I was greeted by this billboard earlier today after being bused into downtown Seattle from the 'burbs. At the risk of sounding reactionary, I was quite taken aback by the sight. My first thought was that in a country founded in part on the freedom of religion it was ironic that I would see an advertisement for a foundation that proclaims freedom from religion (is it just me or is freedom from religion not an inherent option within freedom of religion?).The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) website states that their purpose is to act as a "watchdog" for the separation of Church and State. A lifetime member of the FFRF is quoted as saying that the billboards intention is not to question any specific religion or faith but to proclaim that society can only reach its full potential through the scientific method. I would beg to differ. I infer from his words that religion (okay, not a specific religion, but religion in general? All religion?) gets in the way of progress. The FFRF website proclaims that
The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.Like Hitler and Stalin? Is this statement not an overt claim concerning the negativity of religion, that on a foundational level religion is mutually exclusive with what the FFRF deems as "progress"? Is the implied eradication of religion a means to this end ("progress")? Are the members of FFRF feeling threatened by the free choice of others to practice their respective religion?
I would imagine such a protest against religion is best seen in the context as a reaction against religious fundamentalism. A friend of mine has posted on this topic recently here. I can't help but wonder if the FFRF is unwittingly fostering its own brand of fundamentalism?
Perhaps this posting is an overreaction? Should I view such an organization as lending itself to the promotion of atheism and agnosticism as a viable worldview and nothing more? If the FFRF were simply promoting their worldview as viable, it would in no way threaten my own personal beliefs or even my choice to have a belief. What bothers me is not the overt language of promotion but the overt and implied disparagement of religious belief. Does this message not run counter to the "freethought" claim of the FFRF?
If the past 100 years of human history has taught us anything, it is that fascism can have an ugly, dangerous and conservative face bent toward evil masquerading in the name of "progress." I fear the direction in which our society is currently headed, our evil clown bent on progress at all costs has changed masks and tactics; he has traded in his conservative mask for a liberal one. The end result of "progress" remains but the means by which to achieve that end has changed.
13 comments:
Oops, I deleted my original comment. Here it is:
In my opinion, your analysis is spot on. I think you are correct when you say that we are beginning (?) to see the emergence of a secular fundamentalism that ironically works against its own logic (isn't that rather illogical?). The FFRF in particular strikes me as rather ignorant of history.
I think it is quite clear that people of no religion or belief and/or non-faith based institutions can contribute towards social progress and development. But in fact, evidence demonstrates that it is religious organizations that are more effective at this (I can cite evidence if you want). Also, historically speaking, the twentieth century was dubbed the bloodiest one precisely as a result, as you mention, of religionless ideology.
In the end, I, like you, wouldn't say social development necessarily requires faith or belief, but in my opinion the FFRF simply does not have a case.
I am tempted right now to either: a) go off on a rant; b) mention something slightly related; or c) eat some ice cream. ... I choose c.
Congratulations on your choice. Might I suggest Tillamook's Chocolate Peanut Butter as a particularly tasty flavor.
The recently departed author A.I. Solzhenitsyn (blessed memory) spent years of his life in Soviet Gulag camps under Stalin. He speaks directly to this issue,
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."
I am struggling through the Gulag Archipelago right now... hard reading
but, he mentions that one of the insanities of the Stalin/kruschev era judicial system was that social will was more important than bourgeoisie notions of guilt and innocence. Therefore, maybe you're guilty, maybe you're innocent, but you have been found to be socially threatening (for reasons such as having gone to school with a Trotskyite, etc...) so we'll ive you ten in the camps.
This militant restructuring of morals and a human's worth was the logical outworking of socialist atheism, ie, man is a machine, not a soul.
he also said, in criticizing the arrogance of killing God and elevating man,
“Power is a poison well known for thousands of years. If only no one were ever to acquire material power over others! But to the human being who has faith in some faith that holds dominion over all of us, and who is therefore conscious of his own limitations, power is not necessarily fatal. For those, however, who are unaware of any higher sphere, it is a deadly poison. For them there is no antidote.”
An interesting article today concerning the billboard on the front page of the local news section of the Seattle Times.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008140844_billboard27m0.html
There is also an interesting quiz I recommend taking at the ffrc website:
http://ffrf.org/quiz/bquiz.php
read the article, took the quiz, I'm going to print it off for some friends to read...
wow...
I felt like crying over such vitriolic misinterpretation of God's Word.
How can a group claim to want to intitiate a "conversation" when there is such animosity behind every word? They would have a leg to stand on if they were at least objective. Their free-speech guise cloaks a deep militant motivation that is anti-Christian.
I, too, read the article and took the quiz. And I agree with Paul. The irony in all of this is amazing (i.e., the militancy of their language).
But even more, the quiz in particular is sad and embarrassing. Do they realize that they have essentially created their own enemy (with the help of a few equally ignorant believers)?
That which they hate appears to simply be a straw-man that they can destroy with ease.
I would love to hear something intelligible from the opposing side, but . . . .
This is horribly nerdy, but the post made me wonder how many atheists there are and if they are growing. Inquiring minds want to know, so:
There are 767,470,000 'non-religious' individuals globally, a group which grows at a rate of .05%/year.
I was at a party on Sunday night and brought up the topic of the billboard. A few friends made comments similar to yours (Paul and Chuck) namely, that the FFRC is trying to destroy the God of a religion that does not exist. It is easy to attack the majority (Xnty in America) in such a vague and ignorant manner on one hand, and then deny that an attack is even taking place on the other hand.
Thanks for the stats Chuck.
A message board is up at the Seattle Times website for folks to respond to the billboard. There's some pretty hilarious responses in there.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?id=800
I love the comments on the message board, from both those for and against the billboard. My favorite by far is from Kurt who praises it saying, "Nice job, God save us from . . . ." GOD save us? Wait a sec.
Good catch, I saw that one but didn't make the connection.
I liked what God (location: Heaven) has to say as well as the suggestion that Mike Christensen (the dude in the picture who paid for the billboard) change his name to Mike Satansen.
strawman argument was something I didn't think of and a big no-no of logic 101 right? Thanks Chuck.
It might enfuriate them to know that their vitriol belies that they are closer to God than the apathetic.
They would accomplish far more in destroying Christianity by acknowledging the form and tradition of religion while subtly denying it's power.
off to check the silliness of comments on FFRF
Yes, that's what I was thinking of with "strawman." It is clearly the case whether or not they've done it intentionally or unintentionally. I would say the latter unfortunately.
top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]uk casinos[/url] brake the latest [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com/]casinolasvegass.com[/url] free no consign bonus at the chief [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]baywatchcasino.com
[/url].
Post a Comment