Buffman

Buffman, are you available to lead us through this?

I am no longer capable or willing to accept the responsibilities of leadership. However, I hope that this string will bring you more ideas/possibilities that you can take with you to the march and share with others who might be a perfect fit to see that an idea is fleshed out and brought to life.

However, making yourself available to e-mail input could present you with an opportunity to get a head start on the implimentation of new ideas. Then you might have a much easier time persuading some of the march "biggies" that they should get behind these ideas because they have already demonstrated that they do work and are effective. (Although the time may be too short between now and the march to do much more than the initial fleshing out of only one or two of the most viable ideas. Better to get one into operation than five under advisement.)

galiel

Buffman, I agree 100%. I don't expect to do more than see if there are others interested here, initially, and then my intention is to try to network as much as possible at the March, the message NOT being: join the "Cause", instead, the message being: we are a group of people who are creating the infrastructure that will allow all of our various nontheist groups to benefit from a common base of information and pooled intellectual resources. Our goal is to provide this resource freely to all, no strings attached.

In other words, not an umbrella organization that seeks to subsume other groups and/or individuals, but a service organization that will "arm" all interested parties with information, and, when necessary, coordinate pan-group studies such as the one you cite about greeting cards.

I think that is an excellent idea, and I am happy to take the initiative in helping it get off the ground (although it is ultimately not where I want to spend most of my energy--in promoting individual activism).

I hope, Buffman, that we can "exploit" some of your in-depth knowledge and scholarship in identifying the critical bits of information (both existing resources as well as the most useful data we need to obtain) to create the most useful common library.

Writer@Large

Sounds like a plan. If I make it to the March (not looking likely at this time ), be sure to track me down.

--W@L

Writer@Large

Yes, but then, DC, nay-saying AA seems to be your sole purpose here at II.

--W@L

NialScorva

Frankly, I don't think the quote has the slightest thing to do with what I said. I'm not arguing that the war should be fought, I'm arguing that Newdow is making Pickett's charge, a tactical blunder on his part that will have far reaching consequences to the movement. I would further extend my comments to say that, like most americans, the more vocal athiests seem to value short term goals over long term goals, immediate legal means to complete equality without regarding the social impact such rapid and forceful changes will entail.

The way I look at it, no matter *what* happens in my lifetime, I'll still be a member of one of the nation's most despised groups. No legal wrangling is going to change that in my lifetime. What *I* want to see is that my grandchildren are fully integrated into society. If we push too hard right now in an overt fight, we alienate the social ground we've gained with liberal theists and moderates who are on the virge of changing. However, if we plan social reform within the framework, we have to suffer through some now, but generations to come will benefit more without having to put up with 'affirmative action for atheists' or whatever the rednecks will shout.

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

Rusting Car Bumper

Please do not resort to insults. I don't know if responding to this is even worth it because it seems you may be angrily and dogmatically fixed to your view. I would be happy to be proved wrong.

I don't think you understand my point at all and hoistring straw does your part no justice.

Atheists problems are not political at the root. Chaning laws, carrying signs, and shouting won't solve the problem. Yes obviously its partially political but that is a mere symptom.

Again an over simplification. I cannot protest and yell that my neighbor respect me. It's that simple point that you don't seem to get. A great amount of MLK's speech and message was to humanize both blacks and the whites whose support he needed. This is true analagously in the gay rights movement but in a different fashion.

However, this is mostly absent in the non-believer movement IMO.


Nothing new here. Its known that the pledge was altered and in fact it seems fundamentalists don't seem to care about that fact anyway.

Its not meek. In fact its very difficult. In a similar way that MLKs non-violent direct action was quite difficult (i.e. not violently rsisiting violence against you), the actions I proposed are not easy. They are IMO the slow and long way to win the war but they are by no mans easy or meek. They require long term minded dedication and commitment. Showing up for a march, aside from its possible positive or negative results, makes one feel good but it doesnt requie a long term commitment.

More insults. I'm not afraid.

We simply have a difference of opinion of what is effective. I don't think asking for the help of people whose help we indeed do need is effective.

I don't think publically as a group announcing that they are dogmatic and stupid is effective.

DC

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

Rusting Car Bumper

She didn't get prayer out of public schools. That's a myth.

Prayer was removed from public schools a year earlier in Engel V. Vitale. Further, that suit was brought by... tada... a Jewish believer.

Which highlights one myth of atheists approach to church-state seperation. Most significant cases were brought by believers. What is interesting is CSS cases ramped up in the 60s at the same time civil rights ramped up. However, MLKs civil rights message including whites. However, Madalyn Murray O'Hair's CSS message did not include believers. This is a tragic mistake IMO.

I guess Ihave to repeat myself. Don;t think it can't happen here. Europe didn't magically become "culturally mature." It was done by the works of real people and it can be done by the real works of people here.

The march, as I see it, is not about changing the attitudes about non-believers. Its about politics. Its about people seeing us as a political force. As I stated here and elsewhere, politics is not our root problem. Its a symptom.

I didn't suggest not filing court cases. I said quite specifically "it wont be changed by hating the religious and filing court cases."

Filing court cases is a mere temporary band aid like emergency surgery.

Our problem in not the pledge or the boy scouts. Our problem is that non-believers are not respected.

We are not respected because:
(1) We have portrayed ourselves badly.
(2) We only seem to fight political battles and "debunk" religion
and
(3) we, as a group, don't seem to try to contribute to the common good in terms of offering answers to societal problems.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

Insults do you no justice and I think you are above that.

Anyone who reads my posts carefully and fully will note that I simply have a difference of opinion regarding attacking the problem from a political angle.

To then try to say that such a viewpoint is merely a way to attack AA requires quite a bit of imagination.

DC

vixstile

I said "Helped".

It isn't going to happen by being a bunch of Uncle Toms.

And your point? Fighting the symptoms before attacking the disease sounds like a good strategy to me.

What exactly do you suggest we do to gain respect and exeptance?

Writer@Large

I'm not insulting you; I'm just making an observation based on what I see. Everytime I see your name on a post, DC, it seems you're either criticising AA and MMO'Hair, or criticising M Newdow, and decrying both for not going about things the right way.

The weight of the evidence indicates that you don't have a single positive thing to say about the AA, and that you oppose pretty much everything they say and do. I don't think my prior observation was much of a stretch.

And please note I didn't say "attack." There's a difference between "attacking" and "nay-saying." I'm not implying that your criticisms are without merit; I just wish you'd contribute something besides "what AA's doing is the wrong way to do it!"

--W@L