An open letter to the abortion who objects to the Darwins on my car

[Kyomara]

I am willing to give Lightnin’ the benefit of the doubt and assume that he really didn’t think about how confrontational his Darwin fish is…that he really intended to use it merely to express his beliefs. I think to have done so was massively naive, but so be it.

Furthermore, in no way do I mean to imply that he “had it coming.” Vandalism is vandalism, his car is his property, and as other posters in his camp have rightfully pointed out, they see bumper stickers and decorations that they find offensive every day, but they don’t go around vandalizing them and ripping them off.

And that is that.

Now:

The Darwin fish is not and can not be a pure expression of one’s atheist beliefs because it is based entirely on the symbol of another religion. That makes it by its very nature a reactionary symbol, defining the beliefs of its bearer only in contrast to the beliefs of others. Whatever your original intent in displaying the fish, there is no way around these facts.

This is to say nothing of the fact that belief in Darwinism or evolution or the unassailable power of science in no way precludes belief in Christianity or any other religion, and so “parodying” the Christian fish by writing “Darwin” in it is a really poor and uninformed attempt at humor.

If you want to express your atheist beliefs, there is no need to make fun of others beliefs while doing it. If your intent in displaying the Darwin fish really is simply to express your own beliefs, and not to make fun of the beliefs of others while doing it, then I suggest that you stop displaying it. If you continue to display it, do so knowing that it is not the innocent expression of your beliefs that you thought it was.

And I like the marine grease idea. I want to hear how it turns out.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
It should be manifestly obvious that in the absence of religion, not only would atheism flourish, it would be positively common. What else do you imagine would be present in the absence of religion?

A complete lack of any desire to expend any energy whatsoever in the pursuit , acquisition, and publication of ideology based on the belief that enough evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that no “supreme being” exists. Without contradicting opinions, I would expect that preaching or expressing the atheist ideology would become very boring.

That is,Also, you seem to be under the misimpression that atheists are incapable of holding “deeply cherished beliefs”

What ever gave you that misimpression? After hanging around here for several years I don’t see how anyone can make that mistake.

and that the opinions they express are only meaningful vis a vis Christianity. This is, of course, stupid in the extreme.

What is stupid in the extreme is your modifying my general statement regarding religion into a limited statement concerning Christianity, thereby showing your complete lack of comprehension regarding my point.

I think the fact that the Darwin fish is assumed by so many to be meant to be derogatory towards Christians is related in no small way to the fact that the people who use it are assumed to be atheists.

And I’m quite sure what comes across is someone who is mocking my beliefs and dissing me period. But I can most assuredly say that no devout Muslim, Jew, or devotee of any other religion would stoop to co-opting a Christian religious symbol for the express purpose of mocking. They might kill me for preaching…

By the way, if I haven’t made myself clear on the matter, whether atheist or not, my judgement of the measure of a person is independant of their beliefs, atheist or not. The vast majority of atheists feel no need to display Darwin fish or mock Christianity. I realize some here in this thread are young and prone to expressing immaturely with little regard for the feelings of others, but I trust that just like my generation, the young here will learn to be more empathetic.

[grendel72]

I don’t really consider the Darwin fish to be offensive, but it’s none of my business.

I have reached my limit for being offended on another’s behalf, if Lightnin’ has no complaints I reckon I was being overly sensitive.

[Measure_for_Measure]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
But does anyone here think that the Darwin Fish is not, at least in part, meant to mock the Christian Fish?

:Flowbark raises his paw: (Call on me, call on me!)

Mock is a strong characterization. I’d say that it’s intended to poke fun at creationism. Notwithstanding the fact that my (former) church gave me a fish necklace when I was a boy. Which I still own. Somewhere.

Although actually, the meaning of the Darwin fish is somewhat ambiguous, beyond an endorsement of Darwinism and rejection of creationism. I made a few casual inquiries about what it meant before affixing it to my car. The consensus tended to be, “I dunno; what do you think it means?” Admittedly I didn’t ask many people and probably none of them attended church regularly.

If I joined a UU group, I wouldn’t anticipate removing Mr. Darwin from my car. FWIW.

[kabbes]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
Kabbes was being facetous (obviously)

Facetious? Moi?

[quote]
**(I also doubt that kabbes is Christian, but you’ll have to ask him about that.) **I don’t think that grendel really cares. At this point he’s reading what he wants to read, to what is actually there.

All hail the great sky pixie.

pan

[Siege]

grienspacesaid

Only the Jesus fish is cherished, and any desecration can only be regarded as a deliberate affront to all Christians whether or not evolution is an issue for them.

As I’ve said before, I am a very devout Christian and my car is routinely parked at my church on Sunday morning. I’m not into bumber stickers, but if I were to choose, I would never get a Jesus fish. I might get a Darwin fish. FWIW, I have no problem reconciling Christianity and evolution. Obviously, I’m not offended by Darwin fish; I am offended by holier-than-thou Christians who use acts of cruelty to justify their religion or who appear to gloat in their superiority.

If someone did damage Lightnin’s property for Christian reasons, I’d like to talk to that person about why he/she did that. If it was to educate them, the lesson was pretty unclear. If it was to show dislike, how do they reconcile that with “Love your neighbor as you love yourself,” their religion’s second commandment?

CJ

[pldennison]

I’m going to try to reply as best I can here, y-babe, although I hate this multiple-nested-quote crap. Anyway:

No - it’s been longer than that. I remember seeing the fish on cars when I was a kid, and (I am shy to say) that was a lot longer than 15 years ago.

OK, let’s be generous and say 30-40 years. It’s largely an academic point, but every Christian source that I have consulted regarding the history of the fish indicates that, around the 5th century, it fell nearly completely out of use in Christian art and iconography. Its resurgence really does appear to be a 20th-century phenomenon. That, I feel, is important; because as I said, my read is that a lot of non-denominational and non-mainstream Christians started using in answer to perceived victimization by American society.

I have no idea what the motivation behind people adorning their cars with fish. Have you been polling all the people who adorn their cars with Jesus fish?

Yes, yes I have. Every single one. It pays really well, too.

Can we maybe both assume, for the purposes at hand, that neither one of us is a complete idiot, and is capable of making connections among cultural trends? Just maybe?

So - what’s your point? That the Christians who put the Jesus Fish on their car (or any Christians who recognize the Jesus Fish) shouldn’t be offended by a parody of it, just because the trend of the Jesus Fish bumper sticker isn’t a kajillion years old?

No, I feel that they overstate the offense, or the degree to which they feel they should express it. My gut instincts tell me that the kind of poeple who put Jesus fish on their cars would be offended, and say so loudly, at anything that atheists or humanists were to use to advertise their beliefs, whether it appropriated a Christian symbol or not. Again, I feel this relates to why the Jesus fish is so popular in 20th/21st-century America in the first place.

It seems to me that a lot of people adopted it, as I said, in response to perceived victimhood–as a way of stating that, in a society going to the dogs, being taken over by Godless humanists and atheists and evolutionists, that they were still Christians and proud of it, and were not going to let these heathens drive this country to the devil. Within the last decade, some people said, “Oh, enough of this nonsense,” and designed the Darwin fish, and there’s been no end of griping by some Christians ever since. THere’s a certain class of Christians out there that are never more happy than when they can pretend that Christianity is somehow the underdog, and that American Christians are persecuted and martyred.

If the Jesus Fish is a symbol that they feel represents their Christian faith, why shouldn’t they take it seriously as a symbol? And why shouldn’t they feel entitled to be offended when someone else mocks it?

Again, not all symbol appropriation is mockery. The Darwin fish may or may not be (and probably is on the part of the designers but not necessarily on the part of the displayers), but the fact that it includes the symbol does not mean it mocks the symbol. Mockery is in the eye of the beholder.

What’s more, the fish symbol is not even unique to Christianity. Like so many symbols and rituals of the church, it was appropriated from pagan worship, the double intersecting arcs being representative both of the Moon goddess and of the vulva. If Christianity did not feel obligated to devise its own symbols out of whole cloth, why should non-Christians be obligated to do so?

I also think that, to the detriment of their protest, many of the same Christians who whine about the Darwin fish have no problem with things like this .

[Dinsdale]

I’m not a big fan of “bright-lines” - but free speech is an area where I probably come the closest. And one (certainly not the only) clear aspect of how powerful and valuable free speech is, is its potential offensiveness.

I may be extremely bothered by groups displaying graphic images of abortion on their posters. I may hate the Nazis as they parade in public. However, if I am offended by someone’s speech, among my permissable responses is NOT trying to silence the speaker, but to find avenues to express my opposing view.

Moreover, the community does not need to be consulted concerning the motivations behind the speech. I can put a Darwin dish on my car to express the meaning evolution has given to my life, to celebrate diversity of opinion, or to try to piss off Catholics. Or, I could put a Christian fish there to celebrate the wonder and glory of God, to identify myself as a member of a persecuted group, or to piss off non-Christians.

In either case, the expression of such speech does not justify illegal responses on behalf of offended parties against my person or my property.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
**
OK, let’s be generous and say 30-40 years. It’s largely an academic point, but every Christian source that I have consulted regarding the history of the fish indicates that, around the 5th century, it fell nearly completely out of use in Christian art and iconography. Its resurgence really does appear to be a 20th-century phenomenon. That, I feel, is important; because as I said, my read is that a lot of non-denominational and non-mainstream Christians started using in answer to perceived victimization by American society.

**

So we agree that the Christian fish, much like the rainbow symbol for the gay and lesbian community, is a largely 20th-21st century symbol.

Can we maybe both assume, for the purposes at hand, that neither one of us is a complete idiot, and is capable of making connections among cultural trends? Just maybe?

Well I don’t see you making that cultural connection (i.e proving that the Christians who use the fish, are using it from a victimization point of view)

No, I feel that they overstate the offense, or the degree to which they feel they should express it. My gut instincts tell me that the kind of poeple who put Jesus fish on their cars would be offended, and say so loudly, at anything that atheists or humanists were to use to advertise their beliefs, whether it appropriated a Christian symbol or not.

Sans evidence, this is the same as saying “get over it, you have no right to be offended”

Within the last decade, some people said, “Oh, enough of this nonsense,” and designed the Darwin fish, and there’s been no end of griping by some Christians ever since.

I agree that the Darwin fish was designed as a “rebuttal” to, or parody of, the Christian fish.

THere’s a certain class of Christians out there that are never more happy than when they can pretend that Christianity is somehow the underdog, and that American Christians are persecuted and martyred.

Agreed. The same could be said of any group of people, from some gays and lesbians to some members ethnic groups, to some feminists.

Again, not all symbol appropriation is mockery. The Darwin fish may or may not be (and probably is on the part of the designers but not necessarily on the part of the displayers), but the fact that it includes the symbol does not mean it mocks the symbol. Mockery is in the eye of the beholder.

So the product is made, by the designers, to be a mocking symbol…and yet people who see the product should not assume it’s a mocking symbol? Does this same line of thinking apply to lawn jockey statues in a yard?

What’s more, the fish symbol is not even unique to Christianity. Like so many symbols and rituals of the church, it was appropriated from pagan worship, the double intersecting arcs being representative both of the Moon goddess and of the vulva.

The symbol (like many other religious symbols) had been in use for some time before being used by Christians…I’m not sure why that takes away meaning for the Christian community . See here. The rainbow symbol of the gay and lesbian community is certainly derivative…as is the U.S. flag. Both symbols have taken on new meaning over time though…just as the fish has.

**
I also think that, to the detriment of their protest, many of the same Christians who whine about the Darwin fish have no problem with things like this . **

Cite? FTR, I posted to a thread about the Hart cartoon awhile back. Even if there are bigoted Christians, that does not lessen the legitimacy of their concerns, any more than homophobic rappers (of whih there are no small number) lessen the legitimate concerns of racism that exist among the larger community of African Americans.

Finally, FTR, I don’t own a Jesus Fish…never have. I don’t have Christian bumper stickers on my car, never have. I don’t think Christians or non Christians should be defacing property, regardless of what is on that property.

[beagledave]

Gahh…apparently I still suck at vBulletin coding…sorry

[pldennison]

beagledave, I’m not going to play the line-by-line response thing. It’s distracting and not at all conducive to discussion. I tried to keep it to a minimum w/my response to yosemitebabe, and tried to include more than a single sentence after a quote of five or six sentences. I would appreciate it if others who do want to argue with me could do the same.

Anyhoo . . .

1. I’m not going to provide cites for statements that I have already prefaced with “I think,” “I believe,” or “My read is,” for obvious reasons. I am basing those statements on my own experience as a Christian and within the evangelical community, as well as my experience as an atheist and observer of what goes on in both communities. I have scrupulously tried to avoid words like “most” or “all,” and I don’t think the statements I’ve made, as they relate to “some Christians,” are particularly controversial.

2. That said, I think I have established some cultural connection. The 20th-century re-adoption of the fish as a prominent Christian symbol appears to have coincided with the rise, in the 1960s and 1970s, of the so-called “Moral Majority,” the 1980s rise of Christian conservatism, and the self-identity by some Christians as persecuted subjects in a cultural war. As such, it is not that the fish has taken on new meaning; it has retaken an old meaning, that of an easy identifier among Christians in a climate where it is “dangerous” for them to be so identified.

3. My paragraph that you quoted is, mainfestly, not “the same as saying ‘get over it, you have no right to be offended’,” and if you’re going to quote me for the purposes of argument, please don’t recharacterize my statements in a manner that better suits your position.

Look at what I said: “My gut instincts tell me that the kind of people who put Jesus fish on their cars would be offended, and say so loudly, at anything that atheists or humanists were to use to advertise their beliefs.” If atheists were to come up with their own symbol, or to start using bumper stickers that simply said, “God doesn’t exist,” or whatever, I suspect a large portion of the Jesus-fish-users would complain equally as loudly as they do about the Darwin fish. In fact, I’d bet good money that, if there were suddenly a bunch of “God doesn’t exist” bumper stickers on cars, it wouldn’t be long before you saw an equal number of “Does so!” stickers.

4. In regards to your statement, “So the product is made, by the designers, to be a mocking symbol…and yet people who see the product should not assume it’s a mocking symbol?” that also is not an accurate characterization of what I said. I said that, even if the designers of the Darwin fish intended it as outright mockery (and I’m willing to concede that they did), that the intent of the people who put it on their cars does not necessarily have to align with the intent of the designers.
   Just because something is intended to be used a certain way doesn’t require me to use it that way, especially when it comes to things as abstract as symbolism and parody. Furthermore, how something is perceived by someone else may be entirely unrelated to how I intend to use it. (cf. “Confederate flag”)

5. “The symbol (like many other religious symbols) had been in use for some time before being used by Christians…I’m not sure why that takes away meaning for the Christian community.” I didn’t say it did. (Cripes, please quit restating what I say in ways unrelated to what I actually said.) I said that given that so many Christian symbols are actually appropriated from earlier, pagan sources, it’s disingenuous in the extreme for Christians to feel that other, non-Christian belief systems should come up with all new symbolism out of the blue sky.

[Polycarp]

I applaud CJHoworth’s post above.

FTR, while St. Mark’s Episcopal is pretty liberal, I like the idea of, mixed with all the American flag, “My kid is a great kid” and “Buy RedHat Linux” bumperstickers there, our car with the tasteful [=] HRC sticker, the family that has “Hatred is NOT a family value,” and the rainbow “Celebrate Diversity” of Grace and her kids (her life partner is Jewish, and so she doesn’t attend Christian services), all in the parking lot of a Christian church on a Sunday morning, seem to me to be making a statement.

The fish, thanks to the ICHTHYS Greek acronym, has been the symbol of Christian since the first century – and I despise the idea that one branch of Christianity has appropriated it to mean something by it that the rest of us don’t.

[beagledave]

PLD:

1. Fair 'nuff. You said “… a lot of non-denominational and non-mainstream Christians started using in answer to perceived victimization by American society.” You didn’t say “all” or “most”…point taken.

2. If you are saying that there are some Christians who use the fish symbol to self identify as an attacked group…sure, I bet there are. To say that large numbers are…requires a bit more evidence than just oulining a correlation between events.

3. Well now you are referring to ALL the people who put Jesus fish on their car, when you say … (my bolding)

My gut instincts tell me that the kind of people who put Jesus fish on their cars would be offended, and say so loudly, at anything that atheists or humanists were to use to advertise their beliefs, whether it appropriated a Christian symbol or not.

although in your reply…you say “I suspect a large portion of the Jesus-fish-users would complain equally as loudly as they do about the Darwin fish.”

Are there some Christians who would complain about any perceived dig by an atheist? Probably. Large numbers or “the kind of people who put Jesus fish on their cars”…requires a bit more proof.

4. I realize that the intentions of the manufacturer and end user may be different, the kids who buy Abercrombie & Fitch Wok & Roll shirts may not be trying to express a racist stereotype…the shirt can still be perceived as “mocking” or insulting.

5. If Christians were appropriating other symbols in a mocking or insulting manner, I suspect that pagans (or other groups where the symbols were borrowed from) would be complaining loudly. The U.S. flag is not a mocking appropriation from other exisiting flag and color schemes, even though it is derivative.

[easy_e]

I’ve thought about getting an “Evolve” fish, because I like the sentiment–strive to improve.

And I’m Catholic. I wouldn’t get a Jesus fish, because that smacks to much of professing one’s faith just to look good.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

*Originally posted by pldennison *

2. That said, I think I have established some cultural connection. The 20th-century re-adoption of the fish as a prominent Christian symbol appears to have coincided with the rise, in the 1960s and 1970s, of the so-called “Moral Majority,” the 1980s rise of Christian conservatism, and the self-identity by some Christians as persecuted subjects in a cultural war. As such, it is not that the fish has taken on new meaning; it has retaken an old meaning, that of an easy identifier among Christians in a climate where it is “dangerous” for them to be so identified.

I was there in the sixties, and it wasn’t like that at all. As I recall, there was a spontaneous religious revival within the hippie culture and its fringes, rejecting the sour dogmatic approach of the mainstream churches and opting for more contemporary forms of expression with which to worship, like guitars and dancing with a beat. The Jesus fish suddenly appeared out of nowhere it seemed on volkswagon vans along with the flowers and the peace sign. I’m quite convinced it was actually intended as a sign of benign youthful rebellion identification within the greater Christian community.

[beagledave]

Heh irony…apparently the ACLU thinks that “In terms of history and popular usage, the fish symbol is unmistakable identified with Christianity.”

As far as origins, this guy seems to question the notion from atheists.org that the fish has pagan roots.

A quick googling did not turn up an unbiased cultural history of especially in 20th-21st century use.

[pldennison]

Thanks for the courteous reply, beagledave–I appreciate it. And you’re right that I should have qualified my remark concerning “the kind of people who put Jesus fish . . .”

I guess what it comes down to for me is this: You throw things out there into the public arena, you risk having them appropriated for other purposes. A nontrivial sector of the Christian world started both using the fish symbol and waging a war against science, and ended up having the fish symbol thrown back in their faces in a new form. Some people might have a problem with this, I don’t.

Christianity is always appropriating the symbols and rituals of other cultures and societal segments–always has, always will. Some segments of the Christian world want different rules for them and for everyone else. Take a look at this Christian t-shirt outlet . Just on the first page, there are no fewer than three major copyrights being parodied (some might say “infringed”). “Burger King” might not be a “deeply cherished belief,” but I but the corporation takes their copyrights and trademarks pretty damned serious. You can find more such examples here.

Once the fish has been commodified and mass-produced and -marketed, as it has now, it becomes a legitimate target for parody and comment. You notice there aren’t a lot of, I don’t know, Darwin crosses or stickers showing Jesus evolving off of the crucifix or something; some symbols, by tacit agreement, are out-of-bounds. I just can’t get too worked up about a parodic version of a Christian symbol that, until the mid-20th century, had been practically unseen for several hundred years.

[Thurgin]

Holy fucking shit, people!

(And no, I don’t intend the previous comment to indicate that I deify vaginally inserted feces.)

It’s a fucking rant! Someone fucked with this person’s stuff and they got bent! Whether it’s a fish, an ass, or an elephant, it’s their fucking property! He bought the fish, so he owns it! Keep your fucking fins off his stuff! If your fins have somehow developed an opposable thumb, keep your fucking thumbs off his stuff! (And thank some entity of your choice, amorphous and omnipotent or merely patient trial and error, as you can now breathe out of water :D)

Wow, this rant thing really does help you feel better! I need to this more often.

Thurgin

[Queequeg]

I fully support the OP’s right to put whatever s/he wants on his/her car without having to worry about vandalism. I don’t have a Darwin fish on my car, however, because I believe that it sends the message that theism is necessarily in conflict with evolutionary theory. The Jesus fish may or may not have been resurrected as a symbol of ‘persecuted’ Christians, but my guess is that lots of people simply see it as a symbol of Christianity in general. If that’s the case, they may see a Darwinian takeoff on the Jesus fish as an admission that science and religion are enemies. (The person displaying the fish may not have meant it that way, but that’s a moot point as far as I’m concerned.) I’d rather encourage them to see science and religion as compatible, as many Christians already do.

Obviously, your average young-earth creationist isn’t going to be swayed one way or another by the presence or absence of Darwin fish. However, there are ‘moderate’ Christians out there who haven’t made up their minds as to whether evolution is legit. I’ve met a few of them (in geology and anthro courses at university, no less). They weren’t Bible thumpers or willfully ignorant people, but they did have religiously motivated doubts about the legitimacy of macroevolution. I’d rather not put anything out there which might give such people the impression that you can’t be both a Christian and an evolutionist. (Of course I understand that the rest of you may not feel obliged to tread as carefully as I do.)

If some Christians have declared war on science, then, strategically speaking, I see Darwin fish as a tactical error. If some Christians see themselves as a persecuted class, I’d prefer not to give them any fuel for their paranoia. YMMV.

[SisterCoyote]

Not that long ago, I saw a car sporting both a Darwin fish and a Christian fish on it’s bumper.

I, for one, have a Darwin fish on my bumper not because I want to offend anyone, but because I like the darn fish. I attend a Lutheran University, and have had no problems based on either my Darwin fish or my “Born Again Pagan” bumper sticker.