galiel

Withdrawn (at my own initiative) due to inappropriately offensive tone.

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

4th Generation Atheist

Soon as you want to become a dastardly liberal, and hence quit tanking our election chances, go right ahead.

Buffman

4th

Have you been following any of the 'ybnormal' discussion? In several instances I think he may be deeply concerned, as am I, about one of the truly important fundamentalist propaganda techniques being successfully practiced... language manipulation. I mention this because of your remark about "Liberals/Democrats."

The religious fundamentalists have been hard at work for nearly two decades to create erroneous images (meanings/interpretations) of those two words in the minds of far too many Americans. Currently, I am aghast at their level of success in doing exactly that. The word Democrat is tied to Liberal. Liberal has been effectively tied to "evil, one world government, bleeding heart tax and welfare give-away, anti-American, anti-God people who are out to destroy the "America Way and our historically Christian Nation."

They are using the identical techniques that were so successful for the Communist Party to achieve the level of world-wide success that it did with only a small minority of dedicated zealots in each organization/country. The only difference I have seen is in the more modern and stealthier application of those same techniques to fit a pluralistic democracy that has nearly total, immediate, communications coverage.

Today, in this country, it has become almost as bad to be called a liberal as it is to be labled as an atheist. Thus, since Democrats have been historically identified with the more liberal aspects of government activity, it has become increasing more difficult for Democratic candidates to win in the local and state elections. (i.e.: This District's 30 year Democratic representative jumped to the Republican party right after the state legislature and governorship became Republican. A few months later, the head of the County Decocratic Committee resigned to become a Republican. Currently, the local and state Democratic Party is in almost total disarray.

(I am a registered, though totally disfranchised, Republican so I can have at least some say in the local primaries. Many of the local Republican have already won their primaries because they were unopposed. For me that is like the death knell of democracy.)

Rusting Car Bumper

I'm not interested in necessarily advancing critical thinking. I'm interested in advancing mutual respect.

It hasn't been tried and this is demonstrably true. The fact that leading atheist orgs have always been negative message political activist organizations by and large is evidence to my point.

In fact its just in the past few years that a few community based orgs have surfaced and have gotten positive press but they are small.

If you have any counter examples I'd be delighted to hear it.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

Give me a break. My life is not fufilled by carrying protest signs and filing court cases.

Atheists need to offer more if they are expected to advance.

DC

galiel

DC, it strikes me that you have a profound lack of faith in the democratic process.

You view the prospect of a constitutional convention with terror, you fear that if atheists speak up the government will pass some draconian measures, you think the courts are not the appropriate place to fight for constitutionally protected rights, you think people marching in D.C. is a disaster.

In fact, all the things that make it possible for ordinary Americans to act, you oppose.

Moreover, you refuse to respond to repeated requests to:

a) note historical precedents for success through activism, and
b) present your own historical precedent for civil rights won without resort to any of the above.

Can you explain or correct my assumptions?
Why?

Rusting Car Bumper

huh? The democratic process is about how best we dedice to be governed. Its not about how get enjoin my neighbor in mutual respect. Did anyone throw off racism against blacks because civil rights laws were passed in the 60s?

I still don't think you are absorbing the point that I believe that our problems are not political. They won't be solved by changing laws.

Where did this come from? Are you sure you are responding to my post?

Hello! My point is... read carefully... try reading a few times if you don' understand the first time...

Here it is... read carefully...

My belief is that atheists problems are, at the root, not political in nature. Our problems are one of common default respect. Problems with laws, pledges and the like are symptoms of problems; they are not the cause.

I have no idea where you ot this fantastic piece of fiction.

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet."

The questions presume things that I do not hold to be fact in the same way the "wife" question does.

I have no idea where you get these interpretations of my posts. Its almost as if you are reading someone else's.

DC

galiel

I hate it when people don't simply own up to their own words and force me to spend time hunting and pecking in this user-unfriendly board just to cut and paste their own words, but here you are.

I do not want to play he said she said, but I am only responding to your own words. To wit:

You view the prospect of a constitutional convention with terror,

you fear that if atheists speak up the government will pass some draconian measures,

[I can't find this one, so I withdraw it-- for the moment. I was sure you had warned about dire government consequences if we speak out, but I may very well have mixed up someone else's statment in this case.]

you think the courts are not the appropriate place to fight for constitutionally protected rights,

you think people marching in D.C. is a disaster.

(there are so many quotes of you opposing the March, and the very concept of marching in protest to accomplish nontheist goals, from the very first time it was mentioned here, that I'm not sure which one to pick. Do you agree?)

Finally, in response to Buffman citing the U.S. Constitution, you say:

And yet you oppose efforts to enforce that "piece of paper" and suggest that we will not solve our problems politically, legislatively, nor through exercising free speech.

Then you come up with statements like
that lead me to wonder if you are serious? Surely you know how extraordinarily difficult and time-consuming it is to do what Newdow is doing--otherwise he wouldn't be newsorthy in the first place.
Can you blame me if I am confused?

It is clear that you are an accomodationist ("Im not interested in separation of church and state."), and that you particularly have a beef with separationists, but that doesn't explain your vehement objection to activism "complementing" the kind of friendly behavior you support. In fact, by implying that activism is hostile and aggressive, and that all political action, all legislative or judicial activism, and act of public protest are hostile and aggressive, you are creating a straw man.

I am sorry that any attempt to determinedly challenge your fundamental position causes you offence, I mean none. I am being honest: you seem to see only the dark side of things, and seem to think that anything but your accomodationist stance is the end of the world.

We COULD work together if only you could see your way to change your "either or" to an "and".

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

atheist_in_foxhole

<a href="http://www.dailycal.org/article.asp?id=9411" target="_blank">Opponent of Pledge of Allegiance Speaks, Sings at UC Berkeley</a>

Newdow is courageous, that's for sure, but he seems like a flake. He should leave the singing to Dan Barker and FORGET about the gender-neutral stuff. It only makes him look stupid.

4th Generation Atheist

Buffman, I didn't reply to ybnormal, but to ashibaka, and in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I don't see how that justifies a bitch-slap.