Buffman

Alonzo Fyfe

It is a lesson that cannot be taught merely by winning court battles. This cannot be done by informing people, "That is what it says in the Constitution." Or by saying, "This is what our founding fathers wanted."

Short of the practical experiences and lessons of constant, brutal, bloody, exhausting wars of religious conflict to teach the survivors the lessons to which you allude, what other options are available other than the courts, our Constitution and the wisdom of those that created it...all of which currently being further weakend by attacks from the radical religious right, its conservative allies and this present administration? (Northern Ireland, The Middle East, The Balkans, Kashmir, East Timor, S(h)ri Lanka, ad infinitum/nauseam. What have these religious conflicts taught Americans? What has accurate history taught us? What did 9/11 teach us...after the religious right was done spinning the facts?)

Though accurate education is the answer, it simply does not teach like experience... especially in a society that is being conditioned to believe that intellectualism and liberalism (tolerance) are un-American, un-Patriotic and outright "evil." How can honest people look at 9/11 and call it anything other than religious, supernatural belief, insanity? A War Against the West? Yes! It is a War Against the "Christian" West. A War Against Terrorism? Yes! It is a War Against "Islamic" Terrorism. At least Osama bin Laden was honest. He claimed that it was a "Holy War." And it is. That's why a War Against Terrorism can never be won just as long as humans continue to believe in glorious, happy, perfect, justice served, eternal, supernatural, afterlives.
(IMHO, that is a rather grim reality; but one clearly recognized by this current administration and their radical, Christian, conservative, backers. They fear the blind faith dedication and world-wide growth of Islam...as well they should. That may help to explain why anything that might weaken, or undermine, Christian resolve, cohesiveness or spiritual fervor, like removing a Christian God from being our national make believe protector, is tantamount to treason in their minds...and actions.

Only a very small portion of the population lives under our Constitution, and even they have the power to change the Constiution -- whether through new interpretation or in fact.

Unfortunately this will always be the case when the masses fail to involve themselves, for whatever excuse, in the political processes of a democratic, federal republic, government. When the people fail to make educated votes, they deserve what they get...and have gotten.

This can only be done by getting the people -- here and abroad -- to recognize the virtue in the idea. That not only is this principle in the Constitution, but its being there is a good thing. That any country without it, or something similar -- or with it but which allows it to erode away due to lack of care -- is worse off because of it.

I'm certainly open to suggestions on how this can be accomplished in a country where as many as 80% of the population claims to believe in the supernatural. In a country where more and more of the entertainment programming supports these supernatural beliefs. Where the fourth estate has rolled over and played dead because of the conservative control of the financial purse strings. Where the military-industrial complex is never more than one "rogue" nation away from the taxpayer money trough. Where the minority religious and non-religious groups have been essentially emasculated as competent and effective loyal opposition spokespersons. Where placing the 10 Commandments in every home is the only answer/solution to the national and international problems facing all of humanity.

Christian radicalism is successfully mauling American secularism. Though Christians have always been in control of our supposedly representative government, this current batch of radical Christians are successfully prostituting the historically secular and tolerant Christianity of the past into some sort of board room raping of the original ethical values engendered in our Constitution.

(So ends my Labor Day rant...for the moment.)
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Alonzo Fyfe

Buffman:

I originally worried that your rant was against me. I saw the posting and thought to myself, "Now what did I do?"

It seems, on second analysis, to be directed against a population that seems content simply to surrender to the attacking hoard. "Perhaps if we open the gates and invite them in, they will treat us more kindly than if we fight back."

Well, my original post was directed at trying to convince at least some people of the merits in a shift in debate strategy.

If we argue, "X is unconstitutionial" to a group of people who believes that "X is perfectly legitimate", then you end up with a group of listeners who think that the Constitution is flawed and that we should change (through reinterpretation if possible, through amendment if necessary) the Constitution.

If, instead, we argue "X is wrong," even to a group who believes that "X is constitutional," you end up with a group of listeners intent against allowing X no matter how the Constitution gets interpreted.

The best form of argument available is "X is wrong -- and, by the way, it also happens to be unconstitutional."

What Newdow is doing, and what the ACLU has done, is presented their case in the first form. And we see the fruits of their labor.

Don't get me wrong -- it is a necessary activity. But it will have only short-term effect unless somebody is out there making arguments of the second form.

Perhaps you have noticed that I do not make arguments based on constitutional interpretation. These arguments are only useful in short-term tactical victories. Instead, I focus on what ought to be, which I think is the only type of argument that has a promise to generate long-term strategic victories.

Rusting Car Bumper

I don't know why everyone cheers Newdow. He's the best friend the religious right has had in years.

The last time they had someone to help them was when Madalyn Murray O'Hair was helping preachers rally against against atheists.

DC

Buffman

Alonzo Fyfe

Perhaps you have noticed that I do not make arguments based on constitutional interpretation. These arguments are only useful in short-term tactical victories. Instead, I focus on what ought to be, which I think is the only type of argument that has a promise to generate long-term strategic victories.

(Yes! I have noticed.) Agreed! However, just as I posed to Digital Chicken (by answering your list of steps that 'could' be taken ["Oh, I fear the pain of that screw-up will never pass from my mind."]), I still do not see the specifics of how you propose we accomplish this strategic long-term goal.

Focusing on what "ought to be" is essential to any strategy. This ought to be a peaceful and tolerant world. Humans ought not to harm or kill each other over differences of opinion...or over natural resources...or over vested interest aspirations. Yet history teaches us that we have always done these things. IMO, our Framing Fathers understood that better than most of us understand it today. Without too great a stretch, I would venture to claim that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are one of the greatest social engineering plans ever created because it assumed the worst about humans and devised a means of protecting us from ourselves. These efforts resulted in America being a nation governed by "secular" laws.

Thus, our efforts must be directed at educating(reminding) the public that it is in everyone's best interests to resist anything that would change us from a government of secular laws into a sectarian one. However, the issue remains... "How, specifically, is this education accomplished without a bloody war?"

The Christian fundamentalists have already announced they were at war with secularism. Therefore they will use any means to win that war because the ends justify those means. (Romans 3:7,8) The Muslim fundamentalists have dramatically and insanely driven that reality home to the Christian fundamentalists. The slaughter of innocents in the name of a supernatural God is nothing new. It is as old as recorded history. The Framing Fathers knew and accepted that reality even without the scientific evidence that humans were merely evolved primate predators. Currently, I simply do do see where Freethinkers have the organization, leadership or resources to do much more than what Dr. Newdow is doing on his own. While we talk, he counter-attacks, albeit, tactically.


I do not disagree with your goals. I simply want to know the specifics of how we get there from here. (IMHO, in this country, money is the primary means of movement in any direction. I surfaced this issue in an earlier post.)

ybnormal

I don't deny that is a valid point, however, it's entirely possible that Newdow could be convinced that he will lose his cases, with the only intention to force these judges to go on public record, at this time.

Politicians do this all the time... offering legislation that they know will fail, for no other reason than to force their opponents to go on record as voting against it... manufacturing sound bytes for November.

Politicians also offer up legislation that is clearly unConstitutional, again, for no other reason than to force their opponents to go on record against it, while also going on record for their own purposes.

And one thought I haven't seen proposed is this- there were many folks in the legal system who were clearly disturbed when the SC suddenly turned its back on its precious State's Rights, and stopped the Florida vote count... most talking head 'experts' at the time seemed convinced that the SC would never get involved... but it did...

Why would there not be some 'liberal' judges then, who are also disturbed enough now, to think that something must be done to level the playing field?

Why would we not expect some type of subtle backlash from disturbed liberal judges?

EDIT to add:

I probably should have focused more on independent, or swing judges, rather than in-place 'liberal' judges. Many of us like to say that these folks will always go too far and create a correction, or backlash. Maybe we could, for this point, think of Jim Jeffords again, as a prime example of this, but this time, as a sitting Judge.

End EDIT:

Why would it not be fairly simple for just a few judges in the right place, to allow a Newdow case to gain a rather substantial majority opinion in the lower courts, again, for the purpose of forcing Scalia & friends to further outrage more judges?

The whole idea of political fighting within our Constitutional court system is most scary, but if many of us agree that some SC Justices already appear to be overtly politically biased, then why should we be surprised if we see the same type of bias in return?

Judges are only human.

Some scholars have said that it will take 150 years for the SC and the country to work thru that election decision fallout. This is only the beginning, and win or lose, maybe Newdow's timing is perfect.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: ybnormal ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

Buffman:

...I simply want to know the specifics of how we get there from here.

Oh, so you want to know the details of THE MASTER PLAN!

I think that I must start with saying that I tend not to like THE MASTER PLAN way of thinking. It tends to be unrealistic -- on the model of "if a huge block of people agreed to be my puppets what would I have them do?" Or, more generally, "What would I do with control of a huge quantity of resources that I do not have and cannot get?"

Instead, I like to ask more realistic questions. "What can I do with what I have right here and now?"

So, the specific tasks are:

(1) Take an inventory of the resources available here and now.

(2) Make a real-world plan that makes use of only those resources.

It may be too little, too late, but it is the best that can actually be done.

Some elements of that plan are as follows:

I have some training in marketing. (I got tired of my old job, quit work, went to the college bookstore and bought every book on marketing that they had for their marketing classes, read them, and went back to work.)

So, part of my plan is to come here for the purpose of rearming and regrouping. This is the staging area, from which one ventures out into battle.

Here, I find interesting ideas from others, and hope to contribute something that will make their activities more effective. I think that the three most important improvements to be made in arguing for church/state separation are:

(1) Do not get caught in a battle of dualing quotes. What the founding fathers believed does not matter. Heck, most of them believed in and practiced slavery. This is hardly a model of consistent thinking. What matters is what people ought to believe -- what is right.

(2) Aim your comments for the swing voter. Professional PACS have long recognized that arguing against somebody who has already made up their mind is fruitless. Power rests in those who are sitting near the fence.

The substantial portion of these fence-sitters are Christians who have an ethic of letting others live in peace. So, insulting religion in general or Christianity in specific is not a wise move. One does not need to defeat a person's Christianity to get them to see the wisdom of church/state separation, and one does not need to try.

(3) Step out of the closet. Those who do not know an atheist can easily see these policies in an abstract, impersonal way. Which allows them to minimize the impact on the victim. Once they know an atheist, the policies are no longer abstract, and people can more easily see what is wrong with the policies. We hide to save ourselves the pain of those who would condemn us even if they know us, and in doing so make it easier for them to turn the others against us. Again, this is a fact borne from study and experience, which other groups are already putting into practice.


So, I hope that promoting these ideas here, I have made some modest improvement in the effectiveness of those who visit here.

And I come here to learn from them as well -- to learn the history of religion in NAZI Germany, to learn the origins of the idea of church/state separation, to read rebuttals to comments that I had not thought of.


I simply do do see where Freethinkers have the organization, leadership or resources to do much more than what Dr. Newdow is doing on his own. While we talk, he counter-attacks, albeit, tactically.

Perhaps you are right, but it is always possible to do the best that one can with what one has available -- which is a whole lot better than doing nothing with what is not available.

You are correct in that we need to do more than just talk about ourselves. Given this, the next question is, "what can I do with the resources that I have here and now to get people to do more than just talk among themselves?"

I have given some thought to the creation of a weekly or monthly thread devoted specifically to what is done -- where people can report the letters they have written, the interviews they have given, the testimony they have offered -- with an eye to seeing what can be done to grow that list each month, and to improve the effectiveness of that which shows up on the list.

It may not be much, but, again, it is the best that I can do with the resources I have here and now.


...just as I posed to Digital Chicken (by answering your list of steps that 'could' be taken) ... I still do not see the specifics of how you propose we accomplish this strategic long-term goal.

Those 6 steps were taken a bit out of context. I meant them actually as an example of how to market an idea. It employs the scientific method -- which we should generally be good at. In order to improve our effectiveness, we should give some thought to designing experiments and testing the results.

The point is that the experiments should determine the specifics for accomplishing any long-term goal. We should not be making plans here in a fog of ignorance. We should be designing ways to dissipate that fog, however slightly.

On the subject of the Godless March, this can be done by organizing a small and diverse set of statewide marches. (It does not need to happen in all 50 states -- it would be nice, but not required). Allow different people to test their different ideas on how to best organize a march. And through these tests, we can see which ones actually work.

But the specifics are not important. The general principle is the important part of this -- of spending less time debating about what would happen if we tried various options, and to actually do them (on a small scale) and test these different ideas.

It is just one additional way to spend fewer resources talking about doing things, and put those resources to work actually doing things.


IMHO, in this country, money is the primary means of movement in any direction.

I somewhat agree with this.

Money has value as a means for acquiring resources. If one already has the resources, one does not need the money.

So, given that the task is to acquire needed resources, one first task is to take inventory of the resources available. Next, look at the resources one has but does not need (or has in abundance), and make a list of the resources one can most use but does not have, and to look for possible opportunities for trade -- trading that for which one has a surplus for that which is scarce.

Money is a useful medium of exchange -- it makes these trades more efficient. But one must not think of money as the end in itself. It is a tool -- a means only. And if this tool is not in the toolbox, then one should set up a trade to acquire more -- or to acquire that which the money would be used for anyway.

The instant I was named a moderator I went to the moderator's forum to discuss plans for increasing revenue. I think that the moderator's forum is the fitting place for that discussion, so I will leave it there.

Here, I bring it up as yet another example of the same principle. It is better to do something with the money one has than to dream about what one would do with money that one does not have.

If anybody here wants to submit reasonable plans for making money (reasonable being plans that do not require the use of resources that are not available), I would be pleased to introduce them into that discussion.

Buffman

Alonzo Fyfe

A terrific post. Thank you. I must get back outside and continue the seemingly endless battle with my jungle yard..while avoiding mosquito bites. I found little in your words to which I could add a meaningful or amplifying thought. I will reread later and see if my feelings remain unchanged.

CaptainDave

Alonzo posted:

I think this could be a principle part of a church/state seperation activist's manual - sort of what I was thinking of when I started the now-defunct Atheist Code of Conduct thread.

I especially endorse item 3. It is very important for everyone who has a stake in this issue to come out of the closet. Put a face on atheism. Most people care more about what you do than what you believe. If you walk the good walk without a belief in the supernatural, make it known. Most people will respect you and you'll generate good PR. But if you stay in the closet, you'll be mysterious and unknown. People will let their imagination run wild about you. Demonize you. Show em it isn't so!

Buffman has continually (across multiple threads) pointed out that the Christian fundamentalists have a media machine at their disposal which we (at the present time) cannot come close to matching. That's a good point, something we can't afford to ignore.

So what's the best course of action on this? Should we strive to improve our own media resources to a level where we can compete with their's? Is that really necessary? We're right! That's what Dr. Newdow is relying on. We have constitutional law behind us. I admit that that alone won't sway public sentiment but is a massive media machine the only answer?

If every non-believer would just step out of the closet and be a good ambassador, I think we would have all the PR we need. Would effecting this really require a large sum of money? With the vast resources of the web at our disposal? Can't we accomplish the same thing in a smarter, more financially efficient way?

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: CaptainDave ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

Perhaps, but I don't think that my 25 shares of Viacom is going to cut it.

The fact is, we do not have a massive media machine, and I don't see that we are going to get one in the near future. Maybe, in the long run, this will happen -- but it is way too far in the future requiring way too many variables for me to worry about here and now.

We should work with what we have.

Internet Infidels is a media resource. I came here and was completely surprised by the quality of the posts to be found here and the intelligence behind them. I found myself able to carry on a long and detailed discussion on topics such as moral realism and ontology at a level unmatched since graduate school.

I do think that this is a resource worth developing.


Would effecting this really require a large sum of money? With the vast resources of the web at our disposal? Can't we accomplish the same thing in a smarter, more financially efficient way?

I do not think in terms of "large sum of money" vs. "small sums of money." A little bit more money is a little bit better than a little bit less money. A little bit more press is a little bit better than a little bit less.

Whether it grows to the level of "massive media machine" or "large sum of money" -- I leave that up to the fates to determine.

HumanisTim

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikolai:
[QB]<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13530-2002Aug29.html" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>

The California atheist who sued to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to kick the House and Senate chaplains out of Congress.

[Edited to correct reference and to conform to 'fair use' guidelines.]


I agree with what he is doing here. Since the chaplain has been around since 1789. I think that would hurt his case. Since the founding fathers would have been ok with it.