Thank God for Violence Against Atheists
Christopher J. White is a good example of posting the more violent version:
His count down got down to the last couple of minutes when a Navy SEAL, just released from the Navy after serving in Afghanistan and Iraq and newly registered in the class, walked up to the Professor. The SEAL hit him full force in the face, and sent the Professor tumbling from his lofty platform. The Professor was out cold!! The students were stunned and shocked. They began to babble in confusion. The SEAL nonchalantly took his seat in the front row and sat silent. The class looked at him and fell silent...waiting.
Eventually, the professor came to and was noticeably shaken. He looked at the SEAL in the front row. When the professor regained his senses and could speak he asked: "What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that!?"
"God was really busy protecting America's soldiers, who are protecting your right to say stupid shit and act like an asshole!!! So he sent me!!"
Utterly Boring posts a slightly less violent version:
He got down to the last couple of minutes and a Marine just released from active duty and newly registered in the class walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and sent him flying from the platform.
The professor struggled up, obviously shaken and yelled, "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?"
The Marine replied, "God was busy; He sent me."
So, what are we to learn from this story? Apparently "proof" of God for an atheist legitimately includes physical force and violence. I don't think that I've ever seen a more literal expression of the argumentum ad baculum (Appeal to Force) fallacy. It's OK to assault an atheist who doesn't believe in your god. Indeed, it's OK to see yourself as the violent instrument of God's will — it's not really you who is assaulting the atheist, but God because God sent you.
I suppose there is no greater feeling than that of being an instrument of God, especially when it gives you the excuse of act out violent fantasies against those with the temerity to reject your religious faith. The atheist might have the right to say such things — a right protected by American soldiers — but that doesn't mean that they will be free from paying a price in blood and pain.
Come to think of it, though, I'm not so sure that I want my freedoms protected by a "soldier" who will just come home and start assaulting people he disagrees with in the name of his God. I think I'd rather be unprotected than rely on the "protection" of a sociopath like that.
This is nationalistic American Christianity. Notice that the violence is perpetuated by a member of the American military — ostensibly tasked with defending America, but here tasked by God with defending the True Faith. For the Christian Right, America and Christianity tend to be identical. This is also anti-atheist bigotry. A parallel story of violence towards a Jew or an Asian would be quickly condemned, but it's OK to post "humorous" tales of violence towards atheists because... well, because atheists just don't matter. They are unworthy of the same consideration and decency Christians have had to learn to show towards others.
Do you see any connection with biblical Christianity? Paul and other evangelists are frequently portrayed as debating others, but there aren't any records of them assaulting their opponents. Their weapons of faith and love; for American Christians, the weapons have become violence and terror. Faith and love are the tools used by people who are confident in themselves and their agenda; violence and terror are the tools used by people who are afraid.
Read More:
Comments
Hmmmm. I don’t know. That would be terrible, of course, but it doesn’t have the ring of truth. It sounds like an urban legend. Keys – there are no names, not even the name of the school – inexpicable behavior; a professor who dares god to knock him off the podium? Possible, but when, where – the rest of the class just sits there? I don’t think so. Everyone has cell phones – No arrests?
Just sounds like all those email stories I get.
Although there is plenty of unfair bias against atheists, I have seen very little violence.
I saw versions that stated that the “Liberal” professor was also a member of the ACLU. Never is the first amendment of the constitution mentioned, nor the oath the soldier would have taken to protect and defend it; that he violated his oath and the law. I responded in like kind to the originator, copying nearly 50 or more in the ‘reply all’ list adding that one of the students was a constitutional law major who immediately called the police and medical emergency. The last thing the class heard was the police reading the recalcitrant soldier his Miranda rights, also defined by that constitution defiled by his assault.
Cant help but see the humor in it myth or not, do religious people really think that an all powerfull god needs someone to defend him our do his work for him.
just from a devils advocate point of view, you say its unfair for a navy seal to attack a proffessor (which i agree is wrong) but clearly he didnt react without cause, he reacted due to the taunts and most probable attack of the professor (both which i think are wrong) having different viewpoints is fine, its human, and its our right, but to tell someone theyre wrong regardless of whether your athiest or christian is also not correct.
Why?
Tony @ #4:
clearly he didnt react without cause
I suspect the courts (civilian or military) would see it much differently. Fortunately for all of us, this story is an urban legend.
Whether true or not, this story reminds me of something I think of often. I’m always hearing about the big bad “Navy Seals”, like they always have to wear it on their sleeves and puff up their chests.
In WWII my Father, who was not a good Father, and I never liked or got along with, tried to join all four branches of the service and was turned down because he was color blind and had some other eye issues.
Finally, because he was a pain in the butt, the Navy said OK, you’re in, but only as a “Frogman”, also know as a “UDT”, Underwater Demolition Team, hence, the modern day Navy Seal.
He almost never talked about his time in the war. He had an old duffel bag with his helmet, plastic liner, some other stuff and a couple of old medals. His helmet had three big dents on top.
The only thing he had on “display” was this beautiful full length sword that hung over the bar in the basement ( Everybody in the 50’s-60’s had a bar in the basement). I was very young but once in a while my brothers and I would take it down and pull it out and it was a scary piece of weaponry.
I once asked him where he got it and he told me something along the lines of shut up. Same with the dents in the helmet.
I, or course learned much later the answers to these questions. Turns out, the Marines are not the first to land, the Navy Frogmen are. Most of the time he would just go in swimming (no fancy equipment, a knife, etc.) and their job was to cut away those big mines so the Marines COULD land. Sometimes he would have to walk in, hence the bullets in the helmet from a Japanese sniper.
The sword? Well, he obviously he went in with the Marines and even though he was a lousy Father I’m grateful he won that fight, or I would not be typing this.
My point in all of this is I think today’s Navy Seals are a joke compared to my Father. He was tough, which was one of is main faults as a father. He didn’t have to talk about it, act like a jackass like this guy did to prove he was tough, he just was.
My old man probably would have felt the same way this moron did, but he was TOO TOUGH to do what this coward did. Took 50 years, but good job Dad.
Whether true or not, this story reminds me of something I think of often. I’m always hearing about the big bad “Navy Seals”, like they always have to wear it on their sleeves and puff up their chests.
In WWII my Father, who was not a good Father, and I never liked or got along with, tried to join all four branches of the service and was turned down because he was color blind and had some other eye issues.
Finally, because he was a pain in the butt, the Navy said OK, you’re in, but only as a “Frogman”, also know as a “UDT”, Underwater Demolition Team, hence, the modern day Navy Seal.
He almost never talked about his time in the war. He had an old duffel bag with his helmet, plastic liner, some other stuff and a couple of old medals. His helmet had three big dents on top.
The only thing he had on “display” was this beautiful full length sword that hung over the bar in the basement ( Everybody in the 50’s-60’s had a bar in the basement). I was very young but once in a while my brothers and I would take it down and pull it out and it was a scary piece of weaponry.
I once asked him where he got it and he told me something along the lines of shut up. Same with the dents in the helmet.
I, or course learned much later the answers to these questions. Turns out, the Marines are not the first to land, the Navy Frogmen are. Most of the time he would just go in swimming (no fancy equipment, a knife, etc.) and their job was to cut away those big mines so the Marines COULD land. Sometimes he would have to walk in, hence the bullets in the helmet from a Japanese sniper.
The sword? Well, he obviously he went in with the Marines and even though he was a lousy Father I’m grateful he won that fight, or I would not be typing this.
My point in all of this is I think today’s Navy Seals are a joke compared to my Father. He was tough, which was one of is main faults as a father. He didn’t have to talk about it, act like a moron like this guy did to prove he was tough, he just was.
My old man probably would have felt the same way this moron did, but he was TOO TOUGH to do what this coward did. Took 50 years, but good job Dad.
Most of the Navy Seals I have known weren’t that stupid. Fists against words is strictly amateur.
Why post an article, without verification, nor any proof of authenticity?
Not that of which we have come to expect from Austin.
This is something one would expect from “Commercial” radio or television. A manufactured piece of fiction that will capture the minds, and imagination, of the bigots, or even in this column a sop for the more aggressive atheist.
It is also, to my mind, insulting to the undoubted bravery of the average American “Seal”. I do acknowledge that those in the military engaged in close personal physical engagements are invariably, psychologically, adversely affected in later private life when acceptable civilian life behaviour conflicts with years of former training and brain washing.
In this instance I think, on reflection, it would have been better ignored.
I didn’t post it as a genuine story. It’s as “real” as the gospels — which is the point. Believers treat both as genuine because they reflect authentic values and attitudes which believers hold.
Of course it’s fiction — and it’s fiction with a purpose: to justify violence against atheists. That doesn’t appear to trouble you.
You forgot “the average American Marine.” I noticed that the identity of the assailant changed from one version to the next. Why didn’t you?
I, in contrast, think that religious stories which valorize violence against outsiders deserve more attention, not less.
Forgive me Austin.
Not being, thankfully, an American I thought a “Seal” was a “Marine.”
Having been a war participant in the dim past, even when the the present day military are engaged in wars of dubious legality, I still see servicemen, even if duped or mislead, being honourable in the service of their respective countries.
To draw attention on this site does nothing to mitigate
the undoubted damage that was probably intended towards atheism. If your article and remarks had been published in the N Y Times maybe some good would prevail, although knowing the average American I freely admit there would probably be too many who would cheer the antagonist in this fictitious event.
As for violence towards atheists not troubling me, I would use one of your popular answers. You attribute to me characteristics that you cannot support by any personal knowledge of me.
The “Seal” in question fictional or not, if attacking me could have been unpleasantly surprised at the outcome, age not withstanding.
A similar situation did occur and publicly on T V here in Australia when a very well known entertainer, a Vietnam Vet, (not myself) took exception to an elderly person’s remark on a discussion panel regarding the Vietnam war. He flattened the white haired seated man, who then got up, to once again be attacked, only, this time, he greeted his assailant with a perfect, copy book,straight left and right cross. End of attack. Someone should have told the Vietnam Vet., the elderly gent had been the Heavyweight Boxing Champion of Australia in his youth.
So yes I agree that stories such as this need to be publicised, along with the necessary condemnation, and
contempt. On this site? Maybe, but in the main you are preaching to the converted, which includes myself.
I don’t attribute any characteristics whatsoever to you. I merely point out that you don’t appear to be troubled by the fact that the story justifies violence towards atheists. The only things that you express any concern with are irrelevancies, like that I don’t spell out the fact that this is an urban legend even though that will be clear to readers here.
1. If not on this site, then where?
2. People searching for the story may find it here, just about the only place they will find any sort of alternative viewpoint & critique.
3. Ultimately, your objection could be raised about everything I have written. So, with that “reasoning,” why am I writing anything?
Austin . With respect. Where can you point to me saying that attacks against atheism doesn’t trouble me?
“Utimately your objection could be raised about everything I have written, So with that “reasoning” why am I writing
anything?
I disagree. Usually your writing is factually based and evidence supported, something you ask of the usual antagonist (I’m not one). In this instance my reservations are that it was none of those and was below the high standards that you are wont to espouse.
Setting up a fictional situation and then capitalising on it we expect from “Fundie” extremists. I am sorry, but I
am used to having a loftier approach from you.
I never claimed you said this. Please read my words carefully: I don’t attribute any characteristics whatsoever to you. I merely point out that you don’t appear to be troubled by the fact that the story justifies violence towards atheists. The only things that you express any concern with are irrelevancies, like that I don’t spell out the fact that this is an urban legend even though that will be clear to readers here.
Go back and re-read your original comment and look at the topics you bring up — is there any concern with violence towards atheists, the actual subject of the article? No. You express concern with the bravery of Seals being insulted. You express concern with verification and authenticity. You don’t express any concern whatsoever with the use of stories like this to justify or rationalize violence.
Stop right there. The objection you raised was very specific: “you are preaching to the converted, which includes myself.”
Your choice here is unambiguous: either you must be able to show how the above is omre “preaching to the converted: everything else I write, or you have to retract your objection to it that it’s just “preaching to the converted.” What you absolutely cannot do is use “preaching to the converted” as an objection to the above piece and then ignore it when its challenged.
I’m not setting up a fictional situation and capitalizing on it. I’m complaining about exactly what you are attributing to me: believers setting up a fictional situation (urban myth) and using that as a means for promoting their religion but which also at the same time promotes violence against atheists.
I just don’t get into how this is an urban legend because, first, it doesn’t actually matter for the purpose of this piece whether there was an original true story or not — what matters is promoting a violent story that justifies violence towards a minority. Promoting violence against atheists is equally wrong wether something like this really ever happened or not. Every criticism I wrote above remains valid, whether something like this ever happened or not. Second, I expect readers to be able to recognize it as an urban legend — that’s why I present more than one “version” of the tale.
As I am going through a very traumatic, personal, period, maybe I am not thinking or expressing myself clearly.
Originally I did not take this to be other than factual.
Even as a “Myth” it reflects, unfortunately, what many Americans would see as the correct reaction. Indeed as a story it probably had in its genesis the intent to generate
further hatred of non believers, not that so many need any reinforcement.
Apart from the forgoing I think you really are splitting hairs to say that I APPEAR to be unconcerned about violence to atheists, is not attributing to me those emotions. I can assure you that I probably would be concerned if I lived in the U S A. As I don’t I can, to a large degree, be totally unconcerned as it is unlikely to happen in Australia with a very large proportion of the population being non religious, those that are religious can usually accommodate, and accept, our peculiarities. viz I have very close friendship with S D A’s, Christian Scientists, Episcopalians, I even receive regularly from the Quakers their newsletters, these are a remnant from my late wife’s affiliation. I draw the line at “Over the Rainbows.” a man has to retain some pride.
I totally disagree with what you have to say about atheists. Im an atheist. You dont think atheists are nice people have you even talked to one before? We don’t hate christians we dont hate jews we just believe in science and science is smart that explains why atheists don’t start wars and start fights. We don’t like fighting thats why were atheists. All the things in your bible book are lame they obviously dont exist isnt it obvious that that book is a lie it is its very obvious that the supernatural does not exist its un scientific its un natural.