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.