use the propaganda that the Curse of Ham was actually a racially inspired curse and that the last forty to fifty years of a 400 year tradition of subjugation and brutality is now ordained by God.

So we are left with two big mistakes on the part of American Atheists and PAN. The first, as I claimed in the beginning of this article is that these groups of Atheists have fallen into the same credulous trap of pushing a biased agenda for political gain regardless of the facts surrounding their claims. Funny, that is the same thing they blame Christians for doing.

The next big mistake they made is two part: First, the irresponsibly and insensibility of using the tribulations of a race of people who suffered unimaginable degradations over many centuries to be used as a prop, irrelevantly I would like to remind, to gain the political favor of Atheists and "closet atheists" and to prove that the Bible is immoral. If the last sentence sounds ironic that is because it is supposed to. To add injury to insult, these crusaders of reason are not even prepared to accurately provide the historically pertinent verses used to back up the claims that they are making. Even if we consider the verses like the ones found in Collosians or I Corinthians, God asking slaves to obey their masters or accept their fate as slaves is derived from the still popular mindset that what happens here on earth is only a precursor for what lies ahead after death. And this is one of many main messages that God delivers in the Bible regarding slavery; that it does not matter if you are a slave or not, Heaven awaits those who are devout. In no way shape or form do any of these verses tell white people to take ships to Africa and enslave Africans because they have a right or even better, it is commanded. These are not justifications, these are consoling messages to a subjugated race of peoples; nothing more, nothing less.

Both the Stoics and the early Christians opposed the ill-treatment of slaves, rather than slavery itself. Advocates of these philosophies saw them as ways to live within human societies as they were, rather than to overthrow entrenched institutions. In the Christian scriptures equal pay and fair treatment of slaves was enjoined upon slave masters (as they also had a Master in Heaven), and slaves were advised to obey their Earthly masters and lawfully obtain freedom if possible (Ephesians 6:5–9; Colossians 4:1; 1Corinthians 7:21).

Yes, that is the context in which the verse used was written and as you can see it is primed to create the kind of moral outrage that would advocate depicting an African American slave in bondage to send a message to the Pa House of Representatives that the Bible is immoral -insert sarcasm here-.

More importantly, the issue here is the separation of church and state and ensuring that all citizens of our country and states are paid homage to by their legislators. It is not only Christians that pay their salary and it was not only Christians that forged together one of the greatest democratic empires in the history of the modern world. I want to congratulate the Pa House of Representatives, American Atheists, and PAN for completely ruining an opportunity to forge alliances with the citizens of our states and country as to work for a common cause.

"We the People...."

So on January 23^rd, 2012…….The House of Representative in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania unanimously adopted a resolution that calls 2012 ‘The year of the Bible’. Why? House Representative laid claim that “the Bible, the word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation of peoples.” Never mind the challenge to its constitutionality, which is being argued by everyone on both sides of the debate; I would like to draw attention to the idea that our Representatives have gone out of their way to recognize the minority influence on this country and not the majority. Who is this unspoken for group that accounts for more of the population than any sectarian group? Why it’s the citizens of our country that represent the pluralistic, multicultural, multi-religious combination of peoples. But this point is ostensibly neglected, and instead the Representatives feel that a more appropriate ‘congratulatory’ resolution should state that, “renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through holy scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people….” However, this seemingly innocent excerpt is much more damaging than any of the Representatives could possibly imagine. Why? Because this phrase is set to only unite ONE sect of our very diverse Commonwealth and nation. As an Atheist citizen, I share my district, my state and my nation with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, African Americans, Chinese Americans, etc. who contribute to the striving businesses and unrelenting community support that is what makes our collective unity in this Commonwealth and nation transcend the recognition of any one religion.

So I am going to make a new resolution. My resolution is to make 2012 ‘The year of all Pennsylvanians’ as to recognize the influence of all cultures, religions and ethnicities that have come together in lieu of their differences to make this Commonwealth what it is today. This state belongs to everyone and everyone deserves to be recognized, not just Christians and their pandering Representatives. I don’t believe in God, but I believe in our better natures and I believe that the solidarity of the peoples of Pennsylvania goes far beyond recognizing a book that has been interpreted more than any other piece of literature where its meanings are disputed daily. What is not disputed is that with or without that book the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and this nation is built upon and strives toward greatness because of its diversity and solidarity. We’ve had to overcome slavery, Civil War, Depression, and terrorist attacks and we did so holding hands and looking toward each other for support….not because of a book.