Alonzo Fyfe

Yes, I agree. And perhaps they should not be.

d'naturalist

Wow, some great posts these last couple days. Alot of good ideas. DC? Alonzo? I'm sensing a little tension here -- do we need an intervention? Sorry, couldn't resist. Nothing wrong with a little honest passion for the cause. Plus, it's nice to see the conversation heading in the right direction (IMHO).

I think what we're dancing around here is the idea that we need to develop some kind of "Secular Social Club". A national or international (at least North American to begin with) umbrella organization dedicated to bringing together secular people at the local level for the sake of fellowship and as a means of organizing community service events (charity fundraisers, volunteer work, etc).

One such event that just popped into my head (for those looking for something to do): The Campus Freethought Alliance or simply the various secular/humanist/atheist/etc groups on the various college campuses across the country, could join together with other campus groups (gays, feminists, racial minorities, and even christian, muslim, and other groups) to hold a fundraising event for "Jerry's Kids" (MDA). The secular group can host the dunk tank. "Dunk the Heathen!" I think that could raise a few bucks for charity and if handled with a sense of humor and good sportsmanship, could be a step in the right direction towards correcting our public image.

I think to do that you need to move from non-belief to alternate-belief. I, personally, consider the term "unbeliever" to be a slanderous epithet or ideological slur, especially when coming from those who seek to make their beliefs the standard or default that all others must take a backseat to.

I most certainly am a "believer" -- I just believe in something different than alot of people. As a naturalist, I believe in the primacy of Nature. As a humanist, I believe in human rights and goodwill. As an American, I believe in freedom and democracy. As an individualist, I believe in the inherent right of each and every human being to be a sovereign individual (operating within a "confederacy" of other sovereign individuals). I'm not preaching here -- I'm just giving examples.

I think our fixation with rebellious terms (all those things that start with a- and un- and non-) kind of does us a disservice. They tie us to the things we don't believe in, rather than celebrating the things we do believe in. We need to cut that cord and find our own, independent identity.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: d'naturalist ]</p>

Rusting Car Bumper

I cannot agree more.

With regard to the second, many believers are on our side. I believe that we must always invite sympathetic believers into this part of the argument and remove this part as an atheist only issue. We must dedicate more time and effort to demonstrating why CSS is better for all religious beliefs and not just non-believers. It is important to note that almost every import historical CSS case was brought not by a nonbeliever but by believers themselves.

We must fight our own psychology as much as we have to fight the pyschology of religious segregation.

That is, it is very easy to file a court case or be happy with the results in our MTV-instant-everything culture. We must fight that tendency within ourselves to want things instantly or to view the results of our struggle only in the short term.

Thus, the long term struggle should be focused on changing what we are.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

Essentially yes. If one were to start moving forward these are the sort of ideas one would want to generate. I love the dunk a heathen thing!

I must mention one thing though. You mentioned several other groups. I think it would not be wise to have those sorts of entanglements or at the least they would have to be very carefully picked. Many of the groups you named might often form their respective organizations for political reasons. The idea of moving non-belief/freethought to humanitarian motives is to keep it away from political motives. Thus, such relationships should either be avoided or chosen carefully.


Then perhaps we need to reach you for some deprogramming.

Yes, I do understand that many people do put up a big "anti-god" front. They wear buttons with the word "god" crossed out with the big circle and slash. We should attempt to move away from them or attempt to change them in the same way MLK argued against the term "Black Power".

I do agree that limiting it all to "atheist" is too narrow.

I am an unbeliever because that is what I am. I am a freethinker bcause that is what I am. I am an atheist because that is what I am. I do not pick that because it is a "rebellious term" , "slanderous epithet", or "ideological slur".

To insinuate such is to not understand my position and to not understand me. Its like saying "Protestants" are merely taking an anti-Catholic view and slurring Catholics.

DC

CaptainDave

This is getting really interesting!

This makes a great deal of sense to me. But what a conundrum! We atheists can't even unite within our own ranks. Now we're going to try to ally ourselves with liberal Christians! Holy Shit!

All humor aside, I think this DOES make sense. Do we need a march (or parade) FOR the seperation of church and state? To include religious and non-religious? Who would care to organize that one?

Alonzo Fyfe

I would agree with the idea of a CSS march.

Yet, it is always my preference to start with something small and working one's way up.

The "something small" to start with would be a document of mutual understanding, where the atheist organization agrees to such things as:

A national motto of either "We Trust In No God" or "In God We Trust" are equally inappropriate for identical reasons; because it belittles and denigrates a group of people for no reason other than the fact that they happen to disagree.

(Which I suspect that none of here would have any trouble with.)

As signers are brought on board, then the list of signers can be used as a focus for creating a march.

In the mean time, we generate publicity and support -- so that the march takes places with sufficient backing -- and ends (perhaps) with the delivery of petitions at the steps of the capital of people who have signed on to the Agreement of Mutual Understanding.

But that is far into the future. In the mean time...back to the present.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

d'naturalist

If we're talking about a college campus-wide charitable event, I think we'd be obligated to include any group that was recognized by the college or university. The key would be to make it clear that the event would be a fundraiser and that no political propaganda was allowed.

Sorry, my bad. I meant that the term "unbeliever" is a slur coming from the religious community. In that context, it suggests that a person lacks something and is thereby inferior. Coming from a fellow "unbeliever", the term is just mildly irritating (not a personal attack).

For the record, my "beliefs" are merely opinions, ideas, and theories that I support based on current evidence. I live by the motto "Question Everything!" so nothing I believe is in any way to be mistaken for dogma.