galiel

That was precisely my point. Will the press releases about SC describe Internet Infidels as a private organization that "consists of a seven person Board of Directors"? If so, I am a happy camper. I just have an instinctive and, IMO opinion, healthy skepticism of organizations that may seek to use participation in a forum to imply grass-roots support. The way this was introduced here lead me to this concern. If it is baseless, and if you present an affirmative justification for your separate existence, rather than simply an anti-AA justification, which is all Bill seemed to present, then you will have my support.

I also am a bit unclear on the SC-CCR connection. You have called SC "an offshoot" of CCR. Yet I note that only three organizations out of the ten listed as members of CCR, most notably excluding the Council for Secular Humanism, the Campus Freethought Alliance and the Secular Student Alliance, are not among CR's founders. Calling something "an offshoot" implies organizational support from the parent organization. Was the creation of SC based upon a vote of the CCR mbmer organizations?

Rusting Car Bumper

I feel vindicated. I had an expectation that this sort of thing might occur and as such I am glad I didn't go to the march.

DC

galiel

Actually, as I pointed out already, the PAC was announced back in April and reported in the press.
And, DC, what you had expressed worry about was a negative antagonistic presentation. Instead, what I say, most particularly from Ellen Johnson, was an inclusive emphasis on the common American need to maintain separation, and an invitation for all nontheist groups, as well as, explictly mentioned, all theist groups that support equal rights and the Establishment Clause, to join together to fight attempts to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. I also saw the excitement and gratification of all the people who had gathered together, as well as all the speakers, to be finally standing FOR something, instead of just AGAINST something.
Despite continuous provocations and attempts at disruption by fundies, there were no ugly incidents, as you had feared in posts on this topic, and there was no smearing or distortions in the mainstream press (which largely ignored the march). Thus, any negative outcome which you had feared failed to materialize. Too bad you weren't there, it was fun.

Rusting Car Bumper

What I expressed worry about many things.

One of those things was the possibility that AA was co-opting the memberhsip of other organizations for something else that they weren't saying. Bill's description seems to suggest that this MIGHT have been what happened. This is expecially true if indeed they were soliciting contributions for this PAC or the 501(c)4 at the March! (I can't tell if Bill was saying that this actually happened or not.) I can only go by the descriptions of others of the event.

If all of these previous one sentence mentions of political orgs that you quote were all so obviously part of this march, then why wasn't it reiterated and emphasized on the Godless Americans webpage?

Of course at this time I don't know enough about either. I do know that the Secular Coalition is proceeding with the correct steps. It seems clear there is, at least, an effort of transparancy and a willingness not to hide secrets.

DC

Bill

I have no interest in getting into a battle over this. I had never heard of an American Atheists PAC before November 2. Neither had Herb Silverman. Bobbie Kirkhart replied to my e-mail asking her about what she had heard by stating this: "At the Friday Press Conference, Ellen announced that she would be announcing some political action. She didn't say Political Action Committee, and she made it clear that it was to be a surprise announcement." Nothing of the sort was discussed by anybody at our last CCR meeting in early October.

I'm sure that nobody in any organization I work with has either the time, money, or interest to hire a clipping service to go out and gather press clippings about every other major freethought group. None of us have budgets for tracking our opposition that well; why would we spend money to track those groups who are supposed to be on our side?

I reiterate that nobody who is part of the group of people we work with knew about any PAC being formed by American Atheists. Your posting random news clippings noting the formation of a PAC by American Atheists doesn't alter that fact one iota. I disagree on the grounds that we don't have two PACs right now, anyway. We only have the American Atheist's PAC. As I've explained earlier, the Secular Coalition for America is a lobbying group, not a PAC. It could form a PAC at some future point, or it could decide to work through the American Atheists PAC, if it makes sense to do that. Since none of us even knew about the American Atheists PAC before this past weekend, we obviously haven't had time to digest, discuss, analyze, or decide what to do about this situation. Besides, a PAC isn't very high on our agenda for 2003. If we do something about a PAC, it will be done in mid-to-late 2003 so as to be active during 2004. Until then, I have no problem at all with telling people to support the American Atheists PAC as the only available PAC for freethinkers. For as long as I have been active in this movement, American Atheists has refused to join in any sort of joint effort with anybody unless they could both lead and control said joint effort. It was on that basis that several people from American Atheists actively sabatoged my 1996 efforts at establishing some sort of a group to engage in joint activism.

The Godless March is no exception to this. American Atheists formed the group and installed its own people as the controlling leadership. Yes, lots of us decided that it would be good for the movement if we agreed to play by those rules. But that doesn't make for long-term or deeper cooperation. Until (and unless) American Atheists is willing to join in a joint effort that they do not control, but only have an equal vote in making control decisions, the resentments induced by American Atheists always treating the rest of us as if we are "second-class" or even "third-class" citizens within THEIR Empire will continue to persist.

Herb Silverman reports at each CCR meeting that American Atheists has been invited to send an observer or to otherwise attend. And at each meeting, no such observer shows up. That is about all I know.

Various of us Infidels have attempted to communicate with American Atheists as well, from time-to-time. Most recently, when we attempted to get one of our Directors listed as a speaker. Again, we received no real response. We were ignored.

All we can do is keep trying. If American Atheists ever decides to reply, that is when the real work will begin. OK. Lets be real here. Large events need to be planned at least a year in advance. Two years in advance is far more realistic if you want to have a really well-coordinated event with lots of speakers, etc.

Perhaps American Atheists knew a year in advance that it was going to do the Godless March, but they only gave the rest of us about six months notice to get our own plans in shape. The larger organizations each managed a small side event in some sort of coordination with the March. CSH had a morning breakfast. AAI had a dinner. AHA had Taslima's book signing and an "open house." If American Atheists had come to us with the idea of this event two years before the fact, and if American Atheists had been willing to let some of the rest of us take some of the leadership positions, make some of the decisions, and help organize and run the Godless March, there would have been far more people there, there would have been far more things to do, and there would have been a far better overall effect.

I thank American Atheists for what was done. But it could have been a LOT better if they had only learned to cooperate with other groups rather than insisting on "leading" in every material way. How else can I possibly characterize an assertion of that sort? If "He said that AA refused to join ii's PAC," then that is clearly "misspoken," because there is no PAC; if there were a PAC, it would not be II's PAC (because II can't have a PAC anyway), and of course, we never asked AA to join a PAC that doesn't exist and which II can't have anything to do with in the first place because we are a bonefide 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. I would never ask about something when the thought had never crossed my mind in the first instance. Since the March, I've been too busy with getting the Secular Coalition for America (which is NOT a PAC) off the ground, and I suspect that Ellen has been pretty busy herself.

At some point between now and the Spring CCR meeting, somebody (probably Herb Silverman, who is now the President of the Secular Coalition for America) will contact Ellen and ask her, once again, to please send an AA observer to discuss and coordinate with the rest of us at the "leadership summit" (which CCR now is) and/or with the Secular Coalition, a 501(c)(4) group (that is, again NOT a PAC). That communication won't be made until the Secular Coalition nails down its own formalities, sometime a month or two from now. After that, we will have something to show to other organizations, including American Atheists.

I hope that we can work together. The offer to work together has been going in that direction since 1996. We keep putting past differences aside and sending the offer in once each six months. Its up to American Atheists to respond. We can't force them to answer. The Council was a founding member of the CCR (one of three founding members, including AHA and the Atheist Alliance as the other two). Of those three, only the Atheist Alliance wanted CCR to become anything more than a "leadership summit." So, when it became clear at the last CCR meeting in early October that this wasn't going to ever change, and that CSH and AHA were going to veto the formal incorporation of the CCR as a stand-alone entity, those of us who felt strongly about having this sort of an activist group, the Atheist Alliance, the Internet Infidels, and the Institute for Humanist Studies all got together in a "rump group" and decided that we were not going to be stopped by the refusal of AHA or CSH to move forwards. The three of us would be willing to undertake activism on some common set of agreed principles, so we would make it happen for the three of us and then invite other groups to come play in our sandbox.

The Council is well aware of what our plans are because all of the plans that are currently underway within the Secular Coalition for America are plans that were first offered to CCR with the Council sitting at the table. In each case, the Council has said "no."

Mind you, I am aware of why the Council has said "no." It has its own organizational integrity to protect, and it has had some problems in this regard in the fairly recent past. I don't fault the Council, but I don't see the Council's issues as being a good reason for the entire movement to be forced to stand still and wait for the Council to take the lead. So, and again, the three of us who wanted to move forward have done so. First, the Internet Infidels are not a "membership" group in any legal sense. While we have "members" of this discussion board, you are not legal "members" of the Internet Infidels.

Since the Internet Infidels are not a "membership" type of group, the Board of Directors functions in lieu of any "members." I am a "member" of the Board of Directors, and as one of seven such "members," I do have a vote in what the Internet Infidels is, does, and says. We don't claim to speak for anybody else beyond the separate and distinct corporation that is the Internet Infidels. In other words, galiel, we do NOT claim to speak for you. I hope I put that point to rest.

Next, I've always believed in openness. You've received far more open communications from me in this thread than any outsider has any right to. This is generally "Board of Directors"-level stuff that I've been trying to communicate to you. If you haven't understood it, then perhaps you aren't "Board of Directors" material yourself. I'm sorry if that is the case.....

Third, as I've explained time and again, II does not have a PAC and will never have a PAC because it is illegal for any 501(c)(3) group to ever have a PAC or to engage in ANY overtly political action. We can advocate on issues, but we cannot recommend candidates, parties, or provide money or resources for elections.

Fourth, you were the one who had raised the issue of the AA PAC's agenda by asking: "What parts of the GAPAC agenda do you disagree with?" I stated that I didn't know what the agenda was, so I had nothing to agree or disagree with.

Fifth, yes, the Mission of the Secular Coalition for America is focused on lobbying. On what issues? On issues of concern to many (but not all, of course) freethinkers, such as the children's healthcare issues that C.H.I.L.D., Inc. is interested in (exemptions from "duty of care" laws for specific religions). Separation of church and state (vouchers, for instance) is a big area of interest. There is a long list of issues that we might take stands upon if they come before Congress. The idea of having an organization that is directly involved in the process of drafting legislation is to prevent things from getting out of hand before they come up for an "up or down" vote. As far as I am concerned, my exceedingly lengthy post of "November 04, 2002 10:21 PM" is my direct reply to you here. I laid it all out, to the extent that the leaders of the Secular Coalition have decided anything of the sort you are asking about. I've told you that it is FOR "grassroots lobbying" and that the reason FOR its existence is that 501(c)(3) groups are legally restricted from spending more than 5% of their total budget on "grassroots lobbying." For groups like the Atheist Alliance and the Internet Infidels, 5% of our total budget amounts to under $1,000, and we can't do much lobbying with $1,000. So, what we can do is take our $1,000 and the Atheist Alliance $1,000 and money from others (MANY others) and pool it all together until we get the $8K to $12K per year that is needed to run an effective ALL VOLUNTEER "grassroots" lobbying effort. If American Atheists has the budget available to go it alone, more power to them. As our advisor said, the more voices, the better, when it comes to this kind of lobbying.

== Bill

Bill

It is to be (when formed) a Nevada corporation that will apply for 501(c)(4) status. I should be able to get it formed in about a week. It will have a Board of Directors and Officers, just like any other corporation. The Board of Directors, each one of whom is appointed by a "member organization." Thus, since each "member" of the Board represents some organization, in theory, the organizations themselves control the policies and management of the Secular Coalition for America. It directly represents the member organizations, of which there are now planned to be somewhere between two and five. However, I expect that the larger number (five) will be accurate by the end of this year. At our organizing meeting, we agreed on some exact wording that will be posted on our web site either today or tomorrow. Please see <a href="http://www.secular.org/" target="_blank">our web site</a> for the update, when it gets uploaded (its in web design right now). I'll post the wording later in this thread if I can find the message in my e-mail. Same answer. Some things are settled and some are not. What is settled I can give you now, or it will appear on our web site, as noted above.

Each member organization has a vote on deciding these things. So far, we haven't had to actually vote on anything because the three organizations have mutually agreed on everything. I think that you know far more about the Secular Coalition for America than you know about the Godless Americans PAC.

Why did we rush the announcement? The honest answer is that we decided, almost at the last minute, that we would like to take advantage of the large crowd of atheists at the Godless Americans March and make our announcement in time to pass out some flyers at the March. Otherwise, we would have held off until early next year before announcing it. At this point, I almost wish that we had waited.

== Bill

Bill

I just posted my agreement with you that the announcement of the new <a href="http://www.secular.org/" target="_blank">Secular Coalition for America</a> was premature, and was "more designed to benefit from the timing of the March than an actual indication of readiness to go public."

The Secular Coalition is VERY democratic. But you need to understand what it is that the Secular Coalition was designed to do: it was designed to allow small freethought groups to pool their 5% "allowances" for lobbying into one pool so that we can have an effective lobbying operation without needing to grow to a $250K per year budget first.

The Secular Coalition is not designed to have individual "members" (i.e., individual people as "members") because it is designed to benefit 501(c)(3) CORPORATIONS and other 501(c)(3) entities who are restricted to 5% lobbying expenses in accordance with the provisions of section 501(h).

I've tried and tried again to make these points clear to you. I'm sorry if I haven't been successful as of yet.

The Internet Infidels depend upon volunteers to execute the policies and programs adopted by our Board of Directors. If you want to volunteer, fine. If you don't, that's fine too. But, as you noted, it is the Board of Directors that determines those policies and programs in accordance with our 501(c)(3) "purpose." This is our sandbox (the "members" of our Board, of which I am one), and if you want to play in our sandbox, then you need to play by our rules or suffer the consequences. Its that simple.

Frankly, when we are ready to begin lobbying, I hope that the causes we will be behind at that point will speak for themselves and that most freethinkers will sign up to be a part of our "grassroots lobbying" efforts.

Please don't judge us too quickly. I agree that the announcement was premature, and we are holding onto the tail of a tiger to try to get our act together before those who are interested grow disgusted at us for inaction. A lot of work is going on right now by a team of dedicated individuals, including me. We will have answers. But I can't in any way guarantee that you will be happy with our answers.

== Bill

Bill

There was a vote to have CCR do this. The vote was a resounding "NO." However, three of the ten CCR member organizations would not take "no" for an answer. We expect that two more will join us before the end of the year. Five of ten is a legitimate "offshoot." We remain hopeful that CSH and AHA might actually join, once we get enough paper written down for them to have their Boards of Directors evaluate. That would get us up to 8 or 9 of the 10 CCR members, since both CSH and AHA have "affiliated organizations" that are also CCR member organizations.

But we need to satisfy AHA's and CSH's concerns, and we could not do so in the context of the "promises for the future" being discussed at the last CCR meeting. Perhaps we can do so in the better context of "written accomplishments" at the time of the next CCR meeting in March.

== Bill

Bill

I finally found the e-mail message with the approved text that is in the process of making its way onto <a href="http://www.secular.org" target="_blank">our web site</a>: Well, there it is, complete with all due "vague generalities."

I might add that all grand goals must necessarily be described with "vague generalities" or else they would not truly be "grand goals" in the first instance.

I've used this thread to flesh out what we are really talking about, internally, which is "grassroots lobbying" through the use of the Internet to have constiuants send messages to their congress-people about issues that are being actively worked in Congress. This requires a bi-directional conduit, maintaining contacts with sympathetic people within the legislative staffs and maintaining contacts with activist individuals within the nontheistic community who have interests in the sorts of issues upon which we wish to lobby Congress.

We have more-vague plans for other things, such as the natural extension of the above to be able to conduct similar lobbying at the state and local levels. Such plans require an even more extensive network of staff and orgainzational contacts which is, at the moment, quite beyond our resources. That could change, though, depending upon how successful our initial fundraising efforts are.

As things sit, the three current member organizations have pledged all of the funds we need in order to create the new corporation and take the first steps towards lobbying next year some time.

== Bill

Alonzo Fyfe

Just a question.

Is the organization more motivated to promoting nontheistic viewpoints, or secular viewpoints?

Clearly, the two are not identical.

My initial reaction is that a group called the Secular Coalition may be better suited to promoting secular viewpoints, while the Nontheist Coalition (a.k.a. Godless Americans) would be better suited for promoting nontheist viewpoints.

The fact is, unless and until nontheists make up 50% + 1 of the voting population, it has no hope of a political victory of any type without the support of theists. A secular coalition, it seems to me, can cooperate with theists, where a nontheistic coalition would necessarily be antagonistic.

Another way to approach the same question: Would this organization seek to exclude somebody such as Jefferson (at least on some accounts) -- a deistic theist who nonetheless strongly favored and promoted the diciplines of reason and science?