Anti-Islam Ads on Public Buses?

Those guys rock.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Who wants to start a fund raising drive to start putting Flying Spaghetti Monster slogans on Detroit buses?

I got one on my gas tank, does that count?

KingGorilla wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Who wants to start a fund raising drive to start putting Flying Spaghetti Monster slogans on Detroit buses?

I got one on my gas tank, does that count?

Atheists display an ad offering comfort to other atheists.
Christians get offended and display an ad attacking Islam.
Internet nerds get offended and display an ad offering comfort to FSM.
The atheist's gesture becomes a joke.

What is the message to the "closeted" atheist who was the target of that first ad? Someone reached out to him or her, and the community responded by calling that offer ridiculous at best, offensive at worst. Then someone else turns it into a complete joke.

The atheist keeps his or her mouth shut. Maybe feels a little bit worse about their beliefs, and a little bit better that they never took that first offer.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Atheists display an ad offering comfort to other atheists.
Christians get offended and display an ad attacking Islam.
Internet nerds get offended and display an ad offering comfort to FSM.
The atheist's gesture becomes a joke.

Is that a connection that you're making, or was there something I missed? Admittedly I skimmed the article, but I didn't think this ad was in any way a retaliation for the first.

LobsterMobster wrote:

What is the message to the "closeted" atheist who was the target of that first ad? Someone reached out to him or her, and the community responded by calling that offer ridiculous at best, offensive at worst. Then someone else turns it into a complete joke.

The atheist keeps his or her mouth shut. Maybe feels a little bit worse about their beliefs, and a little bit better that they never took that first offer.

I don't know, I'd think my reaction if I were the atheist in your example would be something on the order of "There go those crazy religious nuts again, getting their knickers in a twist over nothing. But hey, that FSM thing is pretty funny!"

Others have suggested that the ad used the atheism ad as a precedent. I admit that the connection is tenuous at best.

The atheist you describe sounds like one who is comfortable and secure in their atheism. The sort that doesn't need to be told that there are others out there. It is not unusual for an atheist to look at how overwhelmingly religious the world around them seems and wonder how, if there is no god, so very many people have been fooled. A blind man can be very confident that there is no such thing as the color red, and I have heard the religious refer to atheists as blind.

Ah, gotcha. I don't think I've never known any of that particular flavor of atheist - though if they were "in the closet" I don't suppose I would have known now would I?

Teneman wrote:

Ah, gotcha. I don't think I've never known any of that particular flavor of atheist - though if they were "in the closet" I don't suppose I would have known now would I?

Most likely not. Some people ease into atheism slowly as events and observations gradually erode their faith. For others, it's a crisis of faith and can be deeply traumatic. Not the kind of thing you'd discuss easily with others.

If any religion needs to rely on threats, harassment, and brainwashing to keep the faithful faithful, it really should be eradicated from modern civil society.

Paleocon wrote:

If any religion needs to rely on threats, harassment, and brainwashing to keep the faithful faithful, it really should be eradicated from modern civil society.

I know I'm being a bad boy for saying this but isn't that the basis of all religion when it comes down to it?

TheArtOfScience wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

If any religion needs to rely on threats, harassment, and brainwashing to keep the faithful faithful, it really should be eradicated from modern civil society.

I know I'm being a bad boy for saying this but isn't that the basis of all religion when it comes down to it?

Interesting question. Considering how often folks change religions in the industrialized world though, one would think those measures are either largely absent or toothless in civilized communities. It's mostly in places like the Middle East, subsaharan Africa, and the rural South that you have to worry about religious coercion.

I know I'm being a bad boy for saying this but isn't that the basis of all religion when it comes down to it?

Historically, the most successful religions have shared that feature, but there are many less successful ones that don't.

Malor wrote:
I know I'm being a bad boy for saying this but isn't that the basis of all religion when it comes down to it?

Historically, the most successful religions have shared that feature, but there are many less successful ones that don't.

At the risk of Godwinning myself, I think it is worth noting that the 1930's and 1940's were an important turning point in human history in that regard. Prior to that, it was arguable that certain coercive measures were in the gray area when it came to the defense of an ideology. The Australians were still committing genocide against the aboriginees, the British and other colonial powers were, likewise, committing unappreciated atrocities for God and Country, and the Turkish treatment of the Armenians was hardly mentioned outside of their respective communities.

After Hitler, however, (and Nuremburg in particular) a clear line was drawn between the actions of one's barbarous ancestors and the conduct of modern, civilized human beings. We would add on that of course, but after Nuremburg, no one could argue it was "just business". The nazis set the standard for modern atrocities and after that it just wasn't okay anymore.

I don't know what the singular event was for religion (or if one has even happened), but the fact of the matter is that it just isn't okay to act like a freaking Medieval primitive anymore. If you want to live in a free society, you need to respect people's freedom. Period. That includes your adult children or former members of your worshipping community.

Paleocon wrote:
TheArtOfScience wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

If any religion needs to rely on threats, harassment, and brainwashing to keep the faithful faithful, it really should be eradicated from modern civil society.

I know I'm being a bad boy for saying this but isn't that the basis of all religion when it comes down to it?

Interesting question. Considering how often folks change religions in the industrialized world though, one would think those measures are either largely absent or toothless in civilized communities. It's mostly in places like the Middle East, subsaharan Africa, and the rural South that you have to worry about religious coercion.

Threats = hell
Brainwashng = indoctrination via religious schools and familial tradition as well as cultural norms and values
Harassment = Evangelism

That's an oversimplification on my part but I just want to show that the forces at work can be a lot subtler than a Fatwa. To me (from the outside looking in, admittedly) all religion uses some level of coercion to gain and retain followers.

Take the ad that sprouted this topic. It manages to very subtly cover all three.

Threat: Your family and friends may become a danger to you should you leave Islam
Brainwashing: We'll help you. We're nice and moderate over here. Come to Jesus we'll keep you safe.
Harassment: The ad itself and the unavoidable follow-ups should you actually respond to the ad.

Is there any altruism in that ad? Do you think these people would protect the Islamic "deserters" if they knew all of them were going to switch to Buddism or Mooneyism for that matter? The ad is pretty much an overt attack on Islam in the war for followers. It's an evangelical tool trying to mask itself as a social program (which so many evangelical initiatives do).

I like to look at ideas in general as organisms. You have one idea that insists you believe in it despite lack of evidence, spread the idea to others, have lots of children (and not do things that interfere with having children) and teach them that the idea is truth, and not even consider competing ideas, then it creates a dependency upon its organization and threatens you with unimaginable torment forever if you screw up. Those are all survival adaptations to spread the idea and out-compete opposing ideas.

I don't think this is subversive or evil. The reason we see this pattern and similar patterns in modern religions is simply that it works and religions that embrace those aspects have flourished. I think the faith of the believer is sincere and legitimate, and I don't think even those who benefit most from the status quo - such as the Ayatollah in Iran or the Pope in the Vatican - are aware of the sociological mechanism at work. I think they, and the many believers in the world, feel that their idea is so successful simply because it is true.

For the moment, let's assume that most believers do not wield their belief as a weapon against those they fear or dislike. Let's assume that they think their way is the only path to salvation and that people who disagree are misguided. Is it then not an act of great kindness to try to steer the lost to the true path? Is it not cruelty to allow them to remain "deluded," especially if you believe that delusion leads them to violence?

One of our religious GWJers once said that they see missionary work as advising someone to get out of the way of an oncoming truck. That person may deny that the truck is there and refuse to move, but the truck is still coming right at them and it will kill them. There comes a point when the only human thing to do is shove them out of the way.

I strongly disapprove of missionary work to spread an ideology and would even call it damaging. I do not think it is malicious, nor do I question the sincerity of missionaries. The question is, when must I shove them out of the way of their oncoming truck?

LobsterMobster wrote:

I strongly disapprove of missionary work to spread an ideology and would even call it damaging. I do not think it is malicious, nor do I question the sincerity of missionaries. The question is, when must I shove them out of the way of their oncoming truck?

You don't. Let's put it this way--there's an extremely religious woman who lives down the street from me. I have absolutely no doubt that she thinks I am a horrible person because I am not raising my children as Christian, meaning I could be damning them to eternal torment. I can imagine certain classes of people (her being one of them) who think that atheists should not be able to raise children, because the proverbial truck leads to damnation for innocent children.

"Worry about your own trucks and leave me alone" would be my point of view.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I like to look at ideas in general as organisms. You have one idea that insists you believe in it despite lack of evidence, spread the idea to others, have lots of children (and not do things that interfere with having children) and teach them that the idea is truth, and not even consider competing ideas, then it creates a dependency upon its organization and threatens you with unimaginable torment forever if you screw up. Those are all survival adaptations to spread the idea and out-compete opposing ideas.

And genocide, rape as a weapon, torture as a means of cowing dissent, and several other measures have, historically, proven to be highly effective in ensuring the survival of nation states or ideologies. Like I said earlier, however, we have progressed past a point as a species where we can pretend these are acceptable actions of any member of civilized group of nations.

I would like to think we have also progressed as a species beyond a point where coercive measures (including the threat of "damnation") is an acceptable way of controlling or "educating" children or even adults in a community of belief. At a certain point, you just have to say that it isn't okay to act like the genocidal asshats in the Deuteronomy.

I have been hoping for more info on this group. There are fantastic organizations to help victims of cults, people seeking to escape a polygamist compound, Orthodox Judaism, and so on. I have no doubt that it would be worthwile to get people out of fundamentalist Islam, particularly women and children.
But is that their mission?

KingGorilla wrote:

I have been hoping for more info on this group. There are fantastic organizations to help victims of cults, people seeking to escape a polygamist compound, Orthodox Judaism, and so on. I have no doubt that it would be worthwile to get people out of fundamentalist Islam, particularly women and children.
But is that their mission?

From Page 1, http://freedomdefense.typepad.com/ appears to be their website, or the website of one of the founders. I don't see any positive agenda in there, just anti-Muslim propaganda.

KingGorilla wrote:

I have no doubt that it would be worthwile to get people out of fundamentalist Islam, particularly women and children.
But is that their mission?

I'd say it'd be good to get people out of any fundamentalist mindset. THe enemy of peace is extremism, which often goes hand in hand with fundamentalism.

It extends beyond religion, too.

A fundamentalist patriot is as dangerous as a traitor or a suicide bomber or a crusader.

The issue with extreme fundamentalism is the inability to compromise. Anyone who feels they are so right about everything that the rest of the world should think the same way they do is a threat to the human race in general.

A problem is that recent religious converts are more likely to be extremists or fundamentalists. After all, they have a lot invested in their new religion and feel under pressure to prove their "worthiness".

The argument is going to try to equate the atheist ads with this new one, but I think an important difference is that the atheist ads reference "God" and the Leaving Islam ads name a specific group.

The atheist ads aren't for or against any particular religious group, since many religions profess a belief in God, and many people who don't identify with any specific religion still refer to the existence of God. The second ad, though, names Islam in particular and references a specific aspect of the religion.

I don't think they have much in common besides being controversial.

clover wrote:

I don't think they have much in common besides being controversial.

It is not unusual for the deeply religious to interpret someone else's lack of faith as an attack on their own. See: keeping the Christ in Christmas.