In the comments of a post on the Blasphemy Challenge, James Lazarus objected on the grounds that "It's purposefully insulting (when we don't have to be) and rather juvenile, at the end of the day." And just today, Ed Brayton called the Challenge "I think it's pointless, juvenile and stupid."
Let me suggest that this is not necessarily a bad thing.
Whether anything is gained by being as rude as the RRS sometimes is is, shall we say, debateable. But the sort of moderate rudeness expressed in the Blasphemy Challenge is a good thing. Why?
Simply put, many people find the mere existence of atheists offensive. Heck, some are at a loss to understand how anyone could doubt their particular sectarian dogmas. Once, when I was out with my "Smile! There is no hell" sign, I had a girl come up to me and look at me with sad puppy dog eyes and ask why I didn't believe in hell. From the look on her face, it was beyond her than anyone could doubt this dogma. Hopefully, a healty dose of rudeness will jolt such people out of their complacency.
I suspect Laz, at least, knows this. After all, he produces a show which wags the word "infidel" in the face of believers, I believe the site even used to have a thing telling believers that they're infidels too. Now, Live with the Infidel Guy isn't even close to being overboard, but it will certainly give some people a jolt, which will often be just what they need.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
The importance of being rude
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Simply put, many people find the mere existence of atheists offensive.
I think that's true, Hallq. In fact, I think it explains why atheists are so despised in the US. (Or anywhere beset by religious mania.)
The blasphemny challenge is personally insulting.
Why else would God burn you in Hell for all eternity , if He did not feel insulted by what you said and did?
Isn't the idea of the blasphemny challenge to show how ridiculous the doctrine of Hell is, when people are damned for doing something which is juvenile , and not wicked?
I had a conversation with James Lazarus last night. He seemed to be a little more accepting than previously, in the end the opinion of Laz doesn't mean much to how we do things. I noticed the Panda's thumb guy acted juvenille and provided no argumentation while calling the Blasphemy Challenge juvenille, that was a funny moment indeed.
Chris,
Yes, being rude and insulting can snap people out of their complacency, but so can being direct and assertive. I've learned while working as "the producer for a show that wags the word 'infidel' in the face of believers" that you don't actually have to inslt people in order to snap them to attention.
Just like pastors. Plenty of them aren't insulting at all - but they can sure demand your attention. They're direct, assertive, leaderlike, and they have conviction. And that's what gets people to think, or change their minds, or better their critical thinking skills, or broaden their scope of tolerance. Being insulting doesn't do that - it just turns people off, because they realize that you aren't giving them even a basic level of respect that you should give to the common hobo on the street.
I don't really mind offensive material in the public square. A friend of mine walks around malls with a t-shirts that say things like, "The Bible is FALSE!" and "Did Mary Consent? No? God is a Rapist!" - And you know what? That's all fine and entertaining on an individual level, even though you'll never see me do that myself. But the Blasphemy Challenge constitutes an entire community sticking it to another community - an entire culture of atheists fundamentally trampling on and insulting the core beliefs of Christians, and that's not only insulting, but it's also been pretty juvenile across the board - in the way its been advertised and when it comes to many of the videos I've seen (I watched close to seventy of them when I was on vacation).
I understand Brian's intent: publicity, advertising, catching people's attention. But for what price are we going to do that? Are we going to catch people's attention just to reinforce their preconceived stereotypes about us - bitter, angry people who have nothing better to do than to dwell on religion and insult those who disagree with us? That's all we're going to accomplish if the atheist community keeps up with this line of activism.
I want something better than that. I want a bunch of Bertrand Russells getting together and being assertive and leaderlike with conviction, while still being fair and contemplative, getting people to think about worldview issues. *That* line of activism will better promote positive growth and change, even if it isn't as dramatic, or as attractive to the Fox News network.
- Jim
Posted here:
http://consolatione.blogspot.com/2007/02/recently-christopher-hallquist-wrote-up.html
- Jim
A little bit of MTV youthful rudeness is what we could use right now. RRS is, quite honestly, winning battles left and right. Everything they do gets big media attention, and clearly, it is getting more people to wave the godless banner.
I say keep the Mtv tactics coming as long as they keep working.
Anyone who thinks that merely being intellectual and Bertrand-Russell-like is going to win any battles for the atheists has apparently not stepped foot outside his door in the last 20 years, nor watched any movies targeted to the teen audience.
Moreover, it seems to me that atheists have historically employed primarily those tactics of politely discussing the issues and pointing out the mistaken beliefs of theists. You can see how far that strategy has gotten us in the last 150 years.
Post a Comment