gsa
Well-Known Member
There is an interesting conversation between two atheist bloggers, one black and one white, over at Patheos. Basically, here's what happened:
Atheists launched a campaign in Dallas Fort Worth, on the public transit system, which read “Millions of people are good without God.” After significant protest, the Fort Worth transit authority banned religious advertising. The bloggers involved in the campaign reflect on their experience, and issues of racial privilege.
Here is Zach's recollection of the meeting with anti-atheist activists:
Sitting in that room, surrounded by angry Black eyes, I did have a moment of clarity. I recognized my privilege, overcame my paralysis, and apologized profusely to the pastors gathered around me. I acknowledged their perspective, attempted to explain our misguided intentions, and admitted that it was still a mistake to choose this method of advertising without thinking through how it could be seen by others with different experiences. Instantly the mood lifted. We were still at odds philosophically and theologically, but by looking at the situation through their experience I gained some credibility, maybe not as an ally, but at least not as an enemy.
And here is Alix's:
Zach looked stuck. I knew Archbishop Moneybags in the gators was playing on his White guilt, but for the rest of them—this was real. The community would side with them regardless because it had become a racial message and no matter my opinion or my oration, which was cut short, the battle was done. The result: no more religious ads of any sort on “the T”. A WIN! But one championed by a White patriarchal deaf savior, offering salvation with an ulterior motive, condemning their beliefs while singing hymns of reason with the refrain “you’re not good enough.” Another atheist “win” and a PR “fail” and Zach knew it. He looked like he needed a big black bro hug. I sat with him.
I could tell. I remember the whole American Atheist Slave billboard thing. Wow. That went over real well in the Black community (believers and non-believers felt that one). Then there was that recent dust storm where a popular White atheist YouTube guy decided to joke about eating watermelon and fried chicken on MLK’s birthday to celebrate it, then told us to get over it. Then there was that time when my fellow BN Organizer was left to answer “What Would Bria Do” about Black-on-Black crime by another well-meaning White atheist who felt that, regardless of the presentation topic, “this” was the issue. Ahemm… Still wondering why you need minority groups? And let me answer that Black-on-Black crime one— we should do the same thing that all Humanists should do—address the underlying contributors to the conditions that create that socio-economic environment where “people” regardless of race, “kill people” because they feel they can or feel as if they must. (That’s a tag for the Wall another day).
Here is where the privilege comes into play: Apparently no one considered the fact that mass transit is disproportionately used by poor people, and poor people are disproportionately found among people of color. Per Zach and Alix, this was perceived as an attack on an important social safety net for many in the black community.
Do you agree with them that they didn't think this through carefully enough? Is it comparable to the "slave billboard" campaign or making a joke about eating watermelon and fried chicken on MLK's birthday? And should atheists, secular humanists and other freethinkers refrain from spreading their message where it could be perceived as an attack on similar social safety nets for Muslims, Catholics and other religious communities that are disproportionately made up of people of color?
Atheists launched a campaign in Dallas Fort Worth, on the public transit system, which read “Millions of people are good without God.” After significant protest, the Fort Worth transit authority banned religious advertising. The bloggers involved in the campaign reflect on their experience, and issues of racial privilege.
Here is Zach's recollection of the meeting with anti-atheist activists:
Sitting in that room, surrounded by angry Black eyes, I did have a moment of clarity. I recognized my privilege, overcame my paralysis, and apologized profusely to the pastors gathered around me. I acknowledged their perspective, attempted to explain our misguided intentions, and admitted that it was still a mistake to choose this method of advertising without thinking through how it could be seen by others with different experiences. Instantly the mood lifted. We were still at odds philosophically and theologically, but by looking at the situation through their experience I gained some credibility, maybe not as an ally, but at least not as an enemy.
And here is Alix's:
Zach looked stuck. I knew Archbishop Moneybags in the gators was playing on his White guilt, but for the rest of them—this was real. The community would side with them regardless because it had become a racial message and no matter my opinion or my oration, which was cut short, the battle was done. The result: no more religious ads of any sort on “the T”. A WIN! But one championed by a White patriarchal deaf savior, offering salvation with an ulterior motive, condemning their beliefs while singing hymns of reason with the refrain “you’re not good enough.” Another atheist “win” and a PR “fail” and Zach knew it. He looked like he needed a big black bro hug. I sat with him.
I could tell. I remember the whole American Atheist Slave billboard thing. Wow. That went over real well in the Black community (believers and non-believers felt that one). Then there was that recent dust storm where a popular White atheist YouTube guy decided to joke about eating watermelon and fried chicken on MLK’s birthday to celebrate it, then told us to get over it. Then there was that time when my fellow BN Organizer was left to answer “What Would Bria Do” about Black-on-Black crime by another well-meaning White atheist who felt that, regardless of the presentation topic, “this” was the issue. Ahemm… Still wondering why you need minority groups? And let me answer that Black-on-Black crime one— we should do the same thing that all Humanists should do—address the underlying contributors to the conditions that create that socio-economic environment where “people” regardless of race, “kill people” because they feel they can or feel as if they must. (That’s a tag for the Wall another day).
Here is where the privilege comes into play: Apparently no one considered the fact that mass transit is disproportionately used by poor people, and poor people are disproportionately found among people of color. Per Zach and Alix, this was perceived as an attack on an important social safety net for many in the black community.
Do you agree with them that they didn't think this through carefully enough? Is it comparable to the "slave billboard" campaign or making a joke about eating watermelon and fried chicken on MLK's birthday? And should atheists, secular humanists and other freethinkers refrain from spreading their message where it could be perceived as an attack on similar social safety nets for Muslims, Catholics and other religious communities that are disproportionately made up of people of color?
