Rusting Car Bumper

(1) I see little to indicate that this is the case.
(2) It would be a first for AA if that was the case.

It's important to remember that part of the anti-atheist psyche of the nation is due directly to AA and in particular to Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

DC

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

vixstile

Bull, the majority of people have no idea who AA is or O'Hair or what she did, or they've forgotten. I didn't even know who she was until a year ago.

It doesn't mater if the march turns into an anti-religious slur fest, or stays on the subject of civil right and constitutional violations, the majority of people are still going to hate atheist. Atheist-phobia isn't anything new, and it isn't going away any time soon. Thats not point of the march.

galiel

Actually, it is mainly due to a cynical political move during the McCarthy era to equate Communism and Atheism in simple opposition to Democracy and God. In fact, many of our early politicians were openly secular, at the least, and won brownie points from the electorate for slamming organized religion. It was considered part of the rebellion against theist England. As recently as 100 years ago in this country, it was rather hip to
be a heretic. Until the 50's it wasn't such a bad thing, it was no big deal in the public arena.

The Reagan administration then further cemented the religious aspect of political rituals, again as a deliberate, cynical effort to cement the support of the religious right.
I don't want to get into a long, nitpicky thread about the details (at least not in this topic), but you can easily do the research yourself online. Or just ask your parents or grandparents, if they were around back then.

That is one of the reasons I believe it is reversible. We no longer have goddles commies as the bogeyman; now it is religious muslim fanatics being demonized. A perfect opportunity to remind people what this country is all about.

People don't inherently hate atheists; most people have never met one (that they know of). It is very similar to the gay-lesbian liberation struggle--the biggest problem was awareness.

As I have said numerous times in these forums, people hate what they fear, and they fear what they do not understand. That is why I believe it is so important to attend the March. To show ordinary people, families, without horns or pitchforks, asking for understanding.

Rusting Car Bumper

I think thats simplistic and ignores history. Even if what you say is true such a view was cemented when the only open atheists were like O'Hair.

It ignores the other possible avenues tht atheists could have taken.

If atheists, instead of forming political organizations led by vitriolic speech, had instead branched into social service organizations where their service and dedication to humanistic principles would be undeniable on a large scale then things, in my opinion, would be different.

If anyone saw Ron Barrier of the AA on Hannity and whatever his name is' show on cable you can easily see how we do ourselves an injustice by often acting the way we do.

Thanks for treating me so naively.

The fact is that we, at times, have been our own worst enemy.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

Perhaps the word "psyche" wasn't clear to you. You dont have to know who she is or was. All that matters is she helped cement the chain of events and attitudes that are the sources of the hatred that we experience today.

It has gone away. Look at Europe. Essentially non-believers have won. Don;t think it can't happen here.

At one time blacks in the U.S. were considered lazy, immoral, incapable, deviant, and stupid. Is that true any more? Of course not. The few people who still believe that are laughed at and ridiculed by the rest of the 99.99% of us.

To think that the attitude toward non-believers cannot be changed is an incredibly backward and defeatist attitude. It can be changed. it wont be changed by hatign the religious and filing court cases.

If that's not what the march is about then the march is treating the symptom and not the cause. Its trying to treat cnacer with a bandage. Its also saying that we are not at fault for our predicament when I would claim that, in a very small way, we do share some of the blame.

DC

galiel

Digital Chicken Little:

You choose to ignore that every change of the type you mention happened AFTER active consciousness raising. Blacks did not gain acceptance merely by being nice. Gays did not reach whatever partial gains they have acheived by hiding under the sheets. Women didn't win the right to vote by smiling while serving tea to the men. Native Americans were treated like crap (mostly still are) until they made some noise and fought for recognition.

In each and every case, people spoke up. In each and every case, the media disorted things--at first. In each and every case, the initial response by society and goevernment was a hardening of position and backlash. And, in each and every case, gains were made ONLY because people were willing to take risks, make mistakes, even lose battles. That is the nature of a civil rights struggle.

Newdow has gotten people talking. Many, many more people now know that the Pledge was altered in the 50's under McCarthy than did before.

If you believe that people are reasonable and good-hearted enough that they would respond to the kind of meek outreach your propose (which has never worked before), why do you simultaneously assume that they will react with uniform hostility to a demand for rights?

I understand that you are afraid. Anyone who is not afraid is a fool. The courage to act comes not from ignorance nor fearlessness, but from a conviction to act despite one's fears. Effective action has a power and momentum of its own.

HelenM

Originally posted by galiel:

HelenM: Will I join the March? No. I'm sure my [atheist] husband would not want me to.

Why in the world would he not?

Why would he?

And why will YOU not? Incidentally, you are not actually required to ask your husband for permission to go somewhere. That battle was won long ago (by activists, I might add).

Nowhere did I say I required his permission, actually.

HelenM: My suggestion is to lead by example in having exemplary character - so that any Christian stereotypes about you being 'evil' people are proven wrong...

Either you are suggesting that atheists to date have demonstrated horrendous character, or you are suggesting that Christian stereotypes about us being 'evil' are right.

Um...actually, no, I said neither of those things.

I am reluctantly beginning to think you are one of those people I quickly give up interacting with because they continually read things into what I say, which I didn't put there. And so they are interacting with what I neither said nor meant. And I don't have the time or inclination to keep pointing that out when there are lots of other people who are willing to interact with what I said, rather than what they infer from what I said, which would be a product of their own imagination, not mine.

Atheists have been around since long before the founding of this country and we do not currently enjoy the rights to which we are entitled nor the social acceptance which we deserve. So, which is it? Are we inherently evil, or have we just been horrendously bad?

Are those the only options?

Or has your suggestion already proven ineffective?

I'm not sure there have been enough atheists for long enough that I can have been tried and found ineffective already. So I suppose I disagree with your comment above about how long atheists have been around.

Your whole premise falls apart when you consider that, unless people "come out of the closet" and identify themselves as nontheists, then their character does not matter, since public perceptions cannot change if no one can perceive them.

I take your point that an atheist who is not known to be one, cannot change public perceptions about atheists. But if he or she is horrendously evil then maybe it's better for the atheist cause if everyone thinks he or she is a theist!

take care
Helen

Buffman

What ideas do people have about ways in which plain, ordinary citizen atheists/agnostics/non-believers/label of your choice can ramp up the visibility of the struggle for atheist's/etc. civil rights? And how can we each individually sustain and build momentum following the March?

1. Comprehend "why" Christians, and other monotheist believers, view a Godless March as "anti-religious, " un-American/Patriotic and possibly outright subversive. (IMHO, until non-theists truly understand why theists fear and oppress them, non-theists will never be able to gather the kind of public sentiment and support, in this country, needed to achieve the objectives/goals outlined by the AA.)

2. Concentrate on advocating "why" it is in the best long-term interests of every religious faith group to support a strictly secular government.

3. Form a nation-wide network of media/internet monitors (individuals/groups) whose sole responsibility it is to identify and, ASAP, present accurate public information to counter any form of theist propaganda at their local level. We already have this on an individual, case-by-case, basis...but no national, central coordination, alerting or supporting assistance. ("People for the American Way" appear to have such a system already in place for the issues about which they are concerned.)

3.a. Coordinate with existing non-theist organizations/individuals for the free copyright use of their counter-propaganda information by these, if need be "designated," monitors.

3.b. Establish a single, readily available, archive for all this material. (Currently, each non-theist organization has its own form of archive and control over same. This tends to compound the time and effort required by individuals to find the appropriate, accurate, counter-propaganda statement vice composing one of their own.)

3.c. Arrange this proposed archive by subject matter (issues/the names of individuals/the historical references/etc.) with extensive cross-referencing as a major aid.

3.d. Include cites to original documentation whenever possible. (Much like the Yale AVALON Project does. For that matter, perhaps the AVALON site could be considered an appropriate reference.)

3.c. Upon completion of this program, consider creating methods of making it available, for creation cost only, to as many people, whether religious or non-religious, as possible.

4. Develop and "sponsor" ways to encourage all supporters of our Constitution and a secular government to submit individual statements recommending how best to continue, or increase, that support. (Prizes/scholarships/local or national recognition/etc.) That places non-theists in the position of being known as people who support our Constitution and the ethical/moral standards that undergird the various amendments.

5. Do a silent survey of your local stores that sell greeting cards to see if they have any exclusively titled religious sections without offering exclusively titled secular/atheist/freethinker/humanist sections. Where applicable, send letters to the store's manager, with an info copy to the store's corporate headquarters, requesting equal treatment or discontinuation of the religious discrimination. (Forward a copy of the letter, with any responses, to the central archive.)

6. Review local newspapers to determine if local secular/national groups are receiving the same level of free advertising that is being extended to the local/national religious organizations. (It might be wise to compile some statistical figures based on several months scrutiny before composing any letter to be sent to the local paper with info to the corporate headquarters.) My local paper devotes considerable free advertising space in the Saturday edition concerning the various Sunday services being offered. It also has a Religion editor and numerous columns/articles by national religious personages. Billy Graham, for one.

6.a. Consider finding a method to establish a nationally syndicated "Secular Answer Man/Woman" column that could be printed as an alternative/addition to the religious answer men/women. When established, even locally, query publishers (locally and nationally) about why they are providing free print for specific religious columns but not secular ones that deal with solutions to questions of ethics, morality and lifestyles identical to those being currently usurped by exclusively theist viewpoints.. (Just look at the wealth of information , knowledge, advice and support that could be gleaned from just these various Sec Web forums.)

6.b. Use the issue of free media time/print for religious proselytizing/conditioning to promote equal opportunity, non-discriminatory, free media time/print for exclusively secular/atheistic/freethinker/humanistic/skeptic philosophies and viewpoints. (Again forwarding all communications sent and received concerning the issue under discussion to the central archives for review and use by others.

These are merely a few brainstorming possibilities concerned with potential methods of helping to halt/reverse many erroneous public opinion perceptions concerning non-theists. Ones that could be accomplished by either individuals or groups before or after any event.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

vixstile

You mean by helping get prayer out of public schools and crusading for separation of church and state. Do you think there is any way to handle such issues without right-wing fundies making a big stink? Do you think O'Hair should have withheld her critical opinions of religion?

Europe is alot more culturally mature then America when it comes to religion.

Blatant open racism is no longer politically correct, but you will still find plenty of racists out there.

If we thought that attitudes toward non-believers couldn't be changed, why would anyone hold a march? Wouldn't it just be a wast of time?

I'm not sure you'll actually find many people that hate the religious. I would put anyone who actually hated some other group of people in the same penalty box with all the other bigots. But if someone is critical of religion, they are very correct in there criticism. Religion is illogical irrational, and many cases, retarded! And the world would be a better place without it.

Not filling court cases! Are you serious? Are we to let are legal rights be shit on?

galiel

Buffman,

A fantastic list! I agree with them all, and I would love to help you make 3 through 6b. happen.

I think they are all doable, some more easily than others. Clever use of technology will make a difference.

Are there others here who would like to participate in actually creating the infrastructure and doing the diplomacy and networking, along with the legwork and technical work required to make these items happen?

Please post your interest here, and send me your email addresses privately. I promise to maintain an email list to support those who wish to help make Buffman's suggestions happen. Buffman, are you available to lead us through this?