Back in July, 2008, I alerted State of Protest readers to the novel way Kansas resident Sean Tevis used the Internet as a political campaign tool in order to make an incredible attempt to oust the obsolete incumbent Arlen Siegfreid, a Kansas state representative, a right-wing conservative who is anti-abortion, pro-censorship, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-surveillance, and pro-creationism (in public schools). Regardless of the fact that the outcome was not in Tevis’ favor, he created an historic moment for the record number of donors he acquired as well as the uniqueness of his technologically progressive approach.
Simon Owens, at Bloggasm, brings to our attention that Tevis is at it again this year, announcing his plan to run in 2010.
So in Tevis’ new plan, he would visit a minimum of 50 politicians across the state and US to not only share the information he gathered from his constituents, but also to promote his own ideas for transparency in government.
Take a look at the Bloggasm article, which reviews Tevis’ past and future campaigns, and then head over to Tevis’ site and see what he’s been up to.
This morning, one of the trains on my metro line went out of service, which isn’t unusual, forcing the excess of passengers in the next train to huddle in quiet desperation, trying their best not to touch one another or, heaven forbid, utter more than a monosyllabic grunt toward strangers they share such claustrophobic space with on a daily basis. That is the nature of the DC metro. I remember someone asked me a question while I was riding home one evening, and it took me a few moments to realize that I was being spoken to, and that someone actually wanted a response. It was like being acknowledged as alive in a sea of zombies. Perhaps that’s the same feeling religious people get when they delude themselves into thinking they’re being singled-out by a divine being. Jesus is my friend. God loves me. When there’s nothing else in the world giving me the attention I crave, I seek God’s attention. That’s a major selling point of religion — a cure for eternal loneliness.
It’s sad to think that we’re so antisocial or unnurtured that we crave something imaginary to make up for it. It’s like a child’s imaginary friend — always there, always loving. A pity that adults feel the need to do this, as well, but it’s also realistic. The world is a harsh environment, despite our luxuries. Not only are people generally cruel and unforgiving, but the actual environment is also unrelenting — people freeze and starve to death, and it’s 2009! It’s pretty easy to think how someone might wish to think that there is something out there better than this, and that the creator of everything is more than just a fairy tale. It might very well soften the pain that this world gives us.1
While standing there, in the metro train, trying to hold on to a handlebar straining my reach while simultaneously trying to avoid getting butt-bumped by the people behind me and trying not to shove my groin too far into the faces of the people sitting in front of me, I gave up my feeble attempt to read the morning paper. I looked up and saw the following advertisement: “Longing for something? Maybe it’s God. Come find out more. Maybe-its-God.org”, with an image of a church, emblazoned with a bright white star. At the bottom, “Archdiocese of Washington.”2
I didn’t grimace. I didn’t frown. My eyebrow may have shot up in curiosity, but my first thought was, “I might have easily had missed this. I really need to look around more and pay attention to my surroundings.” I groped for my camera and shot a few seconds of the poster while not caring what anyone else had to think about my behavior (which is unusual for me — I like my religio-curious anonymity). After putting the camera away, I read the poster a few times. How did I feel about it? Did it anger me?
I’ve written a bit about these pro- and anti-god posters on public transportation, and I insist that everyone has an equal right to say what they think — censorship of one is censorship of all. So, unlike many of the religious people protesting the atheist signs, I don’t condone judging on the basis of content whether a statement can or cannot be made. However, that doesn’t prevent me from having my own feelings and opinion about the content of these ads. An earlier ad, near the holidays, suggested quite sternly (using a paraphrasing of a bible verse) that since I am an atheist, I must be a fool. I didn’t much like that one. It’s name-calling, rude. Although ads like that might depict honest perspectives, such callousness is not necessarily beneficial for either side.
Taking that into consideration, this new sign was actually quite well done, and believers and nonbelievers alike can learn a bit from it. First of all, the sign doesn’t point fingers. It doesn’t accuse, and it doesn’t assume anything about the reader. If you’re not longing for something, it’s not speaking to you — perhaps your life is filled with the joy of astrology or pet grooming or even biochemistry; it allows for that and doesn’t pass judgment. If you are longing for something, it’s speaking to you, but it’s passively offering a suggestion — maybe it’s God. Certainly. It may be that you are, indeed, longing for God. Plenty of people do long for some sort of spirituality, divine connection, keen insight into the whys of the world. God, to many, fits that description. Of course, I don’t personally think that God is the answer to any longing I may feel, but who am I to deter others from taking that path or testing it to see if it’s right for them?
An ad like that is simple, compelling, non-judgmental, and, most of all, it’s true. I’m not saying that God exists, but I am saying that the statement “Longing for something? Maybe it’s God.” is not untrue, and the gentleness of its delivery, with the added “Come find out more” is a hook quite difficult with which to find fault. This is what is missing from many other pro- and anti-god ads, and something that should be seriously considered by advertisers.3
One example of a potentially neutral, possibly inviting message is that of the atheist billboard campaign started by the Greater Philadelphia Coalition of Reason (“PhillyCOR”), stating simply, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”
This is a straightforward, not untrue message, offering a bit of social comfort to those who think similarly. Although it’s not as immediately inviting as the Archdiocese ad, it’s not harsh or bitter like other ads from both sides. Anyone should be able to look at the ad, answer the question, and then either ignore the ad or read on for more information. “Don’t believe in God?” Yes, I don’t believe in God. What now? I’m not alone? There are others out here in the world bold enough to call out to me on a billboard? Now I’m interested! In the alternative, if I did believe in God, I could just stop right there, theoretically, and this billboard, just like the Archdiocese poster, doesn’t demand that I continue. Most importantly, neither make accusations about my morality, intelligence, or eternal soul if I do read on.
A more holiday-oriented atheist ad states, “Is belief in God necessary? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” suggesting that morality is pre-religion, either genetic or just a result of reason, or both, and that one can be good without God. This sign got a lot of flack in the media. It’s the “controversial atheist sign.” The perhaps subtle difference between this and the previous sign is that the former was passive, while this sign preaches. Yes, I said preaches. What I mean by that is that it is effectively telling you what to do — “be good” — and why — “for goodness’ sake.” Although I might agree, it’s still an imposition. It’s not unlike an evangelist telling me that if I don’t repent, I’ll go to hell. That’s making a factual assertion. Despite the fact that I fully agree with the idea that God is unnecessary, the idea that I must be good for goodness’ sake (if I’m to be good at all) is not something I can fully back, and not something I think is supported by science.
What in hell is goodness, anyway? Yes, it’s just a play on words, I know that. But, again, it’s someone telling me what to do, and why. That rubs me the wrong way, as, apparently, it did for various religious complainers who tried to have DC metro remove anything with an anti-god message (kudos to DC metro for refusing). Some religious organizations, on the other hand, responded in kind, offering up a twisted retort4 — Why believe? Because I created you and I love you, for goodness’ sake. – GOD.
Although those advertisers should get a hell of a lot of flack from their own side for being so arrogant as to put words in God’s mouth, they do get a modicum of credit for wordplay from the atheist ad. It might have come off as less abrasive had it taken a different perspective other than from God’s own lips — for example, if it had said, “Why believe? Because God created you and loves you, for goodness’ sake.”, then it’s slightly less self-righteous. However, still, it’s making a factual claim — this is the way things are, period. That feels almost threatening to me. It reminds me of the fire and brimstone sermons of the south, where I lived much of my life. It’s not inviting at all, and it presumes that whoever created it is a literal spokesperson for God, or that the person is, indeed, delusional. Contrast that with the first atheist campaign ad I addressed that merely asks a question, and then comforts the reader, suggesting that there are others who don’t believe. No forcefulness or coercion. No threats. No accusations. Also, no promises or questions of fact. That makes it appealing.
Considering what might be a set of positive characteristics for any ad, atheist or religious, a good response to the newest pro-God ad could borrow the original pattern, but make it inviting.
Here’s my humble attempt:
—
Longing for something?
Maybe it’s science.
Come find out more.
—
What do you think?
—
UPDATE: I’ve gotten a lot of “longing for science? doesn’t lift up my skirt” comments. Is the idea that God takes care of some emotional need that science or other worldly pursuits cannot match, or is it just that out of all the categories to choose from, “science” just isn’t appealing in a way that would ever reflect “longing”?
Fine. Here’s my new one:
Longing for something?
Maybe it’s sex.
“Come” find out more.
You might be thinking that rich people feel no such pain; they have every luxury, whatever they want, they get. However, that would be overlooking the fact that we’re all very emotional beings, and similarly limited in our physical and mental capabilities. Rich people feel physical and emotional pain, and they eventually die, like the rest of us. There’s no reason to think that a rich person wouldn’t feel the need for a special friend, as much as anyone else. [<]
Head to the Archdiocese website for more information, an explanatory video from Archbishop Wuerl, and the suggestion that the ad is focused mostly on former churchgoers. It’s evident that church attendance is constantly in decline, and that obviously worries religious organizations that are fueled by donations and popularity. The Archdiocese site even says, “If you have been away from church for some reason, I invite you to come back again to pray and to attend Mass.” Honestly, one of my first wicked thoughts upon seeing the poster was, “What, are you longing to have your children sexually abused?” But I found that unfair. Although the Catholic church should be brought up on charges (and its tax-exempt status revoked) for its reprehensible mismanagement of the sexual abuse situation, every individual in the church cannot be blamed for the acts of a few, just as we cannot blame an AIG administrative assistant for causing a financial disaster. Unfortunately, the church does create the conditions where sexual deviancy thrives, and it perpetuates falsehoods about sexuality in ways that endanger entire nations. So, why am I not riled up at the advertisement? Because I endorse individual choice and responsibility as well as free speech. Which is why I think maybe an ad that departs significantly from my suggestions in this article might be appropriate in response: “Longing for something? Please don’t let your path end at the Catholic church. It stands for tyranny and injustice everywhere, and it harbors dissatisfaction, distrust, and doubt even within its own ranks regarding its adherence to medieval doctrine and sexuality. Go there and learn all you can about it, though, and make your own decisions. When you want to learn the facts about life and not some old man’s perverted vision of the truth, come back here, and we’ll talk.” Perhaps that’s too harsh. [<]
See http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/archives/156393.asp for a quick take on the Washington State controversy over the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s anti-religious sign; also see the Atheist Bus campaign at http://www.atheistcampaign.org/ for Ariane Sherine’s “There’s probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life” bus ads. Is this another imposition, or is this message somehow carefree and friendly? [<]
In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, ‘And the sun stood still … and hasted not to go down about a whole day’ (Joshua x. 13) and ‘He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time’ (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory.
Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Mind 59 (1950), 443.
Monkey Girl by Edward Humes ISBN: 9780060885489, ISBN10: 0060885483 Ecco (imprint of Harper Collins) Hardcover 400 pages, $25.95
What does it mean when proponents of Intelligent Design say “teach the controversy”?
You may think you know what the controversy is about, but you’ll never get a more thorough and up-to-date analysis of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial than Edward Humes’ book Monkey Girl. The 2005 trial was one of the latest episodes of the seemingly never-ending struggle for the hearts and minds of public school students. This is a fight between those who feel that Science describes nature pretty well, and those who believe that anything other than a strict literal interpretation of the Bible deserves a trip to hell and excommunication from polite society. The trial itself was a gripping account of small-town drama unfolding over the course of a year, of parents and children enduring intimidation and humiliation. Witnesses from both sides turned the courtroom into a fascinating arena of scientific evidence versus faith dressed in science’s clothing. At least three books have come out of the case (see further reading below for details), and Ed Humes’ Pulitzer Prize-winning writing style and even-handed coverage make Monkey Girl a compelling choice. Humes not only covers the case, he describes the town as the trial transforms it:
Dover sits firmly astride the front lines of America’s culture war, occupying the uneasy space between America’s religious faith and its longstanding fondness for scientific progress, between an idealized past and an uncertain future, between education and indoctrination, between the natural and the supernatural. For the next several months, the ninth floor courtroom in the Ronald Reagan Federal Building will belong to Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District, an unintentionally epic lawsuit filed by a group of parents against their evolution-doubting school board. The case does indeed have much in common with the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial, a public spectacle in which Clarence Darrow and the American Civil Liberties Union unsuccessfully challenged a Tennessee law banning the teaching of evolution. But unlike its illustrious predecessor (which, popular imagination and classic films notwithstanding, had exactly no impact on the law or educational practice at the time), the Dover case is positioned to define (or redefine) for decades just what children are taught about where we come from. [prologue, Monkey Girl]
The controversy has shifted a bit since the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, which first questioned the legality of teaching Darwin’s theory of Evolution in public schools. World War II and the Cold War demanded that the United States produce competent scientists. This demand seemed to effectively muzzle fundamentalists for a few decades. High School Biology classes approaching the Theory of Evolution would often involve an uneasy truce involving the words “changes over time” and neatly sidestepping the origins of life. Until reading this book, I assumed that all but the most extreme religious fundamentalists were fine with this truce. Humes’ book shows precisely how much this has changed.
While the book mostly focuses on the Dover trial, Humes also takes us to a similar trial in Kansas, the controversy involving the gift shop at the Grand Canyon, where Creationists have had some success in censoring information about the geological age of the national monument. Most importantly, Humes follows the trail of intellectual and legal deception to the pseudo-scientific think-tank called The Discovery Institute, a group of scientists who exclude any scientific evidence in conflict with Christian Scripture.
The Dover Trial is full of drama and bad debate, A Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st century, or Inherit the Wind, Redux. Humes shows in the Dover case how Creationism in public schools, having been defeated in courts during the late 20th century under the Separation of Church and State clause of the First Amendment, evolved (pun intended) into the virtually identical Intelligent Design movement, to Dover, Pennsylvania among other places. Some of the most shocking moments of the trial feature the ironic displays of dishonesty which ultimately brought down the school board members who were trying to bring religion into the local biology classrooms. Humes covers the scope of the grand scheme of religious activists, who plan on infusing not only science classes with Christian dogma and bias, but History, Government, and other classes as well.
This very book elicits criticism from those whose definition of “Fair and Balanced” have been warped to Orwellian proportions by Fox News and today’s most hyperbolic propagandists. Humes compassionately portrays how the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs in this case, were attacked and their children mocked at school out of ignorance. The Dover case pitted one kind of Christians against another. Those who favored the separation of Church and State were attacked as “not Christian enough”, in a great example of how the separation of these two functions protects freedom of religion. Another surprising turn of events showed how the presiding judge, a Bush-supporting Republican was branded as a liberal judicial activist for defending the constitution.
While it is clear on which side Humes’ sympathies lie, the reader is necessarily confronted with the heart of the so-called controversy: regarding extreme religious views which by definition do not tolerate any opposing views, what are the limits of tolerance in society? How can a democracy defend pluralism from those whose religious beliefs clash so vehemently with the definition of reality itself by the rest of the world, both secular and religious? The Framers of the Constitution were historically not far away from centuries of religious wars in Europe which constantly threw governments into turmoil. They saw the value of the separation of church and state to both church and state. Back in those days religious persecution meant death or incarceration because of one’s beliefs, not what passes for persecution these days in the minds of some.
One gets the strong impression reading Humes’ insightful analysis, that this latest version of the old Darwin-vs.-God controversy is the product of the removal of Critical Thinking skills from the mainstream public school curriculum, and the lack of a Cold War Era push towards developments in Math & Science, supported by all but the most outspoken of Bible literalists, who constantly attempt to couch the debate as “God vs. Darwin”, when in fact, most religions don’t require people to choose between the two. In my opinion, this is a clear case of the old adage, “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”. Young-Earth Creationists might benefit from not ignoring the history of the Catholic Church’s censorship of Copernicus and Galileo hundreds of years ago, and ask themselves why the Pope doesn’t have a big problem with Darwin’s theories today.
-Philadelphic
Further reading on the Dover Trial: (after the break…) (more…)
Just as the U.S., with the surprising help of the Supreme Court, is starting to emerge from its shell of puritan genophobia, Britain is persisting in its state of paranoia and censorship with the passage of a new law, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, that will make possessing “extreme pornography” (“any extreme image produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal”) illegal, as reported by Telegraph UK. In addition, another law, the Coroners and Justice Bill, will ban possession of any image involving sexual activity and children. These laws are reminiscent of the recent U.S. “COPA” law that would have made possession of cartoon images of children illegal if deemed pornographic. That law was effectively overturned by the Supreme Court.
In Britain, opponents are arguing that the comic book industry would be destroyed by such laws, because even mainstream comics like Batman, Judge Dredd, and much of Japanese Manga would fall under the ambiguous and overly harsh blanket censorship. The British government apparently defines an “extreme image” as any “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise … obscene” moving or still depiction of someone any “reasonable person” would think real being sexually injured or engaging in sexual activity with an animal or corpse. (Because, you know, fictional corpses have rights, too!)
If you live in Britain, you might want to protest against this outrageous invasion of privacy, this blatant oppression and censorship based on religious extremism and fear.
From the What a Fucking Moron files comes the verdict of a child pornography criminal case in Australia, where Justice Michael Adams, of the New South Wales Supreme Court of stupidity, held that a fictional cartoon character, specifically Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson, is a “person” within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.
Because the accused, John McEwan, possessed images of Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson having sex, the court found him guilty of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.
Said the judge:
In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters …
… The mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a ‘person’.1
So, is the judge right?
Bwahahahaha. Oh my goodness.
Look, it’s two stick figures having sex: (man, I’m bad at this)
O
|\___o
||/\../\
See the one on the right? That’s a 7-year-old girl, right? Just play along. The one on the left? An old guy.
BOOM, that’s child pornography in Australia. Nearly was in the U.S., too, before the U.S. Supreme Court (barely) decided that, hey, maybe no one is actually getting hurt when someone DRAWS (simply or creatively or otherwise) a child.2 Wait, did I say “nearly” in the U.S.? Although the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law that Congress passed, which would have criminalized possession of cartoon kiddy porn, Congress persevered, passing the PROTECT Act of 2003 (related to COPA that originated in 1998). Now we’re just like Australia in that respect. [also see the latest bs Another Thoughtcrime Victory! Manga Porn = 15 years] (my stick figures are going to end up with me in jail! I shoulda stuck with mocking Muhammed in comics!) (But see Update below about the implied overturning of the law) As Wikipedia (which I think is banned in the UK now, right?) states succinctly:
The PROTECT Act of 2003, a comprehensive bill related to many aspects of child abuse, prohibits all illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. However, the computer-generated child pornography provisions of the Protect Act are distinct, since they establish the requirement of showing obscenity as defined by the Miller Test, which was not an element of the 1996 law. One section of the PROTECT act has been challenged and was upheld by Supreme Court decision in May 2008.3
But perhaps I could have been of some use in McEwan’s defense. Here’s how I would have argued:
The youngest Simpson, Maggie, was a newborn at the start of the cartoon series on television, which was in 1987. Considering it’s now 2008, that would make the youngest Simpson family member about 21 years old. Despite the fact that the characters have not “appeared” to have aged, someone in possession of depictions of these actual age of majority characters having sex is no different from possessing pictures of an adult victim of dwarfism engaging in sex.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that McEwan’s attempt to appeal was successful. What would you do if someone in the U.S. were tried under the PROTECT Act for possessing Bart Simpson porn? What if it were you?
It may seem pointless to defend the rights of someone who would illustrate or enjoy such things, but realize that by doing so, you’re actually defending the rights that you currently possess, but that quite possibly are next in line on the chopping block. If you’ve ever pointed a finger at someone for being a hypocrite, for cherry picking moral lessons from an ancient book, note that by defending what you think is your right to speak freely, but attacking someone else’s self-perceived right to do the same thing (because, perhaps, you don’t like the content of the speech), you’re pointing a finger at yourself.
Wake up. Get the new administration to examine and amend the PROTECT Act, and other laws based on nonsense.
—
I linked above to The Nock Blog, where an automatically generated trackback thingy posted on my behalf on that blog. Mr. Nock read this post, and commented, albeit on his blog. I responded, and he elaborated. Here’s the conversation, which can be seen at The Nock Blog.
#State of Protest » Lisa Simpson (the Cartoon Character) is a Real Life 8-Year-Old Girl
December 8, 2008 at 7:47 pm
[...] with me in jail! I shoulda stuck with mocking Muhammed in comics!) As Wikipedia (which I think is banned in the UK now, right?) states succinctly: The PROTECT Act of 2003, a comprehensive bill related to many aspects [...]
(that’s the auto linky thing)
Ian D. Nock
December 8, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Firstly Wikipedia itself is not banned, only that access to Wikipedia passes through transparent proxies that cause the page that is dodgy to be not available in the UK, with no logging taking place based on Plusnet’s responses and other information gathered from the Internet.
Secondly, the cartoon depiction of sexual acts between minors is as illegal in the UK as it is in Australia. It matters not that they are cartoons or real, as long as the meaning is sexual. I think however a full legal opinion would need to be sought for this, but you can bet that the realism of the depiction does count and Lisa Simpson is real enough but your stick figures are not. However associate those stick images with the words you have so placed on your site then I think you could be going some way towards demonstrating important circumstantial evidence that you are indeed committing a criminal offence. However, I am not a lawyer as I said and a full legal opinion would need to be obtained… This in itself is pertinent to the discussions today as the IWF are not a full legal body (for opinion) and are making decisions about content that can be challenged in court, and would ultimately be challenged with the right amount of suspicion and belief that an offence is taking place.
stateofprotest
December 8, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Ian D. Nock,
(First, feel free to leave that comment on my actual blog; what you see above is an auto-generated trackback thingy).
Second, what’s the difference between stick figures described as minors doing it and the sticks that make up the words creating the description you suggest would criminalize my depiction? In other words, words are stick figures, and once you start censoring the content of words (stick figure or no), you open the door to having any words censored for any reason. For, who is to judge?
Censorship is a double-edged sword.
Ian D. Nock
December 8, 2008 at 11:36 pm
The words give the drawing context, this is what can give criminality to something that is otherwise grey.
UPDATE:
According to Polymorphous Perversity, the fact that the law was pinballing among the courts till recently meant that despite its “passage” in 1998, it could not really be enforced until a final decision (or at least a precedent) was made. PP refers to an article in the LA Times today that indicates that the Supreme Court lets Internet porn law die. Five years ago, the Supreme Court was split on the issue, deciding that the lower courts should determine whether the proposed filters would be sufficient to protect minors. In the key case of Mukasey vs. ACLU, where the ACLU prevailed in the lower courts, the fact that the Supreme Court declined to review the case indicates that the law is effectively unconstitutional (or at least not enforceable as it stands), and is effectively dead. Good news for free-speech advocates and stick-figure artists.
