Today’s Required Reading shared a story about a set of atheist billboards directed at two cities with heavy Muslim and Jewish populations. Each print the name of God in Arabic and Hebrew. The billboards are sponsored by a group called American Atheists. Using the name of God to describe religious narratives as “myths” is (surprise, surprise!) not going over well with some people. None of this is really worth discussing in much depth, since these kinds of billboards are becoming old news. What is of note, however, is the nature of discourse coming from critics of the organization, who see the signs as an attack on religious belief. But is it really?
Not exactly. See, proponents of the billboards argue that they are reaching out to members of these communities who may secretly be atheist, but have no way of expressing those beliefs openly:
“‘Those communities are designed to keep atheists in the ranks,’ he says. ‘If there are atheists in those communities, we are reaching out to them. We are letting them know that we see them, we acknowledge them and they don’t have to live that way if they don’t want to.'”
Perhaps that’s not the true motivation of American Atheists, but if it isn’t we have no way of knowing now. We have to take this claim at face value. There is nothing else to go on. So what’s with all this talk about “targeting religious Jews”? Sure, the campaign will be in heavily religious areas (Muslim and Jewish). It has even been designed to reach members of those communities who have yet to come forward or get out. But the Jewish Press article suggests that this is an effort to discourage faith. Is that really the same thing as saying, ‘You can leave if you want to’?
And while we’re on the subject of the Jewish Press article: must every piece critical of atheists written by a person of religious association feature a reference to Christopher Hitchens? The Press writes:
“The late Christopher Hitchens depicted well the despair that has been driving atheist activists in the face of threats to their lack of faith (Atheists and agnostics make up only between 3% and 4% of the U.S. population): ‘Our theocratic enemy is in plain view. Protean in form, it extends from the overt menace of nuclear-armed mullahs to the insidious campaigns to have stultifying pseudo-science taught in American schools.'”
I must have missed the memo, because I didn’t realize Hitchens became the poster boy for every atheist thinker in history. This is absurd, tantamount to assuming Abraham Joshua Heschel is the culmination of all modern Jewish thought: many might make a case he is. But his isn’t the only voice. Not all Jews are the same; likewise, atheists are a diverse bunch.
The point? If atheism isn’t going anywhere (and I see no reason why it should), and they are finally mobilizing in ways religious groups have for years, this is a good thing. A population, however small, should have its voice heard if it wishes to engage in public discourse. As Jews, we have learned this well.
Using the name of God on a billboard is a surefire way to spark controversy. I’m not endorsing that choice as the wisest course of action, but it is legal. It may also inspire members of these communities who aren’t truly living according to their convictions to be honest with themselves and others, atheist or otherwise.
Some are predicting vandalism will make quick work of these boards. I wouldn’t be shocked. But I sincerely hope that the actual reaction is something between civil disapproval and dismissal, nothing more. If it is offensive to these communities (and I can’t see why it wouldn’t be– except to those it intends to target), the best reaction is to live and let live, hard as that may be. Such a reaction might actually quell anyone who would accuse these groups of stymieing free thought.
