ybnormal

Where then are those particular "It works" contributions on the currently running What issues have we "won" thread? You keep saying that it ain't about politics, yet politics, either directly or indirectly, seem to have been responsible for ALL the "wins" that everyone has come up with so far.

Atheist_in_foxhole summed up those wins...

As you can see, all of these victories were won in the courts. This is why it is so important to vote for progressive presidential candidates who pledge to appoint progressive judges. Unfortunately, the president we currently have intends to reverse most of these decisions by appointing literally dozens of right-wing judges to the bench. And now that he has a right-wing Republican Senate to do his bidding, he might succeed.

It ain't a trick question DC, because I do understand the thrust of your argument... I know that you expect only small and incremental "wins" over time, but still... you guys are stuck with "social claims" while others can demonstrate actual "political successes" here at home.

Can you too, demonstrate how "It works"?

Rusting Car Bumper

We are talking about two different things. I am saying that viewing the problem as a social one as much or more than a political one "works" for some things that were not related to atheism such as the gay rights movements and the civil rights movement. Neither of these two made progress solely on political fronts.

If political, law based, and court solutions really worked then we wouldn't have these problems. If they worked it wouldn't have taken from emancipation to the civil rights moveement to see significant movement for African Americans.

It political battles in courts worked exclusively then you wouldn't have the entire Senate standing up and affirming the pledge. You wouldn't have over half of the U.S. saying they wouldn't vote for an atheist. You wouldn't have atheists so easily slandered in the media. You wouldn't have large majority of Americans being completely oblivious to Church-State seperation.

Occasional court cases are won but still my neighbor opposes me, wants to tear down the wall of Church State seperation, and supports state support of religion. How is this "issues we have won"? It's hiding behind a mere paper tiger. All it takes is a lit match.

If we were actually "winning" then when Newdow won his case, then you'd have a greater number of theists standing up and supporting it for example or for that matter you would have had a theist filing the case instead of Newdow.

DC

capnkirk

As stated earlier on this thread: This is not an either/or issue. Neither of these efforts can progress far without the other. Without an improvement of image, the victories that we claim will continue to be few and far between, and will not be hailed as victories by the public at large. On the other hand, careful selection of the issues (cases) we want to take public: that is, vetting them for the amount of support we can expect from the general public can help make winning less clear cases easier in the future. Both efforts need to be moved forward; they need to be coordinated so that they play off each other's successes.

A good example is before us now. I have just become aware of some features of GWB's Faith based Initiative that even the softest supporters of the Establishment Clause would get heartburn over...if they were made aware! Especially if they were made aware in a way that didn't get up in their faces. This issue seems tailor-made for the kind of image improving exploitation we have been searching for.

capnkirk

To this I would add that in the case of the gay rights movement, to the extent that their litigations have been perceived as demanding special rights as opposed to equal rights, that litigation has been counterproductive in terms of actual acceptance of gay rights. The moreso when the court is perceived to support the claim for some special right.

When someone brings an establishment clause case over "under god" in the pledge of allegiance, something that most Americans are quite comfortable with, it is a given that the image of anyone who might object to such a phrase will suffer. The American public has a pretty good, if increasingly uneducated, sense of fairness, and don't react well when they perceive that the courts are being used to gain unfair advantage.

admice

Good posts esp Digital Chicken, Buffman and Capn

Many good points. Lets hope people (here) act on them

Psycho Economist

I've been watching this thread for a while now, and one thing strikes me. It's been hinted at but not explicitly said: atheists don't collectively have any political agenda except keeping the place safe for atheism (and by extension other religious minorities). It'd be like trying to organize dog-lovers. Sure, they would probably like good animal-cruelty laws and freedom from persecution by cat-lovers... but aside from that, their opinions are very divergent.

We have liberal humanists, libertarian objectivists and conservative ex-fundies... and we all want different things on those other issues.

Sure, we need to work within the establishment... but in any group you have to cultivate a reputation for being a team player before advancing your own opinions, especially unpopular ones. A liberal or libertarian is never going to get along in the Republican party.

That said, if you're anti-abortion, pro-war and think taxing dividends as income became inconscionable yesterday, get involved in the GOP. If you're pro-choice and believe the rich should pay proportionally more in taxes, get involved in the DNC (I don't mention Iraq for them, because they seem to be paralyzed with ambivalence). When you've secured their trust, when you've demonstrated that being an atheist is not a betrayal of their secular principles, please help a brotherman out by pushin' for the cause.

Part of the problem with your suggestion (as originally writ), capnkirk, is atheism is precisely a *negative position* on a *single issue*. But Democrat or Republican, we are going to have to be involved to overcome our image problem... but no matter what we can still pass notes to each other in study hall.

ybnormal

DC
We are NOT talking about two different things... how can "It" be two different things?

I take it that regarding your ideas, the answer is, "No", you cannot, in any real way, demonstrate that "It works".

My only point there was a simple comparison that political activism (alone) CAN indeed be demonstrated as being effective. Unless you come back with something real, your ideas of social activism (alone) cannot be demonstrated as being effective.

Yes, I added the (alone) this time, and here's the reason why...

It's about this incessant non-argument which I have NOT been a part of here...

DC:
Neither of these two made progress solely on political fronts.

and,

Capnkirk:
As stated earlier on this thread: This is not an either/or issue.

I challenge both of you guys to show me a single instance on this thread where I have implied what you both now imply that I have suggested. Do y'all read these posts? DC, in your first post in this thread you made some disclaimer regarding this, and I made absolutely sure not to go there... so why are we there... again... with the implication that I put us there... I did not.

It is a non-argument... it has totally negated both you guy's latest posts to me, because you both began with that and went off from there.

I have many posts on this site where I specifically state that ANY activism of ANY nature is a good thing. I find it hard to believe that DC is not aware of that. I have said that I don't care how folks choose to be active. That it ain't none of my business, because I thought it was a good thing for anyone to be doing anything. However, I'm giving fair warning right HERE and now. I'm starting to think I have been wrong. I'm starting to think that folks like you guys are hurting any real activism efforts far more than you are aiding it.


capnkirk:

I told you that I would apologize for my remarks regarding your not answering direct questions. I apologize! This became much easier when you wrote the following...

Are you arguing that the constitutional rights of atheists are under direct attack...by theists?

Point being... anyone who could write that, was in no position to answer my questions because there is no way you could have possibly understood them. I was hoping that you would answer Buffman's response to that question, but I suppose you were unaware of its importance. I must suggest Sir, that I think you are way behind the learning curve on this issue.


...to the extent that this defense should be our first priority?

Yes!


Peace!

Dingus

Ah, good question, Capnkirk, you have - “how to rechannel it?” For me, it’s going to take some work. Rage and rebellion have permeated, as you say, in regards to my own sake of becoming an atheist. Found out in my later years how much I’d been duped, psychologically and economically. Still think I should sue them! (the Xtian churches).

You make a very good point on finding common ground to deal with the opposition as in the government issues. That, too, will take work for I blatantly don’t like the opposition and would have a very difficult time seeing their good points. My bad.

Personally, I don’t meet with politicians, but I often write to them and mostly they have been only complaints. So, now maybe whenever I need to write to the government officials I will first start off by letting them know how much they are supported in one field - then subtlety bring in the issue of opposition. Sounds like a good tactic to me. Maybe they will tend to listen and actually consider my request.

Will have to watch and listen for something I actually support the oppostion on. You may have helped changed my life.

capnkirk

Post DELETED by capnkirk

Dingus

Hello,

I just sent you a private message.

Just this morning I changed my email address - I'm guessing that the message things were shut down till I verified the change.

Sorry, about that.