For those of you who aren’t familiar with the story, a sign promoting atheism was placed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation alongside a Nativity scene at the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington this last Christmas. The sign says, among other things, "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
It received heavy detractions from various conservatives, such as Gretchen Carlson of Fox News, who especially balked at the notion of having her children see the sign and then having to explain what atheism was. The sign was later stolen. In response, another was put up with the added inscription, “Thou shalt not steal.”
I expected but was still disappointed by the knee-jerk reaction from the Christian community, as it seemed to be the knee-jerk reaction that the Freedom from Religion foundation was looking for.
This antitheist group has chosen to take a display of positive celebration and disrespectfully juxtapose it with a denial of the majority of the population’s most cherished beliefs. This sign is not a celebration of anything, as the vacuous nature of atheism offers nothing that can be celebrated. Every trait, practice, or significant deed that atheists can perform can (and has) also been performed by theists. The sign itself only has significance in the context of what it chooses to baselessly deny. The sign could have no possible goal besides the irritation of believers.
In expressing such outrage towards the sign, we are only giving them the attention that they desired in the first place. I imagine plenty of atheists were pleased to hear Mrs. Carlson acting as though having to explain an opposing worldview to her children was a horrible thing. I also imagine that they were especially happy when the sign was stolen, as it only gave them ammunition to demonstrate our hypocrisy and insecurity. As the old Internet saying goes: “Don’t feed the trolls.”
This doesn’t mean that we should completely ignore it. We should, instead, react to the existence of this sign the same way that we should react to the presence of antitheism in general.
It seems strange to me that Christians tend to distress more at the expressions of antitheism than the existence of antitheism. The aforementioned Mrs. Carlson especially took offence at the statement that religion hardened hearts and enslaved minds. Fair enough, but the offense taken from this should not be that it was spoken, but that it was believed enough to be spoken. If Christians act as though an expression of an evil belief system is somehow worse than the belief system itself, it can only, at best, create an environment in which those who hold that belief system remain hidden. And how would that benefit the cause of Christ?
When we hear an offensive comment, our response should not be an attempt to silence it, or an expression of outrage that it was spoken. Our intent should be, instead, to correct it. We do not win by silencing our opponent’s opinions. We win by changing our opponent’s opinions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On the contrary Mr Hoffman, that was quite comprehensible. Thank you, and amen.
ReplyDelete"If Christians act as though an expression of an evil belief system is somehow worse than the belief system itself, it can only, at best, create an environment in which those who hold that belief system remain hidden. And how would that benefit the cause of Christ?"
ReplyDeleteWhat a wonderful sentiment! Something I have never really considered until now. Now all we have to do is convince all the other Christians, and react to the world accordingly... easy peasy.
i echo Megan. Very well said David. I love hearing you talk about things that you are passionate about!
ReplyDeleteI really liked especially the way you set up the difference between the belief system and the expression of the belief system. I haven't heard that said so succinctly before. Actually, I have a question for you [if you would be kind enough and have the time to answer] -- how does one differentiate between reacting to the belief system and reacting to the expression of it? Is there a way to react to a belief system without necessarily taking action against or because of it's expression? If the expression of the belief system is the only way that we can become aware of it?
Here's how I see it: When one only reacts to the expression of a belief system, the motivation is to silence the expression of that belief system, as it is the simplest way to take away what is seen as being negative. In the practical sense, the reaction would be some form of censorship.
ReplyDeleteWhen one reacts to the belief system itself, the motivation is to change the belief system, as that is the only way to take away what is seen as being negative. The expression of the belief system, rather than being a problem, is part of the solution. In the practical sense, the solution would be dialogue and apologetics. In reacting to a belief system, one is actually encouraging the expression of a belief system, because that is one of the steps to fixing the problem.
I think that, excluding some kind of divine knowledge, expression of some sort is always required for knowledge of a belief system.
that makes sense...so if I get you right...you're saying that when we see an expression, the right response is to say "What makes you say/do that?" and enter into a conversation with them that can help to lead them into truth instead of saying "SHUT UP!".
ReplyDeletePretty much.
ReplyDeleteThat's a fascinating point, David! I wonder though, what do you do when that belief system doesn't change and you end up not changing much? This is a difficult one for me because when I engage in dialogue with my friends of different religions, we just end up talking about our religions and it ends there. It's hard to get into the aspect of whose religion is true because I feel like it can be rude or polemic.
ReplyDeleteI think that we need to have compelling reasons, either intellectual or emotional, for why our religions is true and others are not. That is where apologetics comes into play.
ReplyDelete