Buffman

D.C.

Im not sure at all why you quoted these. I didn't say any of this. Are you sure you read the correct message?

Oh my! No excuse! What a gross 'faux pas' on my part. Many apologies. I can't even figure out what happened. I used Alonzo's post. I can only guess that I read through yours and rather than scrolling back to the beginning to copy and paste, I scrolled down and copied his. How bloody embarrassing.

Alonso Fyfe

I owe you a similar apology. Obviously I thought I was talking to Digital Chicken and geared my response with him in mind. I apologize!

(Buffman credibility takes huge hit. OUCH!)

Alonzo Fyfe

Hey, I get to participate in a discussion without even posting anything. That's efficient.

Anyway, I haven't had much to say on this thread because I have commented on these ideas before.

I think that DC is right in that the only time people hear the word 'atheist' (or 'free thinker' or whatever) is in the context of somebody trying to remove some sort of faith-based legislation. And so, in their mind, atheists are nothing more than people who are interested only in removing faith-based legislation. If we can get the 'atheist' name attached to other types of acts, people can acquire a more balanced and accurate view of us.

However, it is also relevant to note that the Crusades could not have been averted if only the Muslims had adopted some sort of community service program. The lack of community service is not what made the Jews and Muslims of the Inquisition fit groups for persecution. Nor can we blame the lack of such programs for the 30 years war, or for radical Muslims flying airplanes into American buildings.

Religious bigotry will find reason to hate even the kindest and most generous of those against which their bigotry is tolerated.

And, so, Buffman is also correct in asserting that it would be a mistake to pull the guardians off of the wall separating church and state while we implement this plan of benevolence. Because if that wall falls, our kindness will not protect us any more than it protected the historical victims of religious persecution.

Anyway, this is how I see it.

Buffman

Digital Chicken

(I think I have the correct post identified this time. Gawd I hope so! Quite a difference!)

No comment on your analysis down to this next point.

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.

Although I suspect that I understand what motivates you to say it, I am not sure what you mean by "it WILL make us better people."

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.

(I tie this comment back to the meaning of your previous statement.) It appears that what you are really saying is, "It will make our GROUP be a better GROUP." I reach that conclusion on the basis that I, and others, have been doing the things you recommend, on an individual basis, for many years...but evidently not receiving the accolades/credit of the believers for our actions as non-believers. It would seem that this is where a goodly part of the perception problem arises...the apparent reluctance of the gamut of non-believers to join groups of like non-believers...or to do things for individual/group public credit. Why, if there are so many non-religionists/believers, are the Humanist, Freethinking, Atheist, Skeptical, Rationalist, etc. organizations struggling to maintain membership and vitality? Isn't the underlying problem much like that faced by the Protestants? Denominational differences? (i.e.: Pray then sing vice sing then pray.) Yet they are all Christian believers and Protestants...just as all Catholics are Christians.--- So when you say that "non-belief organizations *must* change what they are," aren't you really saying that they must gain the reputation of being community service organizations composed only of non-believers? Exclusive rather than inclusive organizations...like the Knights of Columbus?

"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.

Excuse me! I am unable to support your contention. I agree with CaptainDave. Non-believers are identical to every other human being in all ways (regardless of those who may contend otherwise) except their belief that the supernatural does not govern in the lives and affairs of humanity. There are religionists that do all they can to help those in need and there are those that don't, just as there are non-religionists that do or don't do the same. (By simple statistics, there are many more religionists doing "good" than non-religionists.) And just as you described in the opening paragraphs of your former post, no matter how much non-believers do to live compassionate and virtuous lives, there will always be a group of believers that fear and hate them. Therefore the true problem is discovering the basic cause of the fear and hate of one group for another and finding effective methods to eliminate it rather than attempting to merely bandage the symptoms of it. In order to do this, we must begin with understanding how nature and nurture conspire to produce fear and hate as well as courage and tolerance(love). IMO, one of the reasons we go through these cycles of Religious Revival followed by bursts of Enlightenment Thinking is because Religious Revival has almost always led to greater human conflict and "majoritarian" tyrannies which are then followed by periods of liberalization and advancing accurate knowledge.

Why have wars been so directly responsible for increasing human knowledge and material progress? And no where has that proven to be more valid than right here in America. Whether we know it or not, America has been, and continues to be, one of the most war-like nations that has ever existed. Is this a Christian evangelical heritage? Or is it simply some perverted political belief in Manifest Destiny due to Christian leadership? Or perhaps it is due to our Constitutional freedoms of individual expression and democratic action in a capitalist economic environment ruled by laws rather than religious dogma.---The adage that, "Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it," has never been more evident than in today's America. The radical Christian right, supported by economic conservatives and vested interest industrialists, aren't interested in history beyond how it can be perverted to their own agendas. (Many times this is accomplished by re-writing, or re-stating, that history in order to only have it reflect positively on their desired agenda.)

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?

An idealistic course of action with a worthwhile and positive goal. However, I find your scenario rather biased against religionists. I have met those ministers who would say what you had this one say. They exist. However, they are a minority...though growing in the current media accessibility environment....especially when backed by a President of the United States or a member of the Supreme Court. However, I have never heard any thoughtful Christian minister ever say such a thing. At worst, they might claim that an atheist is merely a "lost lamb" to be pitied rather than reviled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>

(Your current thoughts)

You are parsing words too much.

A very fair criticism. I do tend to over-analyze. I consider semiotics to be very important.

So much so that you are helping statements lose their meaning.

I will attempt to do a better job of clarifying my statements so the meanings aren't lost. Whenever you consider I have missed the mark, please suggest how I might improve my statement.

The only reason I compared one Christian goal to the one I proposed was because you compared two goals (not defined) first. Frankly, I havent the vaguest idea how you came up the the comparison between 2000 years of Chrsitianity and my proposed goal. I wouldnt have attempted a response had you not mentioned it.

Fair enough. I was attempting to point out that your recommended course of action could well take more than 2,000 years to reach a positive fruition. Even if your method was successful, it would prove to be far too late to halt the current march toward an American theocracy. I pointed out that the radical religious right had successful made their gains within just the last 20 years. How did they accomplish those gains. That is what interests me and what I was attempting to point out to you without having to present all the factors that led to my conclusion.

References to some message I didn't post have been deleted.

Ugh! Buffman looks for hole to crawl into.

The lessons of history are far older than any human lifetime.

That is elaborating the obvious. My statement was based on what, at that time, I believed was the use of Iran and Russia as examples of mass, popular, successful, rebellions....since 1935.

Again. I think this misses the boat and there is too much parsing. My next door neighbor doesn't think atheists are bad because of CNN. He thinks they are bad because the only unbeliever he has seen is Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Go read the thread I posted in the previous message. I go through a "put yourself in the believers shoes" thought experiment. This answers your question.

Hmmmmm? And exactly how did your neighbor come to know of MMO? How did most Americans come to know of MMO...or her views about atheism and theism? I doubt that they read any of her writings.--- You are not the only person that gains a degree of empathy by playing an honest Devil's Advocate. --- Since I have no idea about your personal history or life experiences, it is difficult to know exactly how to respond to certain remarks without seeming arrogantly pedagogic or inaccurately pedantic. That is why I made the comment about needing a good deal more discussion concerning certain items you posted than others. That is one of the drawbacks of writing in the blind to a general audience. Levels of common knowledge and experiences have not been established that could contribute to a more meaningful and mutually beneficial discussion/dialogue.

That's because (1) there is no quick fix. That's simply a fact of life. Its to darned bad if you don't like it. and (2) I think you read the wrong message and attributed it to me.

(1) That all depends on your definitions of "quick" and "fix." ---(2) Yup! I most certainly did.

The rest of your message I think is derived from an incorrect premise because it responds in part to the message you wrongly attributed to me. Thus, I won't respond to it.

You are more than justified. Thank you. (How embarrassing!)

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Buffman

Alonzo Fyfe

Hey, I get to participate in a discussion without even posting anything. That's efficient.

Oh how I wish I could claim that it was all part of a grand Master Plan. Unfortunately all it merely demonstrates is just how sloppy I can get in the wee hours of the morning. (One needs to add three hour to the posted time in order to arrive at the actual post time here.)

Anyway, I haven't had much to say on this thread because I have commented on these ideas before.
I think that DC is right in that the only time people hear the word 'atheist' (or 'free thinker' or whatever) is in the context of somebody trying to remove some sort of faith-based legislation. And so, in their mind, atheists are nothing more than people who are interested only in removing faith-based legislation. If we can get the 'atheist' name attached to other types of acts, people can acquire a more balanced and accurate view of us.

Agreed!

However, it is also relevant to note that the Crusades could not have been averted if only the Muslims had adopted some sort of community service program. The lack of community service is not what made the Jews and Muslims of the Inquisition fit groups for persecution. Nor can we blame the lack of such programs for the 30 years war, or for radical Muslims flying airplanes into American buildings. Religious bigotry will find reason to hate even the kindest and most generous of those against which their bigotry is tolerated.

And, so, Buffman is also correct in asserting that it would be a mistake to pull the guardians off of the wall separating church and state while we implement this plan of benevolence. Because if that wall falls, our kindness will not protect us any more than it protected the historical victims of religious persecution.
Anyway, this is how I see it.

Heavy duty agreement!

(Echo heard from hole in ground..."I'm sorry!")

Rusting Car Bumper

I have not asserted the contrary. In fact, I have asserted that CSS is necessary but its not exclusively a non-believer issue. It should not be treated as such by atheist groups.

I'll answer Buffman's comments when I have the time.

DC

Eudaimonist

I agree, but I don't think we need to change the focus of the old groups. First Amendment activist groups perform a valuable service, but I agree with you that we need more groups devoted to pursuits more constructive than opposing the religious right.

Nontheists may not be able to agree on everything, but they can split up into groups that suit their particular interests, whether it be the Church of Freethought, the Fellowship of Reason, the Council for Secular Humanism, or whatever.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

Buffman

D.C.

No pressure here. Many of these issues don't lend themselves to easy, off-the-cuff, answers/solutions. At least in these forums, we get an opportunity to air some of our concerns with folks who are interested in finding answers and workable solutions. That has been stimulating and helpful...for me. I can only hope that I have returned the stimulation and help in kind.

capsaicin67

I think that discussion which gets us thinking about how to stimulate and direct the evolution of secular interests and protection of our rights in the future is super important stuff.
Kinda long and ramblin', but some thoughts/opinions/observations in no particular order:

I admire the design and experience provided by this site plenty. I think it's a pretty darn good thing as it stands. But while we are brainstorming, I agree that if the celestial bodies ever come into the correct alignment to allow it, an Activist Forum might be a very useful and cool addition. The Pantheon of Moderators will, of course, ultimately rule on this one.

I think that we need to maintain the C/S oversight/activism.

I think that we need to begin to better support and attend to people's *emotional* lives, not just their intellectual lives. That is, the movement to offer secular "lodges", "temples", "churches", or other community support groups nationally to foster social support and enhance quality of life for those with the courage to be non theistic is critical I think. Many people desire or need some solution to being isolated socially before they will feel safe being skeptical of the fundy establishment. That is a huge topic by itself, i know.

I think we desperately need a professional-quality media-advocacy organization/arm that works to get positive and accurate information and education into the media. Kind of a secular AdCouncil. Slick is what we need, unless "lo-fi" is how a message is conceived and designed for purely strategic reasons because it will make a message more effective. Having an outside agency do some of this for hire, if it will lead to greater competency and more return on our investment should be something we would have the humility to allow, at least to get rolling.

Individual interaction and being visible in our communities is important where and when it can happen, too. But my experience with people 1:1 is that although this *can* influence their attitudes somewhat and make them think a little bit more about their prejudices, they will deny me 3 times before the cock crows if pop culture is not sympathetic to my plight. I pretty much believe that they think far more about what they think Tom Hanks's characters think than what "real me" does or thinks. I have worked alongside my supv for years now [a fundy biblical literalist young earth type]. That person is a generally competent and intelligent person with some huge blind spots, IMHO. That person also has a lot of un-acknowledged anger issues and hatred. I have saved that person's butt frequently in tense situations and that person has seen me perform [IMO] thoughtfully
and in a service oriented fashion towards people in need---even when they were being adversarial or had needs of a very gritty and unpleasant nature. That person has provoked the intermittent metaphysical debate to save my soul where I have responded patiently and respectfully for the most part. Anyway, my point is *hours and hours* of 1:1 contact, professional and humanitarian behavior to observe, and in-depth discussion. That person has a *slightly* more tolerant view of me, but I am not certain of that at all. That person is still anger-filled and hangs tenaciously onto fundy xian beliefs which include that my acceptance of jesus as my personal supernatural savior is more important than my conduct, and that I am not truly a wholly good person until I take that important step. Long story shorter: that is more time spent and more visibility and trial than I would find desirable and practical in most other situations, but even so it has had minimal impact in overcoming the power of fear and superstition [and selective ignorance and festering bitterness].
The "non-religious" in my sphere [incidentally, I know many non-religious that think they are "believers", definitely not "secular"---i.e. they don't want any commitment to a church Sundays are for reading the sports page, but galdurn it they believe in gawd] simply don't have many deep convictions nor thoughts about metaphysics in general, and they feel safest siding with gawdbelieving. They see no safezone for any more adventurous/independent perspective. They, too, are far more impacted by the movie Signs than if I feed the hungry or tend to the ill or infirm. IMO.

Good points have been made about the fact that good works are done by secular folks to whom it never occurs that they need to be advertising their affiliation in the same fashion that religious zealots do. And that is an interesting point worth some thought.
A local branch of the Apostolic Xian Church [kinda watered down Amish with tractors, money and cars etc] has a manufacturing and distribution hub for charitable products near my home. They make crude soap for the poor etc, and it is sent internationally. Now the A.C.'s are a fairly marginal faction of the big picture, but I tell you what, they have multiple hubs of that operation in partiucular and they have some big bucks at play in support of their own communities, too. They tend to emphasize the low-key-heavy-on-humility presentation-----but all the soap has "created in the name of Jesus" stamped on it for the needy to see what is being advertised. When secular types give to charity we give to give typically and not as a fundraiser for our metaphysics. Which is noble, IMO, but worth noting that it may not be the optimal strategy overall, and might be worth revisiting in future thought.

I also think that religious xtremists are going to increase their influence in govt, media, and in the economy and that secularists need to come up with a fairly dynamic strategy very soon to keep this in check-----or at least to keep from being overrun altogether. The fundies have figured out that they are not going to force their agenda on the country based on it's intellectual or ethical merit-----but that money buy lobbyists, politicans, votes, access to media outlets, and allows them to become [more]"corporate". The political establishment in this country is owned first and foremost by corporate interests, and the fundies are fast at work becoming another *major* corporate interest. Their media writes the meaning and rewrites the history, and their politicos write the laws to match. And they are doing a whiz-bang job at it, too.
They can't come in through the front door finger-wagging about abortion [they tried that in the early 90's], so they are going to jimmy the media/legislator windows, come in the back, and unlock the C/S door from the inside and let the other nutbag ideas in through the front over time. [Good C/S "locks" are important, but this strategy alone is probably going to be under increasingly tremendous pressure to hold up to the onslaught] And in a few years, hopefully [for them], the neighbors will forget that that Fundies didn't live there all along. Etc.

Good cop/bad cop is a strategy that can work. There are always going to be the watchdog, dogmatic, and evangelical antitheist groups and there simply needs to be a greater proportion of moderate and progressive secular groups seeking to do outreach and alignment with sympathetic groups on a number of other levels to balance out the equation.

And there is kinda a 2 level battle going on in this culture war perhaps:

The fight for protection of the rights of nontheists, for the C/S wall, for a generally neutral govt climate when it comes to metaphysics. [i.e.--I dont want to convert anyone to non theism nor theism, I just want to be left alone]

Then there is the other level:
The incompatibility between the ideals of a secular, reason-based, democratic [people can and should think and examine for themselves the merit of ideas]govt, vs. one where the decisions about policy are based on dogma and superstition [the people can't think about the big stuff too much for themselves and mostly need hucksters like the Falwells, Robertsons, Sharptons, Jacksons etc. to talk to gawd and interpret his agendas for them]. And the fundies know that the biggest obstacle to their agendas is a secular govt. The only way that will change is to go for the endgame and redefine us as a xian nation so that extremist or irrational ideas can fly-----faith-based policy rather than reason-based policy.
Its pretty hard to remain neutral on that one.
That's how I would summarize my concerns about the big picture.

I think the P.R. + C/S battle are top priority in our triage scenario, needing stat treatment to stop the public opinion hemorrhaging, and to prevent an infection of the judical/legislative sectors from spreading. Then a major campaign to get social/community support centers in every state that then work to develop them regionally to get things moving toward recovery and then vitality. I like Alonzo's aforementioned ideas suggesting a framework for some of the other facets of activism, and giving birth to all this, too.

To switch metaphors, I think all 3 [Buffman, Alonzo, DC] of you have hold of the same elephant. The Secularist movement is going to need a leaderhsip and a subsequent financial [as someone else pointed out the latter requires rigorous oversight and impeccable disclosure, tracking, integrity, and management] laxative for it to become a viable, capital "m", Movement.

This a good discussion I have enjoyed reading very much. Gives me hope [which is important since I have no "faith"! ]for the future!

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: capsaicin67 ]</p>

ybnormal

Buffman:
But there is little doubt in my mind that there is a well organized and oiled machine behind that initial negative response. (I have discussed this entire subject elsewhere...many times.)

I'd be interested in reading such... I'd appreciate it if you would point me to a good related thread. This entire topic seems to get lost in the shuffle around here. Earlier on this thread as well, I think.

And, does your use of "(BARF!)" have any particular web-based significance, or is it just a personal give-me-a-bucket type signoff?

lcb

I know that TOTO dont want the advice of an old geriatric vet, not Buff, nor probably any other atheist here.But what the hey...one of the benefits of still being employed (part-time) by the great military industrial complex (machine) is a certain coffee Klatch/bruskie access to info...we had 9-11, and uhh bros and sisters, the next attack will be exponentially worse...the timing of the Godless March is not good. after 9-ll and what is coming .."soon" i would respectfully advise a tactical retreat. Your secular humanist paper tiger will crumble like pacifism did after pearl harbor.You heard it from ole lcb first!