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?
