Rusting Car Bumper

Dave,

You presume, without knowledge, that various concerns have not already been brought to the attention of AA (the orgnaizers).

I know personally of people from various diverse points that have brought things to their attention and thus far they have received silence.

I know I am in the minority in my viewpoint. My viewpoint is that direct political action is not going to solve our problems. Our problems will not be solved by a march on Washington.

Our problems will only be solved when the image of non-belief is changed. In order to do that we must change non-belief. A march may (and I do say *may*) do little but reinforce the negative stereotypes of non-believers.

Ellen Jonson was quoted as saying, "I am actually the president of an organization that lobbies on behalf of reality." Does this imply that all others are NOT in touch with reality? I find this quote not much less troublesome than quotes by Falwell, or Robertson.. only less direct.

Its fine to have her opinion. However, its not the best thing to say in the context of a political forum where you are rallying to get the favor of those with different views.

DC

god-free-pen

"Quote" What does hold my interest is the potential for this "Godless" march to be used as the Christian fundamentalist poster boy for increased political and financial power and influence. "Unquote"

But is fear of Christian fundamentalists a good enough reason not to go? Why let them influence our parade decisions? BTW, I think using the word "parade" would have been a better choice than "march", (Parading is fun, marching is militant.)

Please go to show other atheists who are fearful about exposing their atheism that we are here, we have a right to be here .... that we are ordinary people just like them, that they can use us for feedback and that we are proud of them and ourselves.

Thats' the reason I am going.

Buffman

I agree. A "Parade" creates the image of a positve occasion. "Everyone loves a parade."

No, I am not frightened by what theists may or may not do. However, that doesn't mean that I am oblivious to how they might be able to use this occasion to their own ends. (I was exposed to a considerable amount of propaganda/mind orientation training in my former career.)I simply feel that it is important for non-believers to understand the depth of emotional fervor that can be generated in those who view atheism as the ultimate enemy in the War Between Good and Evil. (Just look at the psychotic threats made against Dr. Newdow, his daughter and the Judge. Just look at the murders of abortion clinic personnel. There are those who sincerely believe that they are doing their Christian God's bidding...just as those religious Muslim whackos believed that they were doing Allah's(PBUH) bidding.

CaptainDave

DigitalChicken,

I'm not sure of your position on direct political action. Do you believe it is useless or do you believe it cannot succeed by itself?

I hope you're not a minority in believing in the importance of changing our public image. Obviously this is of critical importance. I'm sorry to hear that AA hasn't listened to these concerns. Hopefully they have and just didn't take the time to answer.

Do you have any suggestions for changing the public's perception of us?

I personally believe a parade (I agree with God-Free that a march sounds militant while a parade is fun) can help with that - as long as the participants agree that that is the goal.

capsaicin67

Out of curiosity, has there been any effort to formally inform UU congregations? There are many "godless Americans" amongst their ranks, and despite their own short-sightedness and faults in outreach matters, they pop up for courageous social justice issues frequently. You might get some who are interested, and possibly some godful ones, too [even without changing the theme].

IMHO:
I sincerely hope it is successful-----either as a simple means of self-validation for the choir to sing to themselves, or optimally, as outreach politically/socially. And in either case, with no backlash or damaging spin.

It has got me to thinking about a similar dynamic. Every presidential election we are given the 2 non-choices that are getting more similar all the time. They are also getting more religious fundamentalist. Then we have some 3rd party options. They say, "Rally together we need numbers, now is not the time to critique, if we all pull together we can do this [in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is not going to be an effective strategy even with optimal numbers reflected in polling]." We can strategize after the election. They spend gobs of money, and alas, they are not successful as it turns out. After the election I really do not see a lot of creative strategizing or adaptation or acknowledgement that there is something major missing from their approach------it is not working. And like a bird flying into a window they spend their precious resources beating themselves into a stupor over and over. And the "post" discussion does not look at the experiment and improve upon it from what little I have seen. [Yes, Ventura and a few others have brought a sell-able product to the table, and Perot *almost* did. but....]

So I do hope that we look at, and assess, and discuss the success of the strategy candidly post-March----unlike the denial that the 3rd parties go into, and repeat the cycle. I hope that there is a time when people look at what the goals are short-term, long-term, and how to really bring about meaningful political/cultural change. But, as Alonzo said somewhere, it's all just an experiment and people need to present better ideas if they believe that they will be more successful/adaptive and the proof will be in the pudding eventually. So it might be that if the March is not successful in the outreach/political/cultural sector there might eventually be a market for some new ideas. And that will likely demand some different people getting lots more involved at the "doing" level. One thing that you gotta hand to the people that organize even the ideas you disagree with----they are the ones organizing and doing.

The organizers have selected their theme, there is little indication that they believe that they can or will revise that, and under the current theme it would be indefensible to exclude "godless" Satanists [I agree that their "branding" is totally ill-advised and avoidably self-limiting-----and we are all "riding in the same car". And I have read the LaVey Satanic Bible, it was the first book I read in college---discovered it on a fundy's bookshelf and enjoyed the read.] But they are our drag queens and Black Panthers [or something or other].

I think it a big mistake to not widen the net to associate more strongly with xian supporters of protection of our rights for any kind of balance[IMO this would have the largest possible impact and meaning for the typical at-home viewer to identify with their "neighbors" and see them accept and not fear us]. But that's not explicitly on the menu, so.....it's AA's gig I s'pose.

Lastly, if I were to go I would wear a tricorn hat and powdered wig and buckled shoes if I thought that was what would give the most helpful image [don't worry, I don't----yet! ]. I would say that the most helpful image would be to look professional and non-threatening---the way you would if you were going for a job interview or to ask the President for something----cause we kinda are, even if we shouldn't have to. It's a P.R. event, and a tough sell at that [Mormons are selling some of the most transparently whack ideas of any group, and they dress to sell and they cooperate by and large to meet that goal]. I do agree with those that say that the problem is not one that will be solved by changing their minds about metaphysics-----it will change when we change how they *feel* about us as human beings, that they have some sort of meaning/experience in their head that is in direct conflict with the idea of seeing us as an "other" species/threatening. And protection of our rights begins to represent an idea(s) that no American can disagree with [or very few can anyway].

'nuff said I guess. I hope it goes great for all that choose to/can attend!

Rusting Car Bumper

I am not NOT in favor of direct political action, but with qualification, it cannot succeed by itself. I think that, we far too often, we look at these matters in a LEGAL terms only and not PSYCHOLOGICAL terms.

We do not ask the question, "What is the psychology of belief of the respective believers (apathetic, neutral or bigoted) that 'cause' them to take the stance not to support freedom of conscience in its most fullest sense and dictates that their own minds and the state should relegate infidels to second class citizenship?"

Further, we do not ask, "What are the long lasting and deep purposes of my actions to change this?"

Further we do not ask, "What can I do change this underlying psychology?"

Further, we act to highlight differences between believers and non-believers and rather than highlight common ground.

Let me take a shot that the first.

The believer can be any of one or more of these things with regards to nonbelievers: He ("he" is used without regard to gender.) is one who believes atheists cannot be moral. He is one who believes that unbelievers want god out of public life completely. He is one who believes that unbelievers have the goal of stamping out religion. He is one who projects his intentions on to others. (i.e. I want to make the world a Christian world and thus an unbeliever MUST want to make the world one without god.) He is one who is apathetic and generally goes along with the crowd regarding such matters even though he might otherwise think unbelievers good citizens. He is one who might defend the faith-based religious practices of people with different beliefs but who will not defend the rights of those without belief. and so on. Obviously, a few of these are mutually exclusive. That is intentional as believers, like all people, are not transparent. The point is to enumerate most of the possibilities.

What is the "cause" of this? (The second part of the first question.) He sees atheists in the public sphere IN NO OTHER WAY except to oppose religious actions or calling the doctrines of his religion "false" or even "harmful". He does not see atheists in general in his immediate community and if he usually does then its in the context of the first statement. He does not see atheists feeding the poor, helping the sick and elderly, volunteering for literacy programs, and/or producing atmosphere and actions which contribute the general betterment of society. (Note: I am not saying this does not happen. I am saying that he does not see it. I can say, however, that nonbelief organizations, by wide majority, do not have engage in such activities.) He does see such actions sponsored by churches and religious organizations. He does not see atheists providing or speaking about the need for citizens to participate in the solutions to societal problems such as poverty, family disintegration, crime, moral decay, and so on. He does see religious organizations trying to solve these problems. He sees inflammatory statements about his beliefs and country made by unbelievers. (i.e. He sees O'Hair calling the sitting President a "son of a bitch" and sees her carrying a sign saying "theology is the enemy of democracy".)

Put yourself in his shoes. What would you conclude if these facts where the facts of your domain and you were a neutral believer? Certainly its not unreasonable to conclude that atheists are against civil society. They are against my beliefs and want to stamp them out. They are against the beliefs of the wide majority of citizens.

Why does then the Christian then not conclude this of other religions? In other words, why does the Christian often "buddy up" to the Jew and the Muslim? Because those religions are (1) established and (2) because they have active and organized activities and doctrines which apparently try to contribute to the common good ON THEIR OWN grounds. (Contrast this with non-belief organizations which, according to the believer, does NOT do things on its own grounds but merely stands AGAINST the others.)

So in the end its not a big stretch to understand why the believer thinks as he does. On one side he sees established beliefs and traditions which seemingly help its respective adherents be moral people (and further encourage charitable and conscious unsolicited actions to alleviate 'wrongs' of the world) and on the other he sees groups opposing these beliefs which, in the organizations, DO NOT attempt to form a moral fabric or promote charity.

What conclusions do you expect the believer to draw?

Why yes I do. Getting on to questions 2 and 3...

Obviously, for question 2 we would answer that we would want believers to have the same "default respect" that they give to believers of all stripes. Obviously there will always be bigots. However, the thoughts of the KKK are now believed to be nothing but ridiculous by the wide majority of people. We want to out the opinion that non-believers are non-contributing, immoral people into the extremist trash heap alongside the KKK.

How do you do it? (Question 3) There is no easy way. However, non-belief organizations *must* change what they are. They *must* change what it means to be non-believers and what it means to participate and join one of these organizations. We have to do things that make us look like better people. We do this NOT because of mere appearances. We do this because it WILL make us better people. We must do this (and this point should not be underestimated and dismissed) with long term goals in mind.

We need to do food drives. We need to tutor children in science and math. We need to offer support for the dying. We need to aid the elderly. We need to do these things NOT on the side but as one of or maybe THE MAIN mission of our groups. We need to then make it known that we do this and we do it because we believe we have a responsibility to humanity.

"Aren't we just tooting our horn and trying to win brownie points?" Hell no. We do it because (we say) this is what it means to be a nonbeliever. It means to accept that nobody will help other humans but other humans. If good must be done, it must be done by us. We make it known so that others who share in these beliefs will come and aid our cause because *surely* all good people of non-belief will want to join and help if they live the principles they so claim to believe in.

Yes it will take a long time. Yes it wont be easy. Yes its the long and hard road. The best and right road is never easy. As I heard a Buddhist say, "You cannot get to Nirvana if you only walk on sunny days."

Imagine a child now who is only a few years old. Imagine then if we all of this (and more) and the child is then 12 years old and hears that his friend is an atheist.

"What do atheists do," he asks his friend.
"Well, at my club there are some old people who can't mow their lawns anymore because they are too old so we do it for them. We do stuff like that.", the atheist kid says.
"Wow. Thats cool.", the theist kid says.

What do you think will be theist kid's reaction when he goes on to be a teenager and an adult if THAT is the impression he has of atheism? What do you think his reaction will be when his minister says, "atheists are immoral unbelievers?"

Contrast that to what we have now. The believer sees a march which (possibly) will say "your religion sucks" and "get god out."

Of those two alternatives (and I do not mean to imply those are the only alternatives) which do you think will have the most positive effect in the long run? What effect will the two alternatives have on the fence sitting nonbeliever who isn't really sure if he's a non-believer? Will protest, vitriol, and anti-religion help him hop onto the side of non-belief? Or will people demonstrating through actions and sacrifice that they live the values they claim to hold help him hop on the side of non-belief?

Anyway, I think you can see where I am headed.

DC

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

Secular Elation

What Digital Chicken wrote.

Our organizations need to be positive and become active in the many areas of need. Let us not simply exist to oppose something.

Alonzo Fyfe

I am somebody who, as a part of my daily job, analyses data for a living.

A single data point is an inefficient way to study what works and what does not work.

Instead, the more data points you have, the more meaningful your results.

Therefore, if you want to run an experiment in order to discover what works and what does not work, then I would like to recommend the following:

(1) Pick a day in which a rally of sorts will be held in all 50 state capitals. Call it "All States Day" or something like that.

(2) Allow each state to conduct its own event as it sees fit. Each state develops its own strategy -- its own rules for inclusion and exclusion, its own mentods of promotion, its own message, and its own budget.

(3) Create a coordinating center (a secure discussion forum) where state organizers can post and discuss their various ideas, plans, deadlines in relative security among themselves.

(4) Include an option for soliciting contributions. If the Hawaii delegation has an interesting idea, they can post a proposal in the hopes of soliciting funds. Those with funds can contribute to the plans that they find the most worthy.

(5) On All States Day, look at the results and see what seemed to have unusual success and what did not. Look at the coverage. Look at how the events were spun.

(6) Distribute the findings to those who will find them useful.

There are countless variations on this theme. Perhaps, instead of a rally, the objective is to collect signatures on a petition, or to distribute some piece of literature, or to raise money for the state organization.

In any case, I would recommend one common element in all cases -- whether it be selling a pledge button in order to raise money, or collecting signatures for an on-line petition. Whatever the event is, it will allow us to evaluate the per-capita support generated by the event in each state.

Either way, what you get from this is data from a number of different events -- a much larger collection of data points from which it is possible to draw conclusions about "next time."

capsaicin67

Sign me up, Digital Chicken! Very well put. I think that this is the future of the nontheistic movement. At least a major piece of the puzzle that has been missing. There will be more to learn, to be sure, but this seems like a chunk of the next level. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

It seems that the fundamantalist movement in this country tried a major offensive in the early '90s that the public, well, found offensive. That whole Contract On America/Christian Coalition period. And it misfired. I am not a great student of that period, but I have been trying to think about what it was that ignited the backlash? Was it simply that they were assailing the popular President? Or was it that they lead with ideas about anti-choice? Or both? Either way, I think that they figured out too late that the majority of the public would never ever swallow the anti-choice platform as the leading position. There is just no way to spin that one into acceptance yet. They could keep that strategy up, or re-group. I think that they certainly still hope and plan to bring that agenda with them, but they decided to get lots more strategic and they adapted quite alot. They will come in a different way and begin to change the psychology of the culture and later they will try to begin to resurrect their unpopular agendas and foist them on us in a more subtle fashion. The point: they re-grouped, changed strategy, and now they are successfully creating a culturally/historically revised script that is set to change the legal landscape as well. We need to be as adaptive as that and realize when its time to adjust our sails.

capsaicin67

Oh, I like that too Alonzo! Rock on. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />