Wednesday, February 25, 2009

How can I sleaze thee ...



... let me count ONE way. Using a beautiful actress to forward a totally negative agenda. I refer to an ad campaign by atheists using the late actress Butterfly McQueen to try and destroy faith. (via The Macho Response)

The ad reads: "As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion."

***********************

I'm almost at a loss to express my disgust at the multiple layers of crap being inflicted here.

Number one: Butterfly McQueen, who received a bachelor's degree in political science in 1975, was FAR from a "simple-minded darky," as she was portrayed. It was symptomatic of the times that she portrayed a template model in "Gone With The Wind." She was one of the most intelligent actresses ever to ~not~ grace the screen, being African-American at a time in American history where her talents were not ever going to be noted.

Number two: She may, or may not, have been a committed Christian (or Hindu, Muslim, or whatever religion).

Number three: To use her in an advertisement after her death -- in such an egregious way -- "a slave, breaking free of the 'slavery' of religion'" -- not only uses her, but, well ....

It uses her. And that pisses me off.

--------------------------------------


UPDATE: Gregory James in comments points out that Miss McQueen was, in fact, an atheist and a member of the Freedom from Religion Foundation; hence, the use of her image in the advertisement. I'm grateful to Mr. James for pointing that out -- very civilly, when he could have answered my belligerant tone in kind -- and grateful that Miss McQueen was NOT, in fact, abused. She remains one of the people I admire of all time.

I also removed the profane statement I had previously appended in the post, as I hate profanity as a general rule, and only use it in moments of extreme anger. The organization did not deserve the slur, so I'm happy to remove it.

15 comments:

Gregory James said...

Earth to Eowyn,

Before you go into another silly rant you might want to do some basic fact checking.

Butterfly McQueen not a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, "or whatever religion". She was an atheist. She was, in fact, a Life Member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Doh.

http://ffrf.org/awards/heroine/1989_mcqueen.php

Eowyn said...

Okay, I stand corrected, and thank you. It's debatable whether rants are ~silly,~ as people generally feel very strongly about whatever it is they're ranting about, and generally it's on some principle; however, this one was misdirected. It is of course the late Miss McQueen's prerogative to believe as she chose and, indeed, anyone else's.

I'm glad her memory was NOT abused, and thank you once again for the correction.

Off to update the post --

Gregory James said...

A rant is silly when it is uninformed. How strongly you feel about something is of no importance if you don't bother to stay grounded in reality.

I'm not sure what the principle was that you were trying to express here but I suspect it is something along the lines that atheists are nasty people who don't value others.

If so, it was a doubly silly rant.

Eowyn said...

Mr. James, I do see your point. Rants, by their very nature, are knee-jerk. Alas, curbing emotional reactions is a skill not natural to many of us. Hence, the expression of opinions before facts have grounded us. And, in fact, I have foundered on previous shores of reason for this very reason, and have been taken to task, and guided toward correct thinking, before.

I appreciate your patience. Though possessing quite a capable mind, I'm emotionally driven, and it's not always easy to surf the necessary curls. Doubly grateful for your observation.

"I'm not sure what the principle was that you were trying to express here but I suspect it is something along the lines that atheists are nasty people who don't value others."

Yes, and no. The original reaction was against slurs aimed at Miss McQueen, and, secondarily, (quite probably) pre-conditioned reaction against people of faith. I'm a bit of a maverick Christian: That is, I abhor organized religion in all forms. But I know (and we can discuss at any time just how) Jesus Christ is a powerful and real ally in living life happily. So, I'm inclined to defend people of faith who also have a connection to Jesus Christ as a matter of sympathy.

I was raised to believe atheists did, in fact, have an agenda whose aim was to destroy the good in human expectation. Perhaps not the stated aim, but the end result. This is anathema to me. Jesus Christ's message (before it was distorted, bastardized, used for political purposes, etc.) was, basically, upward, forward, enlightened, happy, reconnection with what is Good.

If you can educate me that the atheist message is aimed toward the same result, I am your girl.

Otherwise, I must tell you, I am a soldier, and not a diplomat. I am a fist; and, as such, my language, and thinking patterns, are ungentle. But -- not only persuadable, but utilitarian.

Gregory James said...

Well, now. I think you've made a few statements here that might deserve a response. First, you say you must had to defend Ms. McQueen from slurs but these existed only in your own mind. Were Ms. McQueen still around I think she'd find that somewhat humorous.

You explain this misdirected concern because you are a soldier in the army of a deity. This is makes sense, you say, because you were raised to think that atheists have some agenda to destroy the "good in human expectation". I'm sure you were. But that speaks to nothing but bad child rearing. The stories you were told as a child were just stories for children told by ignorant people. Now you are a grownup and it would be good to go check the world out for yourself.

You are welcome to believe most anything you like, but if you are going to describe other people (or unnecessarily defend them) based on stereotypes you learned as a child you only end up looking, well,... silly.

Eowyn said...

"You explain this misdirected concern because you are a soldier in the army of a deity."

Well ... not exactly. I have a soldier's mentality, which tends to be single-minded and narrowly focused at any given time. As you rightly point out, this leads to regrettable lapses in seeing a bigger picture. (Believe me, it's been a lifelong work in progress not to always have such tunnel vision.) But I don't see myself as a soldier for the deity. Indeed, I believe the deity can take care of Itself pretty well without me.

And, here's something interesting I just found out about my own thinking in that regard: I can't, and won't, enter into discussions about a universal intelligence (deity, if you will) with the idea that my conversational partner ~must be convinced that I'm right.~ I question my own ~rightness~ all the time, so I don't feel able, or willing, to persuade. In this regard, I'm most un-soldierlike. I always have to discover first that someone is willing to listen, and I'm extremely sensitive to that.

"Were Ms. McQueen still around I think she'd find (slurs existing in my own mind) somewhat humorous." Absolutely no doubt :) And I would laugh at myself right along with her. Yet another reason why I admire her. In fact, that she was atheist and such a loving person speaks volumes on many levels.

Of course, you're right about rising above the template of childhood. It's something I very much do try to do every day. That I'm not successful all the time doesn't mean the effort must be abandoned.

And I do thank you for taking the time to help one person, in a meaningful way, get a couple of steps forward.

Colonel Neville said...

The wonderful world of dialectical materialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism

My dear Eowyn:

You don’t owe Gregory Court Of St. James a damn thing. I like you a lot and for good reasons. I can barely raise the boredom to care about another nihilist drone like Greg, with a classic line in moral vanity posturing.

But for you, I will.

Notice how Greg doesn't seem to know you as an individual? This is instructive. Yep, ya post was kinda naff, but we know you. And we all post the naff sometime, eh? This is the demands of lone blogdom!

[As for Miss McQueen and her radical boredom, she ain’t my cup of tea. Ironic that she was a typical Left atheist pagan etc, and would have fitted in very nicely to Bel Airhead today. And curious that the group she belonged to has imposed it’s atheism on others through the law.

Interesting that despite the typical marginalising treatment she received of the time, she was an atheist when many others were not and that she was a part of a radical atheistic and gee, overtly ANTI-religious group that was what exactly what? Honestly about freedom from religion? Such groups are usually Left ain’t they? And under the fraud and front of being alleged “free thinkers” Meaning Marxist and this one was and IS as per usual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation

From the Freedom From Religion site: “I don’t believe in God cos I don’t believe in Mother Goose”. Clarence Darrow, the radical “Liberal Fascism” “progressive” in full false dichotomy and logical fallacy flight.

Darrow believed that anyone who questioned the massively documented neo-fascistic Woodrow Wilson and his state control spree during WW1, or his totalitarian methods was a “traitor” and that “aquiescence on the part of the citizen becomes a duty”. How er,“Liberal?” Today it is! Progressive. Quite.

For the “progressive” mindset, it was always control freak on for the “good of the people”. The source is the best selling book [Left] Liberal Fascism by Jonah oldberg.

Recent FFRF activity: “…the placard reads: "At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_120108WAB_atheist_holiday_display_KC.201f8962.html

Well, even in those days, you didn’t have to join the church did ya? But one must
Be organised to destroy belief. Destroying all belief but the state via nihilist movements is after all THE goal of the Marxist Left. All fascism is the “religion of the state” and leads from this first goal.]


But I digress. Atheism eh? There is precisely no evidence that atheism exists.

But then Greg the as per usual arrogant and assuming atheist smug hat is:

“…welcome to believe most anything [he] likes, but if [Greg is] going to describe other people (or unnecessarily defend them) based on stereotypes [he] learned as a child [teenage radical?] [he will] only end up looking, well,... silly”.

Hey, Greg drivels a classic hackneyed line: “…you were raised to think that atheists have some agenda to destroy the "good in human expectation".

Colonel Neville: How does he know this? Was he masturbating over Marx and Che the child killer in the linen closet? Er, yeah, many atheists do indeed “…have some agenda to destroy the "good in human expectation". It’s called totalitarian, fascist, communist socialism. So check yeah.

It’s murdered 100 million people at last count and counting. Yep, all atheists are not control freak hubris merchants at all, and many are entirely decent people and have aright to er, disbelieve “whatever they want”.

But nihilism seems to be what atheism naturally leads to at some point, and for quite a large proportion of them, don’t it? Inevitably it’s often anti-Christian, anti-Western Canon and anti-capitalist democracy and eventually anti-individual.

Atheism is the perfect for mass death conformity. Just replace God with the most dangerous Fuhrer, Comrade and Imam Prophet around. Islam believes in a pre-proscribed fatalist monster, not God. But then it is a complete totalitarian political project created by a psychopathic paedophile rapist and mass murderer. But I digress.

Let me know of a SINGLE atheist state [or Islamic one] that’s anything but Hell on earth, Greggy.

The Left is massively stuffed and legion with atheists and fake fashionable alleged Christians too. Thus the Left and its natural bedfellow the Islamist psychopath.

“I'm sure you were”. Colonel Neville: Oh, he just knows. How ironically faith based.

“But that speaks to nothing but bad child rearing”.

Colonel Neville: Ah, of course. And ergo atheism doesn’t? Of course. Nuance. How mono-atheistic!

“The stories you were told as a child were just stories for children told by ignorant people”.

Colonel Neville: Atheism is a vast arena of ignorant people. Mao, Marx, Lenin, Kant, Stalin, Hitler, Kim Song, Che, Fidel, Pol Pot and most of the Marxist Left Liberal Radical “Progressive” movement. Thus the environmental pagan freak movement.

Greg: “Now you are a grownup and it would be good to go check the world out for yourself”.

Colonel Neville: Ipso facto Greg is an adult. Riiight. Good luck with that and the narcissistic shallow conceits of nihilism. Yes, the world of the physically dimensional only. Got it.

That’s why Greg comes over as a conceited narrow minded phony and a rude unfunny bullying bore. He’s a believer in the creed of no belief whatsoever as a er, belief system.

I have no doubt in God at all being one of the Gods. I just remain utterly unconvinced that Greg James exists, especially in any original, natural, complete, fun or effective form at all.

DO you need to know God and Jesus? Yep, it’s an inseparable part of who we are as COMPLETE and spontaneous human beings and essential if you want to understand ANYTHING at all, even atheism. A depth of faith doesn’t need superficial by default atheism to exist; atheism needs the profundity of faith to exist.

The free West is the free successful West precisely because it IS Judeo Christian.

The reverse applies to the imprisoned and failed negative world. Do I need to know Greg James? Not at all. What’s he offering? Nuttin’. What’s he selling? His depth of soul. I ain’t buying from the utterly uninteresting.

My advice to you Eowyn is say to Greg, go blow a dog ya dopey weenie fashionable bastard. I mean what does it matter? It’s all so “meaningless” except for whatever value a man happens to place on anything. Balls of course.

Do not suffer fools gladly or apologise, especially to a Dawkins-like atheist. So what if you ranted. It’s your blog and I’ll cry if I want to! Say after me: “Go blow a dog Greg”.

All the best kid. Colonel Neville.

Colnel Neville said...

Oops!


[Left] Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, not Oldberg. Oldberg wrote the poorly selling A Guide To Swiss Cheese: The Life Of Al Gore.

Colonel Neville.

Colonel Neville said...

Oh, here's a great quote of the "puposes" of the FFRF and a bizarre farago of lies and misrepresentations of a rather beyond belief kind it is. Gee, ya wouldn't be Marxist nihilists would ya?

FFRF: "The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.

"In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion..."

Colonel neville: Ah, go to http://www.margaretsanger.blogspot com for the truth of the abortion indu$try formed by atheist fascist fan Marge, admired by Hitler and of keep it quiet that we wish to "...exterminate the negro race" fame.

14 million black babies aborted since 1974, which is about the current black population of the US.

WHere are the Planned Parenthood abortion mills? Mostly in black and poorer areas. That's "progress unfettered by the chains of religios belief..."

"...have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery".

Riiight. All balls of course. The opposite is largely true.

For a satirical and true take of where the fake name of "free thinker" meaning atheist nihilist leads go to http://www.thepeoplescube.com and for the truth of atheism on a grand statewide scale read:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/product-description/0674076087

Colonel Neville.

Gregory James said...

Eowyn, perhaps I should take back my reference to your original post as "a rant". It's not in the same league as what our friend the Colonel is able to crank out!

Thanks (Eowyn) for being reasonable in your responses.

Thanks (Colonel) for cranking such a lengthy stream of BS that I don't feel any need to respond. (Tip: if you want to engage in actual conversation, take a breath now and then.)

Colonel Neville said...

Dear Greg. Er, balls. Five stars for the sudden append of Mr Reasonable and polite to golly, yourself.

When Eowyn was entirely polite and humble to your overt bullying, YOU simply bullied more. Thus you're full of crap, sunshine.

In Australia they call people like you ratbags, wankers and bullshit artists. So paint on, Roscoe.

Hey, when YOU write, stop and maybe try to pull an original idea out of your ass. Could work.

You ain't. SO NOTHING is true that I've said? Riiight. ALL that you said is? Got it. Spoken like a true Marxist product sodden gee, atheist.

So Judeo Christianity is NOT an intrinsic part of the Western Canon from Shakespeare and Samuel Johnson, to Einstein and JFK?

Riiight. You have no real arguments do you?

As for conversation, one must have something to say of merit. I will tell you now...I not only know and understand more than you, I wish to do so.

There is the key.

Still, five stars for ONLY ad hominem and the absurdly dismissive hyperbole. I love ad hominem myself but mine are always entirely true. In your case, any ad hominem could simply be your resume.

Good luck with the logical fallacy too, the mealy mouthed posturing and the laughable cognitive dissonance. It's the armoury of the average militant atheist is it not? Ironic, innit?

When you develop a sense of humour, satire, irony and well deserved ridicule, let me know, fluffy. Until then, happy mediocrity.

All the best from Colonel Neville.

Eowyn said...

My dear Colonel ...

Tears. Thank you.

I'll never be able to convey to you my thanks.

What part of, some things are worth standing up for, don't make sense to people?!

Well ... whatever.

I won't forget this.

Gregory James said...

Eowyn,

Accuracy and honesty are worth standing up for. The reason for my initial response was simply that. You corrected some of the original post and for that I am grateful. However you made sure to leave in the suggestion that those nasty atheists were "using" Butterfly McQueen. A suggestion that is patent nonsense.

Colonel,

You've been off in the weeds mumbling about Karl Marx and flailing around, apparently with idea that if you can get more angry words on you screen you will win an argument. But all those words boil down to nothing more than a misdirected expression of your own hostility. There is no discussion to be had because you don't seem to have the basic communication and reasoning skills mastered.

Well.. I suppose that will trigger another twenty paragraphs of weed-whacking. Have fun, "Colonel"!

Eowyn said...

First time I've had a chance to get on here since Saturday --

Mr. James, Col. Neville is a soldier, same as me, and we tend to defend each other if we believe one another is under any kind of perceived ~attack.~ This is not to say we will parrot one another's opinions -- I'm simply defending the Colonel's defense. I would naturally do the same thing for him (not that he'd probably ever need it!).

The Colonel, as you have seen, is a master of bombast -- and I mean a master. He intentionally delivers his arguments with language shot from howitzers, rather than the finessed thrust of the rapier. There is no one, anywhere, so uniquely robust (nor as entertaining). And, full disclosure, if I've ever disagreed with him it's only on minor points, not worth mentioning.

I will mention one, though, germane to the discussion at hand:

Your quote: "However you made sure to leave in the suggestion that those nasty atheists were "using" Butterfly McQueen."

(Actually, no. I acknowledged I was in error on that assumption.)

I'm not convinced that the FFRF is unredeemably nihilist or Marxist in its orientation as an organization. While it may be true that some (or even many) members subscribe to that ideology, I have, in fact, met some atheists, agnostics, skeptics and otherwise non-believers who, nevertheless, have spiritually clean beliefs about themselves and their fellow humans. I respect that, naturally, and hope that the entire ~community~ would choose to live their lives that way. I believe Miss McQueen was that kind of person. I believe you, yourself, probably are.

Having said that, however, the Colonel finds the tendency of many atheists to place small value on individual life repugnant. I find it pitiable. And that's about the sum total of his and my differences on that particular issue.

Gregory James said...

A few brief comments.

First, of me you said: Your quote: "However you made sure to leave in the suggestion that those nasty atheists were "using" Butterfly McQueen."

(Actually, no. I acknowledged I was in error on that assumption.)


but at the very top of this page it says..

... I refer to an ad campaign by atheists using the late actress Butterfly McQueen ....


Second, FFRF is neither nihilist nor Marxist in any way at all. FFRF is an organization of people who simply don't believe in witches, unicorns, or gods. The organization supports the separation of church and state that was written into our Constitution. To characterize them as Marxist and nihilistic is nothing but an expression of ignorance and bigotry.

Third, referring to a "tendency of many atheists to place small value on individual life" indicates that you (and the "Colonel") don't actually know many atheists. You are tilting at an artificial cardboard cut-out figure. Cardboard figures are easy to flail at but, like when you go hunting unicorns... you stand little chance of having a successful expedition.

Finally, it is slightly off-topic, but I don't find all of this "we're soldiers" stuff particularly convincing. You probably don't mean _real_ soldiers, as in U.S. military membership. But even if you do... so what? Claiming membership in a military organization doesn't validate an argument in any way at all. It is quite irrelevant.