Texas atheist students swap Bibles for porn

[rug]

Posted by Kate Shellnutt on April 3, 2012 at 10:47 am

This week, atheist students at the University of Texas at San Antonio are holding their annual “Smut for Smut” campaign, in which they offer to exchange holy texts for hardcore porn, the Friendly Atheist reported.

The group, Atheist Agenda, argues that the “perversion, misogyny, slavery, rape, murder” that’s chronicled in the Old Testament is worse than what’s depicted in contemporary pornography.

It’s a rather attention-grabbing concept, and the atheists drew religious opponents even on their first day set up on the steps in front of a campus building with signs reading “FREE PORN” and the name of their organization.

In a video posted Sunday, a member of the organization confronts a protester holding a sign in front of their table, and a small group sings Gospel music in the nearby courtyard.

http://blog.chron.com/believeitornot/2012/04/texas-atheist-students-swap-bibles-for-porn/

Another proud moment in the fight against misogyny.

[cbayer]

1. I think this movement needs a little diversity.

Perhaps a few more women and people of color would raise the sensitivity quotient up a bit and avoid some serious mis-steps.

[rug]

2. If there were a few more women involved, I doubt they'd be swapping for porn

in the guise of opposing misogyny.

[Goblinmonger]

24. Are you talking about the RCC?

Because they could certainly use a little more diversity.

[rug]

31. Where, in the African, Asian, or Latin American dioceses?

Are are you just talking about your own little corner of the world?

[Goblinmonger]

34. I'm talking about the place of women in the church.

How many female priests are there? Bishops? Cardinals?

In case you forgot, the point of the OP was misogyny. Don't lose sight of the ball, rug, or you might lose the game.

But since you ask, how many non-white popes have there been?

[rug]

35. Thye post you replied to mentioned "more women and people of color."

D I take it then you are satisfied with the racial and ethnic diversity of the RCC?

[Goblinmonger]

37. No, I'm not

Are you happy with the female representation of the RCC?

The cardinals had the chance to pick Hoyos to be the next pope and instead they picked the asshole from Germany.

[rug]

42. Other than Hoyos, what is your dissatisfaction with the ethnic and racial diversity of the RCC?

(Hoyos was a non-starter for a host of reasons. I'm surprised you favored him. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/04/scandal-sex-abuse-catholic-vatican-washington/1)

[Goblinmonger]

43. That all came out after the selection

if I remember correctly.

The hierarchy, except for those regions of the world that aren't white, is white. The head of the church has always been white. That is a problem. Even the South American choices are vastly European Spanish and not native.

[humblebum]

54. They just get more popular every day. nt

[eqfan592]

55. They do indeed. ;) nt

[cleanhippie]

56. Indeed they do, and at the expense of religion, too!

I'll bet that just burns you up, huh?

[humblebum]

57. Yes, everyone knows religion exploits women and porn doesn't.

EXTREME SARCASM

[cleanhippie]

100. Well, at the very least, religion exploits children...

but when porn does that, it's illegal.


Think about that.

[eqfan592]

102. Hmmm...I think you're missing something.

[AlbertCat]

109. everyone knows religion exploits women and porn doesn't.

That must be what they're trying to say!










or not.

[qazplm]

3. I find this as annoying

as proselytizing by religious folk.

[Ian David]

6. Well, the important thing...

[Kelvin Mace]

9. Come on now,

that was a cheap shot.

I am an atheist and I find the stunt counterproductive. Is pointing out folly espousing personal superiority?

Trying to outdick dicks doesn't work, it just increases the surplus dickish population.

[Ian David]

12. Saying there are too many dicks is like saying there are too many flowers.

Sorry, I'm just having fun with you.

[AlbertCat]

110. I find this as annoying as proselytizing by religious folk.

Yeah.... going door to door and exchanging porn is annoying.



Seriously, it's sophomoric but that's very collage-y and I'm not surprised.

[Ian David]

4. There's no misogyny if it's gay male porn. n/t

[cbayer]

16. That's true, but probably unlikely. They bought 30 pounds of porn from a single seller

on Craigs List. While no one could say for sure that it wasn't gay male porn, I would suspect they wouldn't go there at a Texas University.

[Rob H.]

58. "They bought 30 pounds of porn from a single seller"

Wait--you can buy porn by the pound now? Hmm.... *Checks wallet, heads over to Craigslist*

[cbayer]

61. Actually it was 140 pounds for $30!

[Rob H.]

62. Man!

Kinda makes you wonder who would have 140 pounds of porn they're looking to get rid of.

[cbayer]

64. Maybe it's an estate sale?

[Rob H.]

88. Ha! I can just see it

"One thing I'll always remember about Grandpa, he certainly loved his porn." *sniffle*

[FBaggins]

5. Sounds like a win-win

Any Christian worth his salt would be happy to take away porn and give you a Bible.

[Kelvin Mace]

7. Do not taunt rabid dogs

The dogs are going to tear your throat out, and the bystanders will be cheering the dogs.

[Speck Tater]

8. How to win friends and supporters by being offensive and rude.

Sounds like a winning strategy to me. After this, let's go desecrate some churches and burn the Dalai Lama in effigy.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. I keep telling people

to stay the Hell out of Effigy. It seems to be the arson capitol of the world.

[Ian David]

13. It depends on who their targeted audience is, and what their desired result is.

If their targeted audience is Believers, and their desired result is to convert them, or to make them more tolerant of Atheists, then it is a fail.

If their targeted audience is Believers, and their desired result is to make them ashamed about their holy book so they STFU, it's a nice try, but it's still fail.

If their targeted audience is closeted Atheists, or Atheists who have not joined an Atheist organization, and their desired result is to get their names on a mailing list to get them to attend the next meeting, and the way they are reaching them is by intentionally generating publicity and buzz through a campaign designed to encourage outrage, then this is a success.

[cbayer]

46. Looks like it might be a combination of 1 and 3

“The point is not to hand out porn, but rather the primary purpose is to get people to come talk to us so we can get our message out,” Kyle Bush, the group’s president, said. “We want to spread atheism and bring it more to the spotlight. We offer another alternative to people who might not fit in anywhere else.”

[Ian David]

66. They're not going to SPREAD Atheism that way.

But they will help existing Atheists find out about their organization, so they can bring them into the fold.

"I never knew there was so much sex and violence in The Bible! I have been deceived! I reject my lifetime of religious upbringing because Lott had sex with his daughters and now I declare myself an Atheist! Teach me how to give blow-jobs!"

Computer says nooooOOoOoo...

[trotsky]

11. What's your church doing to fight against misogyny, rug?

Cause it sure ain't promoting women or their rights.

[Ian David]

14. They stopped burning "witches." n/t

[trotsky]

21. Gotta love progress!

Maybe in a few more centuries a woman can hold a position in the institution higher than NONE... err, I mean nun.

[rug]

18. What are you doing to fight against misogyny, trotsky?

Cause it sure ain't snarking on the internet.

[trotsky]

19. You're right, I do lots more than you and your church. n/t

[rug]

22. I'll take you word for it.

[Buzz cook]

15. Good for them

"Another proud moment in the fight against misogyny."

http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_brights_journal_/ and http://sideshow.me.uk/

Say it better than I, but there isn't a direct link between porn and misogyny. While the link with some religions and misogyny is pretty clear.

This is a pretty good way to advertise the paternalism of the bible and do it with humor.

[ladjf]

17. I believe the swapping of bibles for porn to be a dumb, unfunny and destructive , sophomoric

prank. I sincerely believe that they are denigrating those who are atheists. Nothing good can come from this stunt.

[darkstar3]

20. I'll believe that you actually care about misogyny beyond your rhetorical convenience

when I hear that you've left the Catholic Church.

[rug]

23. Do you believe I care about your belief?

[Goblinmonger]

25. Way to not yet address the hypocrisy of your post.

Are you ever going to address the misogyny of your religious organization since you make that an important standard in your OP?

[rug]

26. Ah, so you approve this stunt because the RCC is misogynist.

Exquisite logic.

[Goblinmonger]

27. Build your strawmen somewhere else.

I said nothing about "this stunt" to this point in the discussion. Just look back through the thread.

What I did say is that
1. you, in your OP, made misogyny a standard to judge the worth of something.
2. your church is HORRIBLY misogynistic
2(a). I would posit much more misogynistic than porn given the studies that show no link between the two
3. You won't come out and say your church is bad because of their misogyny.

Yeah, get into a logic fight with me on this one. Good idea. Do you want the above in the form of a syllogism or do you think you can fashion it together yourself?

[rug]

28. This OP is about swapping Bibles for porn.

It is not about the RCC.

It is not about deepstar3's - or your - opinion of the RCC or me.

If you want to talk about that start your own thread. Or threadjack off in the corner.

Now, do you have an opinion on this stunt or is your logical defense of it a lame diversion?

You want to talk logic? I'd love to hear what you consider to be logic.

[Goblinmonger]

29. OK, guess we have to go through this one step at a time

Do you or do you not agree that you set up in your OP the standard that if something is misogynistic it is bad?

[rug]

30. Wrong step.

Do you or do you not believe this stunt is misogynist?

Do I need to define misogyny to you before you answer?

[Goblinmonger]

32. Not the wrong step

I am talking about your OP. Which you wanted me to do. I'm not talking about my "threadjacking" point at all.

Did you set up the standard of misogyny as the basis for determining if something is bad?

[rug]

36. You are asserting two different things.

You wrote:

"Do you or do you not agree that you set up in your OP the standard that if something is misogynistic it is bad?"

D'uh. Do you think misogyny is not bad?

[Goblinmonger]

39. Funny. You still don't answer the question.

I need an answer from you before we can move to the next step in showing you how this isn't "threadjacking."

Maybe "D'uh" was an answer. Can I assume your answer is yes. You did set up misogyny as a standard for determining if something is bad.

[eqfan592]

33. From the article you posted:

"The group, Atheist Agenda, argues that the “perversion, misogyny, slavery, rape, murder” that’s chronicled in the Old Testament is worse than what’s depicted in contemporary pornography. "

Sounds to me like the group involved here actually thinks the porn is misogynistic, but that it is less so than the bible, given that they mention misogyny by name.

I think making this point was the objective here (the bible being worse than the porn), not the distribution of porn to the masses.

[rug]

38. That's an interesting and plausible view.

You may be right but somehow I doubt that was their intent.

[Goblinmonger]

40. How the fuck do you know?

I'm trying to walk you through that realization above. Of course it's their intent. Why do you think they called the event "Smut for smut"?

[rug]

44. To quote a teacher of communication, "How the fuck do you know" their intent?

They've done this before and their goal is still murky.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/03/02/smut-for-smut-is-a-bad-idea/

[Goblinmonger]

48. Did you read that article?

He says

And I get the point. The Bible has smut and violence and that needs to be pointed out. It’s not all rainbows, flowers, and Jesus.

He understands what their point is. He gets it. Oh, sure, he goes on to tut-tut them for it and says how he likes other campaigns more, but that's not the point of this discussion, is it? We know their intent. It is to point out the misogyny in the bible and, therefore, the religion.

[trotsky]

41. Calling upon your mystical mind-reading powers again, I see.

Good thing you're here to tell us what atheists are REALLY up to. Those evil bastards!

[rug]

47. I know what you're up to. You're your usual transparent self.

As to the OP, the word used was doubt, not know. Look it up.

[Goblinmonger]

50. So contrary to what the group says their intent is

and what they named the event, and what a blogger says their intent is, you still have some deep mystic insight into this group to doubt that is what their intent is.

Do tell, oh great Swammy, what is their intent?

[rug]

60. Sure.

Take trotsky for instance. He rarely states his intent.

[eqfan592]

45. Not only do I not doubt that was their intent...

...but the name of the event and the quote I posted verifies that it was their intent. I honestly can't see how it could be interpreted any other way...

[rug]

49. These are the alternatives:

Publicity.

Shock.

Education.

There are probably others.

None excludes the other. But consider this, if the purpose was simply to equate the Bible with pornography, there are many was to do it that do not involve distribution of porn on a college campus. Therefore, I doubt their purpose was simple edification.

[eqfan592]

51. I would say that those were all objectives...

...leading to making the same point. And while there were other ways they could have gone about doing it, I doubt any of them would have been nearly as shocking or attention getting as the method they chose.

[cbayer]

52. This is their president's statement of intent

“The point is not to hand out porn, but rather the primary purpose is to get people to come talk to us so we can get our message out,” Kyle Bush, the group’s president, said. “We want to spread atheism and bring it more to the spotlight. We offer another alternative to people who might not fit in anywhere else.”

Other quotes indicate that they wanted to create a controversial booth in order to draw some attention. They have been doing this yearly for some time and initially had strong negative reaction.

At this point, they are attracting little attention with this method. One article states that they had 30 visitors in the 4 hours they were there, collected 5 bibles, 1 koran and 1 Islamic Encyclopedia. There was also a small counter demonstration in the form of a prayer circle.

Wonder what they are going to do with the several 100 pounds of porn they purchased off Craigslist?

[eqfan592]

53. Probably set up more booths?

My best guess anyway...

[rug]

59. Fair enough.

I still think it's stupid.

[trotsky]

65. You've been proven wrong, and been quite belligerent in defending your wrongness...

and all you can muster in the end is a pathetic "fair enough." Stay classy, rug.

[rug]

68. Now, trotsky, that is the difference between you and a nondisruptive poster.

Unlike you, he's made a quite plausible and interesting comment on the OP.

Also unlike you, he's done it without the predisposed, predigested bullshit.

[trotsky]

82. Stayin' classy indeed.

Thank you for reinforcing my perception of what Christians truly are.

[rug]

86. Fortunately, I dont form my perception of atheists based on you or your posts.

[trotsky]

91. No, that's pretty clear.

Because otherwise you'd think much more highly of them than you do now.

[2ndAmForComputers]

67. Because that would mean the atheists have a point.

And we can't have that, now, can we?

[rug]

69. Oh? Are you distributing porn?

[2ndAmForComputers]

70. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

[rug]

72. Just the OP.

[2ndAmForComputers]

73. Pro tip: in order for a snappy reply to actually be snappy...

...it has to have something to do with what you're replying to.

[rug]

74. Follow it.

[2ndAmForComputers]

75. Dude. That's old.

[rug]

76. Dude.

That's stupid.

[cbayer]

77. Er, you may not like rug. You may disagree with rug. But his snappiness is pretty

unequaled.

[darkstar3]

78. I can only assume that you were either

a) making a joke, or
b) exposing a sheltered nature as yet unrevealed on this board.

[2ndAmForComputers]

104. It's the team. Rah rah go team.

Sox rule. Yankees suck. And all that.

[cbayer]

107. Sox do rule and Yankees do suck.

[2ndAmForComputers]

112. Can't argue against THAT.

[trotsky]

83. Good for him.

On edit: Do you think his snappiness is a good thing?

His nastiness, vindictiveness, and defensiveness are right up there too.

A fine example of a Christian indeed.

[Goblinmonger]

85. Well that explains a lot.

You don't really see that he was schooled here do you?

I'm not expecting you to deem me worthy of a reply.

[mr blur]

63. It's astonishing, the lengths you will go to avoid

any examination of the Catholic Church, its shameful practices and your own apparent acceptance/endorsement of them.

Evasion, inconsistencies, insults, oh-so-cleverness, condescension - what an incredibly complicated time you must have trying to reconcile fantasy and reality.

Any way, I'm sure you must be as tired of me as I am of you so...the Ignore feature is our friend.

[rug]

71. Considering the OP is not about the Catholic Church,

it's astonishing the lengths you will go to to bring it up.

[darkstar3]

79. The OP is about you taking issue with something and revealing a certain hypocrisy.

This subthread is about that hypocrisy. You have chosen to dodge that issue in a rather inartful manner, but that won't change the topic.

[rug]

80. Why don't you comment on the article instead of attempting another diversion?

If you do, I promise I'll post a picture of a jelly doughnut that you can use to attack religion.

[darkstar3]

81. Why don't you actually reply to a point put to you for once?

Many people here in this subthread have pointed out the blatant hypocrisy present in presenting yourself as a champion against misogyny while belonging to a rabidly misogynistic organization. Do you have anything to say to those people besides, in summary, "fuck you I won't talk about that"?

[rug]

84. Do you support this group distributing pornography.

None of the "many people here in this subthread" you refer to have managed an answer. Can you? It's not hard.

Here, I'll give it to you anyway. I'm in a good mood.



Have at it.

[Goblinmonger]

87. Had they come to me

Asking my suggestion, I would have offered a different one. In particular the one the Friendly Atheist offered "Fiction for Fiction" but that could be the English teacher in me. But I get their point and support their right to make it.

Your turn to answer for your hypocrisy.

*holding my breath*

[rug]

94. Not so fast.

You haven't answered the question (#36): Do you think misogyny is not bad?

You certainly implied (#29) that in some instances it may not be.

While I'm holding my breath, let me understand your accusation:

1) The RCC (which has nothing to do with the OP) is misogynist;

2) I am Catholic;

3) Therefore I am, at least, complicit with misogyny;

4) As a result of 3, I cannot comment on perceived misogyny lest I be accused of hypocrisy;

5) I commented on perceived hypocrisy;

6) As a result of 5, three internet posters named goblinmonger, darkstar3 and trotsky called me a hypocite.

7) QED I am a hypocrite.

That about it?

Aside from the speciousness of this little drama, the voices of reason have once again valiantly strived to move an uncomfortable discussion into a dark backroom of personalities and hissing name-calling.

Nice try.

[Goblinmonger]

103. I'm on my phone

And will answer tomorrow when I can type easier.

[trotsky]

106. Truly fascinating and oh-so-telling.

You say:

"...the voices of reason have once again valiantly strived to move an uncomfortable discussion into a dark backroom of personalities and hissing name-calling."

Yet if you go back and look at my first response to you on this thread (#11), I said nothing about personalities or called any names, but merely asked what your church was doing to fight misogyny, since that appeared to be your primary objection to the activity covered in your OP.

No, it was YOUR response to me that then descended into the dark backroom, launching the first personal attack.

You really need to take a closer look at who's the instigator here, rug. Be the change you want to see.

[Goblinmonger]

111. You are off on many points.

1. I implied nothing of the sort in #29. You really need to take a strawman-making refresher course because you aren't even given it a good attempt at this point. That post was simply to get you to admit that you set up misogyny as a standard by which to judge things.

Do you or do you not agree that you set up in your OP the standard that if something is misogynistic it is bad?

2. The answer you give to post #29 (which has to be yes by the way) sets up a much different, and sensical, chain of logic, specifically:

a. If something is misogynistic, it is bad.
b. The RCC is misognynistic.
c. Therefore, the RCC is bad
QED

3. The fact that you don't want to admit the logical outcome of the syllogism based on a standard you created in your OP (see, it all does come back to your OP--not threadjacking), indicates a significant level of hypocrisy on your part. You want to lash out at a group of atheists for what you feel is misogynistic (though I don't know you have proven that) but you refuse to lash out at your religious organization for the same things. We call you a hypocite (sic) because you are.

And, while we are on the topic of hypocrites, I don't think you need to start talking about a cult of personality while you and cbayer are gladslapping each other on the back in this very thread.

[darkstar3]

89. I could answer easily, but it's not germane to the OP or the subthread.

To paraphrase several unofficial campaign slogans from decades past, "it's the hypocrisy, stupid."

If you don't want to talk about the hypocrisy present just in this thread, how about the hypocrisy present elsewhere on DU? I have seen myriad posts from you, both in R/T and GD, that fall under the heading of "misogynistic". Why do you suddenly act as though misogyny is something you care about? Is your desire to slam this group so strong that you can't even see your own hypocrisy?

Further, if this thread was really about misogyny, you'd have posted it in the feminists group. So now that I think of it, even the OP and your comment on the story is about hypocrisy. So let's hear it rug: If you care so much about hypocrisy, what about yours?

[rug]

90. I see. You could answer easily. But you don't.

Excuse me if I skip the subsequent blather.

[darkstar3]

92. More inartful dodging. If you have nothing to say about your hypocrisy, then why say anything here?

[rug]

95. How many posts will it take you to avoid an answer?

Even trotsky has finally mustered a semblance of an answer (even though he masked it in a squid-like cloud of nonsense about child rape). You're all alone in your flight.

[darkstar3]

97. And what did it get him? Nothing.

Your question is nothing but a dodge. Why entertain such a diversion when it gets me nowhere closer to the goal of you addressing your own hypocrisy?

[rug]

98. There's another..

[darkstar3]

99. Yes, but not in the way you "believe". ;)

[trotsky]

93. I'll answer you too, so there's one less thing you can hide behind.

I'm fine with it. Makes a good point. Gets people to think. Far more benign than any of the ridiculous crap PETA pulls. The only thing I don't like is the opportunity it gives to tut-tutters to bash atheists and completely avoid the point of the exercise.

But considering the vile child rape that certain churches have enabled, I think distributing pornography to legal adults is pretty dang tame.

[eqfan592]

96. And lets be honest, anything atheists do that might actually...

...make a bit of a splash is going to draw "tut-tutters" to bash us anyway, so it's kind of a no win scenario in that regard.

[trotsky]

105. Precisely.

The best I can tell, atheists are supposed to sit down, shut up, and if they say ANYTHING about religion, they need to refer to it in the most fawning and admirable way possible. Our rights must come AFTER the rights of believers.

[cbayer]

108. Not true at all. There was significant support for the reason rally

and there have been multiple threads regarding positive achievements made by individual atheists or groups of activist atheists.

What does get "tut-tutted" around here is when groups of believers or non-believers do stupid things that seem counter productive to achieving their stated goals. This, I would say is one of them. Pretty much everything Santorum and his followers do are others.

This scenario you are painting is old. While there may be a hold out or two, I think you would be hard pressed to find much real atheist bashing going on here.

[eqfan592]

113. rug, on this very forum, attempted to paint the Reason Rally in a bad light...

...using the old technique of quote mining, and he had a surprising amount of support when he did it.

Sorry, but there are those who will stop at nothing to paint atheist in the most negative light possible, and some of them are on this very forum.

Was the event in the OP stupid and counter productive? No, not really, if only because it got people talking about the negative stuff in the bible, even if they'd rather avoid such discussions. But what tack did rug take? That atheists are actually misogynists and the porn they distributed is proof, ignoring the excerpt that HE POSTED in the OP that explained the stated objectives and that the atheists recognized the misogynistic nature of the porn as part of the statement being made.

The scenario I am panting may be old, but it is also a sad reality.

[cbayer]

114. There is criticism in this group about actions of both atheists and theists.

And the criticism often comes from all sides, because activists or extremists on both sides often do some really stupid things.

I do think that we often see objection to the behavior of individual atheists and theists here, just as you have done in your reply.

The "he did it, too" or "he did it first" is not an argument that makes much sense to me.

Clearly there are some here that hold their positions so strongly that their behavior towards others is offensive, even abusive, but I don't think its pervasive at this point.

[rrneck]

101. I've got a bible or two laying hete somewhere... nt