capnkirk

I concur with your observations. My own personal political persuasion is Libertarian.

I would, however, expand on your observations of GWB and his administration. I have noticed that he has (with the support of a Congress that would seem too conservative to go along) consistently disarmed the Democrats by co-opting THEIR issues! By deftly offering a compromise version of their most threatening issues and getting HIS version passed, he has repeatedly taken their issues off the table. The successful version of each issue has also been decidedly moderate in nature. In doing so, he has succeeded in managing the more conservative idealogues, thus demonstrating that it can be done.

So, my challenge remains: If the Baptist minister and the local bootleggers can join forces in order to keep a "dry" county "dry", why can't we find similar opportunities to use the power of people who disagree with us on most issues to further our agenda on specific issues where, perhaps for completely opposite reasons, favor the same legislative tool?

"Our" reason for the legislation may be because we see an unintended consequence that would further our agenda. (A real-world example of this tactic: HCI instituted a huge campaign to outlaw "cop-killer bullets"...now how could one oppose that? The devil was in the detail! Their definition of such a bullet would have outlawed all long-guns...which was THEIR goal...and it almost worked!).

capnkirk

The social conservatives ALREADY exploit our negative social image to walk all over us! The question is how to change that. I would argue that the militancy that we are wont to wear like a red badge of courage serves THEIR ends better than it does ours.

That is the point in the thread-title. Fight "against"...and lose!

ybnormal

Capnkirk:

...even on this site, atheist intolerance of religion is pervasive.

As one of, if not THE real hard ass around here regarding this intolerance issue, I must tell you that even I have absolutely nothing whatsoever against "religion".

Therefore, I suggest that what you see on this site is an Atheist intorlerance for something other than "religion". Do you care to speculate as to what else it could be?


We can never hope to gain religious tolerance until we are willing to OFFER it!

ALL citizens of this country, including myself, are free to practice whatever "religion" we choose. I have NEVER done ANYTHING to prevent another Christian citizen from exercising their personal religious freedom. I too have chosen MY personal religious freedom...

it is this:

I simply want to be left alone... by Christians and their "religion".

How can I ask less of my fellow citizens?
or...
How can I possibly OFFER more tolerance for THEIR religion?

In my lifetime, I've watched the xian "religion" come out of its church to take over a major political party, for the express purpose to take over our court system, for the express purpose to NOT LEAVE ME ALONE.

What now?

capnkirk

First, I need to make clear that we are talking about how to clean up our image...and in the public arena, for all intents and purposes appearances are reality. Not that it should be, but that is the way it is.

The intolerance I am referring to is, more accurately, an anger at religion in general and Xtianity in particular, that is perceived as intolerance by most non-atheists. I have read too many rudely sarcastic posts aimed at theist posters that were totally undeserved (not all of them, mind you), and have been embarrassed to be linked to them...

Actually, I believe that the anger I spoke of is mostly rooted in unfinished grief work of people who are still rebelling against the institutions (and abuses) they left behind. To say it another way, their intellectual departure is way out ahead of their emotional departure. (That is a topic that needs to be explored on IIDB, but not within this thread.).

I have no reason to believe that your second statement is anything less than true (for you personally). On the other hand, high-profile litigation to force an Alabama judge to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom wall is perceived by the general public to be a clear case of intolerance. Since this is a good example of the claim of my thread-title, let's stop for a moment and consider: In terms of public image, did this case cause athiesm gain or lose face with non-atheists? Have we caused people to conclude that we are claiming "special" rights (that, from the public's perspective, we believe that our right not to be offended trumps their right to utter a public prayer, etc.)? Are cases like this losers insomuch as they represent tactical victory but strategic defeat? I say that this is EXACTLY what we are doing!

I think that most of us want exactly the same things and are willing to offer the same things as you have listed...as individuals.

But that is not how we are perceived, is it? We are perceived as militant iconoclasts "driven" by hatred for something that most Americans still at least pay lip service to. They feel threatened, and they WILL fight back. That is exactly the response we DON'T want. The first step in changing our image is to understand what we are doing to contribute to that image.

While I quietly go about my life, engaging apostates when opportunity arises, focusing on moving those already disillusioned with religion closer to where we stand, I cringe every time I hear about a new atheist litigation aimed at forcing some particular religious reference out of public life...because it makes my work harder. It gets the faithful that I work around energized in defense of the perceived threat. They want to engage ME (NOT knowing I am atheist) in validating their defense... Does any of this sound familiar?

I would argue that the high profile issues like "In god we trust" on coinage, and "under god" in the pledge are political losers. I would add that these things don't add a detectable burden on my day-to-day life compared to (the burden of) simply being around xtians vocalizing (to each other) as they go about their lives. Each of us gets a hundred times the exposure to xtian utterings in our immediate work environment than we get from carrying coins in our pocket with a theistic inscription on them, or hearing a public invocation at a ball game.

Rusting Car Bumper

I agree. However, I suggest it all of the time and I never get hate mail. I get people foolishly suggeting that I was offering an either-or and then they get bent out of shape.

I have no general disagreement with this part of your post.

DC

ybnormal

Capnkirk:
First, I need to make clear that we are talking about how to clean up our image...and in the public arena, for all intents and purposes appearances are reality. Not that it should be, but that is the way it is.

Please give me your opinion as to why our image is the way it is?

And I'll give you the advantage by pre-responding with another question... How are we supposed to clean up our image, when our image is based predominately on the xian claim that Atheists are being manipulated by THEIR satan?

hezekiah jones

How are we supposed to clean up our image, when our image is based predominately on the xian claim that Atheists are being manipulated by THEIR satan?

lol - good point.

Buffman

capnkirk

I cringe every time I hear about a new atheist litigation aimed at forcing some particular religious reference out of public life...because it makes my work harder.

At what point would you stop cringing? No litigation for any reason regardless of constitutional violations?

Rusting Car Bumper

I will respond.

Our image is not primarily based on that claim. Our image is primarily based on images of us that are seen in media and that are seen in the general public.

In general, our public image has been only that of FIGHTING against Christians. Our image has not, for example, been primarily of positive things where we assert our own self-identity. Further, our public activities have rarely been inclusive.

That is, most of the time the general theist public sees (1) fighting church-state seperation cases and (2) refuting claims of religion (or worse merely complaining about other people's religions).

I think these two approaches come from two mistakes. One is seeing our problems are primarily political and the second is the approach that says we have to refute the claims of religions only through facts and reason.

The first is arguable. I would claim that our problems are primarily social. It is public image in the minds of the citizenry that allows religion to be forwarded in the public (state sponsored) arena and not merely because the wrong person has been elected or the Constitution not followed. I would claim that it is more important to get my theist neighbor on my side as opposed to the politician.

The second approach is mistaken for a number of reasons. The religious are not going away and neither are we. Thus, arguing endlessly and even further making it a goal to argue endlessly is not really going to accomplish anything if neither group is going to disappear. The goals should be forwarding our human values, in spite of the fact that the religious are not going away, and teaching and supporting religious tolerance. This second point includes forwarding how the religious and secular share common values and ideas.

DC

hezekiah jones

capnkirk wrote:
On the other hand, high-profile litigation to force an Alabama judge to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom wall is perceived by the general public to be a clear case of intolerance. Since this is a good example of the claim of my thread-title, let's stop for a moment and consider: In terms of public image, did this case cause athiesm gain or lose face with non-atheists?

I wasn't aware that the plaintiffs in the Roy Moore TC case are atheists. Are they?

I can only think of two cases in which the plaintiffs were openly atheist: Murray v. Curlett, and Newdow v. Congress. Even then, Murray v. Curlett was consolidated with Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, in which the plaintiffs were members of a Unitarian Church.

Obviously it's a mistake to suggest that atheists are behind all establishment clause challenges.