Tgt, the Ethics Alarms resident atheist, backs graduating high school senior Damon Fowler, voting for “hero” rather than the jerk-in-training assessment of my original posts on the topic, to be found here and here.
“I think impeding the encroachment of religion into schools is important, especially when it is unpopular to do so. While Damon is not actually hurt from school backed prayer, some of the other listeners will be: anyone who gets the impression that the school and government back Christianity, anyone who feels they must believe to fit in.
“The danger in this prayer isn’t that Damon will be hurt or his rights violated. The danger is to the weaker people unwilling or unable to stand up against this behavior. The danger is to the children not yet graduated, that they will learn in an environment that sees a place for superstition and pandering at a ceremony that should be celebratory.”
Ethics Alarms 
I’m not an atheist, strictly speaking, but this is basically why I support DMD. Is it a jerk thing to do to draw Muhammad? Probably. But the alternative of allowing those who think threats will scare us out of our freedoms to succeed is far worse.
I found this video yesterday, and I found it very interesting. Not strictly relevant, but I enjoyed it.
I think there is a valid analogy between the two, and my objections to both are similar. They cause needless harm to innocent people while accomplishing little or nothing, except to make the participants feel like they are accomplishing something.
I don’t think its easy to measure the accomplisments of either, as they are designed to retard the advance of bad behavior. Will someone be willing to criticize Islam that might not have been otherwise? Will a group stand behind their creative people instead of caving in? Will a person who already leans toward violence realize that their violence will not have the effect it previously did?
Will more students around the country realize they are not alone? will more stand up and fight the encroachment of religion into government spaces? Will more Christians learn that atheists are among them, and they are not necessarily evil. Will they be counted?
It was considered uncivil for gay people to march in their own parades, much less in general parades (St Patrick’s Day, Thanksgiving Day). What benefit did that do? Negligible, but negligible behavior repeated enough times can turn the tide. Support for gay marriage is directly tied to knowing gay people. Support for equality and tolerance of atheism is likely to follow the same pattern.
Alright. I’m willing to grant that it might not accomplish anything. But what would complicity, what we saw from every network and newspaper who refused to run the ads because of potential offense (instead of being scared out of their little pink bras), accomplish? We’d see this happening ten times as often once we show that we can be terrorized out of our fundamental freedoms.
Personally, I’m not doing this anonymously. There’s still a tiny chance that someone discovers my real name and address and tries to retaliate. People on the Internet have done this over much smaller potatoes than these here.
I have a hypothesis: Offense does not equal Harm. I’m not sure that’s right, but it’s worth exploring. We all get offended by things. I occasionally get offended by Robot Chicken. Is the appropriate response to make threats and try to march backwards towards the dark ages? Or is it that offense is something within, and only discussing why it’s offensive and to hopefully warm the sentiments of those who caused the offense, especially if it was intentional?
I am willing to concede that doing anything to deliberately cause offense is wrong. But I still believe it is the least wrong thing to do in this circumstance.
(A thought: the Koran that Terry Jones burned… was that an English version? They say the English version can never truly be the Koran, don’t they?)
Is it a jerk thing to do to draw Muhammad? Probably. But the alternative of allowing those who think threats will scare us out of our freedoms to succeed is far worse.
I think this is more CotD than my post. Sometimes the most ethical course of action is to be a jerk.
Except that I’m more willing to accept this in reference to Fowler than EDMD, which has no legitimate redeeming arguments for itself in practice—it doesn’t stop anything or clarify anything or address itself coherently to the issue it claims to. It is the same, in my book, as Rev. Jones burning the Koran because he can, and getting people killed in the process. EDMD just got a fatwah issued against the poor cartoonist who thought up the idea. Some victory.
Boy, there’s just no pleasing you, is there?
And if nobody did it AFTER she was fatwah’d, then it would all be for naught and then they’d try it again anytime someone said anything bad. Which is what they’d probably do anyway.
I think my version was a good compromise between not causing offense and refusing to be complicit.
Especially because it echoes the South Park bear joke that started the whole thing.
Hope you are properly honored to be part of the official Ethics Alarms collage!
That’s actually not the original point. The real inspiration comes from longer ago than that.
As long as it’s nowhere near Octomom, it’s all good in the hood.
You read my mind. I came OH so close to putting the bear with Octomom, put decided it was…unethical
Oh, I’m pleased with my CotD.
I put EDMD above Rev. Jones, but only because he’s a hypocrite. He was protesting the superstitions of group A because the superstitions of group B are so much better.
The basic point of EDMD, that it is wrong to stifle dissent, seems pretty clear to me. The fatwah is just proof that there is a problem that needs to be fought.
As a point of clarification, would you have considered it better if EDMD was called “Everyone Draw A Funny/Thought-Provoking/Clever Picture of Muhammad Day”? Apart from showing religious extremists that they can’t stop freedom of expression, it also would basically fulfill the same (relatively) legitimate artistic/comedic function that the South Park/Molly Norris cartoons were going for.
AND IN THE END, graduating senior Laci Rae Mattice stood at the podium to lead the moment of silence, she instead recited the Lord’s Prayer. . . .
“I respect the beliefs of other people, but I feel that I can’t go on without giving glory to my Lord today,” she said. “I want to ask for the Lord’s blessings upon us.” . . . Laci Rae then asked fellow students to say the prayer with her “if they want to.”
Article & video: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/May/Seniors-Hold-Prayer-Despite-Atheists-Threats/
And, I would argue, she was just as brave as Fowler, and set out to do less harm under the circumstances.
She was brave to do what the community wanted? That’s rich.
Fowler also didn’t set out to do harm.
Oh, sure he did. That wasn’t his primary objective, perhaps.
And a student going off script, whether she thinks it will be popular with an audience or not, at graduation is brave. I’m not saying it’s right—bravery is a value-neutral quality. And Fowler took his stand in private. Nobody should have known why the prayer was cut. Public stand vs Private one—which is braver? Pretty obvious.
Private stand against an awesome force (who made it public) or public stand in front of a receptive audience. It’s fun how we can couch the same behaviors in very different ways.
You’re conversing to someone who has politely declined to have his rights violated, and ended up upsetting a handful of BigBoxStore employees. Was that my goal? No. If they had known the law, maybe even just if the off duty cop moonlighting for them had known the law, there would have been no problems.
I also have discussed pricing, labeling, and id check problems with the managers of FastFoodChain, SuperStore, OfficeSupplyStore, GroceryStore, and RecordStore. In three of the cases, I caused people to get upset. In the other two, I didn’t. Was my goal in any of those to cause upset? No. I was just the helpful soul pointing out the mistakes they were making, some of which that could get them into hot water.
The goal cannot be determined by the result.
I agree. But the results need to be weighed against the goal.
I’d argue that ethics should be concerned with the actions and motivations, not the likelihood of other to behave immorally.
Actions and reasonable intended consequences. Motives not so much. Good motives don’t make unethical acts less so.
Fowler is doing fine. He moved to Texas away from the Bible Belt. The amount of money he’s raking in will probably pay his college education.
Fowler’s parents threw him out; his brother is helping him, since his parents won’t. I wouldn’t call that “doing fine.”
So he was also taking a shot at his parents and their values and their friends. The story becomes clearer all the time. And his own parents wanted the prayer, perhaps? Nice.
On what basis do you say that? Are you in the habit of just making up “facts” about people you dislike?
I’m sure they threw him out because they were thrilled with his conduct, and are enthusiastic atheists themselves. I’m just guessing, based on my experience with teenagers. Maybe they threw him out because they don’t like his music. Maybe it was unrelated to the graduation incident. Whatever the reason, it’s too bad. When you set events in motion with intentionally disruptive conduct, you never know what will happen.
By the way—I don’t know the kid, and have no basis to dislike him. I think he screwed up, that’s all.
That harlot. Look at what she was wearing! She knew what might happen.
If we’re taking votes here, I’m with Jack. The kid behaved like a jerk at graduation. It is not unreasonable to suppose that he is inclined to behave like a jerk at other occasions—or even many other occasions. Such people tend to wear out welcomes real fast, even with family. Fowler’s attitude at graduation was, essentially, “I’m gonna do what I like, and if you don’t like what I’m doing it’s none of my look-out.” Most of us accomodate ourselves on a daily basis to the habits, likes and dislikes, values, etc. of others. Their ways are not necessarily ours. But if we can compromise with them without badly compromising our principles, well, why not? Sometimes it really is OK to go along to get along.
Getting along with your fellow citizen/resident’s peccidillos is not the same as getting along with your government’s problems. It’s not like Damon is protesting outside churches.
Did Damon act horribly at graudation? Did he boo someone off the stage? Throw things? Be disruptive in any way? Or did he, prior to an event taking place, privately note that he believed the school’s planned event violated their duties, asking them to change in lieu of litigation. You know, the civil thing to do.
When did Damon behave like a jerk?
Thus proving, once again, the profitable role of grievance bully.