RawData

At the march web site, there are now links to many pictures from the march (www.godlessamericans.org).
I'd say about 2400 people is a good estimate + about 40 xtian fundies.
It was worth the trip just to be in a crowd of similar thinking people, and at least briefly, greater numbers than the fundies.
And thats the Raw Data

Rusting Car Bumper

Uh no. Perhaps you were reading someone else's response.

DC

DougI

Here's a couple of crowd pics for those who have claimed to be following the march but haven't seen any crowd pics.

<a href="http://www.maggotpunks.com/march/Fotos/015.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.maggotpunks.com/march/Fotos/015.jpg</a>

<a href="http://www.maggotpunks.com/march/Fotos/014.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.maggotpunks.com/march/Fotos/014.jpg</a>

DougI

My mistake, I guess you did say that you went. I must be having reading difficulties. Nope, you even said you didn't go because your presence would have given it bad press.

Autonemesis

You keep talking about negative outcomes as a result of you not attending. Why?

If you thought there was a greater likelihood of negative press from not attending, then you must have wanted there to be bad press. Perhaps if you had shown up, you'd have gotten your wish. As it stands, maybe I should be glad you didn't come, since all we got was ignored (except for the even sparser turnout of the religious bigots to picket us).

The Admiral

Digitalchicken

I guess I just don't understand. You and I each made a concious decision not to attend. My excuse is that I just hate to travel and am a lazy lout. You offer no excuse at all nor are you required to offer any. But lazy lout that I am I at least did something. I brought the March to the attention of the local paper and delivered material to the editor describing the March and I intend to keep after him. A fart in a hurricane perhaps, but better than nothing. What did you do?

The Admiral

Buffman

The Admiral

I have been going over the Weyrich article seeking to identify those items/areas which could prove to be the most beneficial, if appropriately reformulated, to best advance the case/message of the non-theist community to our American brethren. This is just a quick overview, but it might get a constructive discussion going. First, I think it is appropriate that I mention that I am still of the opinion that the march was not inclusively titled. It engendered a built-in divisiveness. Rather than "Godless" I would prefer to have seen something that promoted American unity.

1. Weyrich seems to fear multiculturalism. So do I...if it results in national divisiveness. Historically, it never did to any nationally significant and detrimental degree. (Not as true when viewed on a locale-by-locale basis.) In the past, it was actually viewed as a national treasure from which we all drew great strength, pride and benefit. That is what we should be stressing with solid examples. These are the examples that are lost when the majority religious faith belief seeks to make everyone clones to their "uniculturalism"...just their specific religious family values. Perhaps that is what we should try to stress....religious indoctrination produces a "unicultural cloning" that is weakening the American Way, Spirit and Values. (i.e.: Religious cloning weakens rather than strengthens America.)

2. Weyrich seems concerned about secularism. It is incumbent on secularists to retake the high ground on what "secularism" really means in this country.....separation of religion and government on a material, not moral, basis. Secularists need to make it clear that rather than pushing God to the margins of American public life, they are the ones most concerned with promoting and protecting the expressions of individual conscience to include religious freedom whether they agree with faith beliefs or not. Without a secular federal republic, individual religious expression freedoms could not, and would not, exist where ever the majority religious belief system reigned uncontested. However, the secularists must make it clear that the public expression of only one monotheistic supernatural faith belief is a threat to everyone's personal belief system.

3. Weyrich seems concerned about "unchurched" people. That is pure religious double-speak. Do churches educate in unicultural ethics and morality or merely indoctrinate in "multicultural" religious dogmas? (They actually practice the opposite of what they claim is beneficial.) Recently Christian faith believers have been able to sell a belief to the general public that all Christians hold identical ethical, moral and family values. They do not! Secularists must be able to prove to the general public that ethical/moral/family values are not the sole possession of any single religious faith belief.

4. Weyrich seems very concerned about assaults on Christian values. Secualarists must be able to demonstratively show now Christian values, far from being unique/special, were actually plagiarized from many societies and civilizations that came before, and after, them. Thus, whether they are divinely inspired or not is irrelevant. They are socially inspired in order to best provide the security of the individual and the society in which that individual must exist and prosper. That is why almost every society starts with a Golden Rule as the basis of its fundamental values. Further, it must be shown that even among Christians, the specific values differ. Therefore it is a matter of "whose" values the individual elects to follow that will best suit their individual needs and goals. It is also up to the secularists to get the Christian to express exactly which values are being assaulted and how. Secularists must be seen to be sincere in their efforts to correct any justified constitutional grievances. (The ACLU has an excellent record of doing exactly that. The ACLJ, et al, have stolen that leadership when dealing with religious issues. They have specialized. Perhaps there is a valuable lesson to be learned from this.)

5. Weyrich seems concerned with assaults on some so-called tradition values. Exactly what are these "traditional" values? Do secularists have traditional values? At what point in time does something become traditional? (Slavery was around for many centuries. It was a traditional way of life and religiously supported. Just because something is called a tradition doesn't mean that it is ethical/moral.) How can that former religious, negative, traditional values be turned into a method of promoting secularist values? (The Humanist Manifesto II contains many secularist values that are already supported by the majority of the American public. That public needs to be shown that it is already practicing a benign form of traditional values secularism.

6. Weyrich is proud that denominational differences were set aside for a common crusade. That is a very important fact. The Godless March was an attempt to accomplish this same goal. It didn't. Why not? That is a key question the answer to which is critical if secularists are ever to mount a credible alternative to religious dogma and obtain political influence.

There are at least four or five additional items worthy of examination and eventual implementation on behalf of maintaining America as an ethical/moral society of free man and women working in harmony under a secular constitution.

The real issue is how do secularists develop and promote an easily understood, powerful and positive program that can and will recapture the minds and spirit of Americans that used to make this the one place on earth where everyone wished to live or at least emulate. It wasn't Christianity. Many people fled from Christian nations. It wasn't Capitalism. It wasn't Democracy. It was individual liberty and the ability to legally express one's conscience without fear of government interference or retribution.

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Living Dead Chipmunk

Trying to make people believe Atheists are just like everyone else is not only worthless, it's a wasted effort.

If we're just like everyone else, why should anyone listen to us specifically? If we're promoting American unity, sure, it's a great thing everyone can agree with, but it's political masturbation. It gets nothing done. Nothing will change. The Bush family will still consider me to be a non-citizen non-patriot and won't even have to remember those words were said. While I suppose some people are in favor of politically killing kittens, I feel that we've been trying to say "Look, we're normal, safe, sane, consentual and not out to eat your children!" for long enough not to judge that its general effectiveness is about squat.

Secondly, it's a wasted effort because no matter what we do, the majority of the people in this country WON'T look at us as normal people just like everyone else. They'll continue to walk all over us until we decide to stand up for who we are. We could single-handedly solve every problem in the nation and the Christians would still look at us like they'd look at someone who boils puppies in hot lead for fun (or someone who asks for sweetened ice tea in DC, it's approximately the same look). Thus, my conclusion is that we can't get the rights and recognition we need by telling everyone how homogenous we are compared to the rest of the country. We're NOT.

Just my 2c.

One of the last sane

Damn. Look at that. Atheists look just like regular folks. We are the people your parents warned you about, and we are everywhere!

Azathoth

You lie.We all know that Atheists have horns like the Debil.