Tired of that old Bible or Quran?
Atheist Agenda – a student organization present on the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) campus since 2005 – launched its annual 'Smut for Smut' campaign on campus. As outlined by MySA News, club members view religious texts as being on the same level as dirty pornography and thus freely exchange one for the other.
In addition to seeking nationwide media coverage and attention, the group is also hoping for a few faithless to convert to their cause and join the organization. Subsequently, the entire event is a means of opening the door to a dialog.
'Smut for Smut' is a yearly event that is always good for media attention, protesters and First Amendment debates. The UTSA student newspaper The Paisano points out that the porn for Bibles or other religious text exchange will continue until March 3. Atheists equate smutty porn with religious texts – although much of the criticism is aimed at the Christian Bible – because of the dangerous, hateful and misogynistic views the latter holds.
In a 2005 interview following the first 'Smut for Smut' campaign, the then-president of the Atheist Agenda discussed his beliefs with MSNBC. He considered religious texts as "tribal nonsense" that was "written...in tents."
As in the past, this year's campaign drew hundreds to UTSA's Sombrilla Plaza on March 2 to either cheer, protest or inquire about the event and to debate the role of religion in society.
By the Atheist Agenda's own admission, they collected a scant 10 religious texts on the first day of the Bible for porn campaign. Swappers were given print pornography, such as Playboy, Hustler or Penthouse. The group also garnered screaming protesters, Bible thumpers, those who would shake their heads, and most likely also feminist onlookers not too pleased at the porn being handed out.
The immediate religious counter-response in Texas and around the nation – though self-indicting – is that Atheist Agenda is unfairly cherry-picking from religious texts. According to The Paisano, throngs of religious – mostly Christian – believers showed up to form a counter-protest, shrilly condemning the perceived insult to their holy book, and playing right into Atheist Agenda's hands. Also, interestingly, a faction of professed 'agnostics' arrived to stand as a voice of reason separately between the two groups, both of whom they consider equally guilty of intolerance.
Some of the protesters maintained full respect for Atheist Agenda's right to speak. One student reportedly carried a sign that read, "Jesus loves the Atheist Agenda." Others were less lenient, and deemed Smut for Smut "inappropriate" and "offensive," with one reportedly ripping down a Smut for Smut campaign banner. Another student, Adam Zepada from nearby Saint Mary's University, told The Paisano, "I wanted to call up some homeboys and be like 'hey dawg, I wanna go up there and take care of it real quick.' But, because I'm saved and I gave my life to Christ in 2007, I don't live like that anymore."
"I don't understand how that equals at all..to the word of God..they're definitely opposites..." says Monica Coronado, a University of Texas – San Antonio freshman.
Coronado was one of many students who joined hands, denouncing the group's message. "Honestly God isn't just about killing people...He's about really righteousness...I just wanted to explain."
Others sided with Atheist Agenda. “It's a First Amendment right,” said Bradley Lewis, 18, a freshman from Pear-land who said he plans to join the Atheist Agenda. “If religious groups can put out missionaries and go knock on my door and wake me up at 7 a.m. on a Saturday morning, I can put a table outside of the college.”
Robin Lorkovic, 18, a freshman from Houston, disagreed. Lorkovic stood near the “Smut for Smut” table holding a cardboard sign that said “God Loves You! Keep your Bible and learn from it!”
“I don't really feel like that is appropriate at all,” Lorkovic said. “I am a Christian. I believe in God's love, and I am here to stand my ground and stand up for what I believe in.”
The debate spurred plenty of emotion from both sides, but some students took a different approach, supporting neither side, saying the debate accomplished nothing.
"They're going up against each other and what they stand for...what they believe in, is okay..but what they're doing today is something that fosters hatred," said Natalie Tenorio, who remained neutral.
The Atheist Agenda started at UTSA in 2005, and the group's first “Smut for Smut” campaign blew up into a national media sensation. Past President Thomas Jackson was deluged with interview requests, and he debated Tucker Carlson, the bow-tie-wearing conservative pundit, on MSNBC.
Police kept a watchful gaze over students involved in heated debates and did not report any violence.
“This is ultimately why this is going on,” Lewis said. “It's an icebreaker to get people talking about these things.”
According to a University spokesman, what the atheist groups' believe may not represent the majority of the student body. What they did was legal.
"As long as students are not violating laws or violating the Constitution, they have the freedom of speech and assembly." said David Gabler, Vice President of UTSA Communications.
Before I address the religious aspect of this account, a brief comment about pornography. I wish that Atheist Agenda had used a different vehicle to exchange with the religious texts – not for the sake of the faithful, but for the sake of porn. In a repressed society, we should be working toward a sex positive view, which includes acceptance of porn for the use and enjoyment of adults. I strongly support working to improve the image of women depicted throughout most porn magazines and DVDs. I also strongly support the women and men who work in the sex industry.
Now then. As long as the basic divide between adherents to the numerous world faiths, and those who adhere to none, remains irreconcilable, the area where we all can – and must – converge is blocked. There will be no way to actually have that important conversation. Violence or terror, most obviously, are unacceptable. But the milder form so often practiced by believers – a puerile refusal to allow one's ideas to be criticized at all – can be just as prohibitive to the conversation. Equally obstructionist was Atheist Agenda's jab at ancient texts many believe to be sacred. While they did not direct their apparent satire at any person, it was nonetheless hurtful. As a Wiccan, I respect every person's faith and will do nothing to belittle them, or those who follow their precepts. Ideas and sources must be open for criticism, but it must be constructive and NOT mean spirited.
— Danu's Daughter
No comments:
Post a Comment