galiel

Helen: None of the above.

I don't deal in hypotheticals. I've never heard an atheist say they would actually *prefer* to live a lie, if given an alternative where nontheists were a tolerated and free as, say, Baptists in America.

If some such person exists, I would not presume to argue with them, any more than I argue with theists about their faith. I don't wish to "convert" anyone to anything.

And, counter to the implication behind your language, I am not a militant any more than MLK was a militant, and do not believe in "sacrificing individuals for the greater cause"; I had enough of that garbage in the military.

What about it, Helen? Will YOU, even though you are a theist, actively support the rights of nontheists? Many whites joined the civil rights struggle side by side with their black neighbors. Will you join the March, and support the principles of freedom nand self-determination? Will you urge your fellow relatively tolerant theists to take part as well?

And, finally, how about an on-topic contribution: what suggestions do YOU have for ways to build awareness of the civil rights concerns of nontheists?

P.S. Had to laugh about the "spoken parentheses"; my teenage daughter certainly knows how to use the hand-gesture-assisted quotation marks

galiel

What does that mean, exactly? What exactly is your specific problem with today's AA? Why have so many secular. humanist, atheist, and other organizations endorsed the March, and are participating in it, if what you say is true?
[/qb][/QUOTE]
I have not seen any evidence that they will not, have you? Besides, who cares who speaks? Other than the rare "I have a dream" speech, how many reports about rallies in DC focus on the speeches? FOr that matter, how many of the crowd focuses on the speeches? The point of such a March is to present NUMBERS. It is to show ordinary Americans that there is a significant group of mostly forgotten Americans that are not free to openly live their identity. It is to get them to think, "hmmm, maybe that nice neighbor next door who doesn't have any holiday decorations is an atheist, but he is afraid to tell me. Hey, he's not a bad guy".
What specifically doesn't it say that you want it to say? Why do you believe we need to offer "olive branches"? Are we the aggressors? Are we the dominant force? How does the little guy get heard, if not by speaking up?

Besides, if you will only play on your own personal terms, then we will never get anywhere. Someone has to get the ball going, and others needs to subsume their egos for our shared advantage.
Too bad. You *could* choose to participate and rally as many of your like-minded reasonable friends to participate with you. Perhaps you then might have a say in the future course of activism. If you boycott the vote, you lose the right to participate in the decisions.

Now, for those of us who *are* interested in the March, what can we do to build momentum in the interim?

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

galiel

DigitalChicken, can you present evidence of a single group of American people, who were denied certain rights as a group and were treated with hostility by general society, who attained actual exercise of their rights and some measure of public respect and, ultimately acceptance, without speaking out, engaging in active protest and education, organizing marches, etc.?

HelenM

Originally posted by galiel:
Helen: None of the above.

I don't deal in hypotheticals. I've never heard an atheist say they would actually *prefer* to live a lie, if given an alternative where nontheists were a tolerated and free as, say, Baptists in America.

Let me get this straight, then - you don't like to deal in hypotheticals, yet you added an 'if' which is hypothetical at this time. Either that or there's no need for atheist activism, would there?

So...um, what was your point again?

If some such person exists, I would not presume to argue with them, any more than I argue with theists about their faith. I don't wish to "convert" anyone to anything.

If some such what person exists, though?

I was talking about someone who assesses the pros and cons of outing themself and decides the cons outweigh the pros and so he/she decides to stay in the closet.

But in your hypothetical 'if' world there are no 'cons', are there?

Are we in the world we live in or your hypothetical 'if' world?

And, counter to the implication behind your language,

The implication behind my language?

The implication is in your imagination alone. It's as hypothetical as your 'if' world...

I am not a militant any more than MLK was a militant, and do not believe in "sacrificing individuals for the greater cause"; I had enough of that garbage in the military.

Ok...I'm not sure exactly what that tells me but, thanks for sharing it...

What about it, Helen? Will YOU, even though you are a theist, actively support the rights of nontheists? Many whites joined the civil rights struggle side by side with their black neighbors. Will you join the March, and support the principles of freedom nand self-determination? Will you urge your fellow relatively tolerant theists to take part as well?

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

And, finally, how about an on-topic contribution: what suggestions do YOU have for ways to build awareness of the civil rights concerns of nontheists?

My contribution was on-topic - it was about how much you would push people who don't want to be activists, to try to change their minds. What's off-topic about that?

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

I suppose you wouldn't think that's activist enough, though...

P.S. Had to laugh about the "spoken parentheses"; my teenage daughter certainly knows how to use the hand-gesture-assisted quotation marks

Have you seen the Victor Borge skit about annunciated punctuation...it's awesome!

take care
Helen

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

Rusting Car Bumper

AA is generally vitriolic and anti-religious. I do not think this is a way to influence friends and win allies.

Some have not in fact. The AHA is not attending. Some are attending with reservations and hoping it doesn't turn into a religion bashing fest.

Why yes. I heard from an AA rep that said since AA is paying for it then they will control the agenda and speakers and genrally only allow speakers from AA aligned orgs.

I can't believe that the answer to this is not obvious. If the speeches say "Religion sucks and is irrational and we need to ight theforces of religion" as opposed to saying "Our fight is the fight of the religious as well" then which do ou think will have a negative or positive impact? If what is said doesnt matter then lets have a rally and read poetry.

So you seriously believe that if someone gets up there and says aful things about Chrisitians that such a sound bite WONT make the evening news?

You are assuming alot. If "ordinary blacks" had a rally of 1 million people that said "Kill Whitey" then would you really believe that whites would simply say "Oh those downtrodden blacks! I didn't know they were in such a situation!"

They would get scared as shit and rallythe horses. If the march goes badly it could be the best thing thr religious right ever had.

DC

vixstile

All the atheist-criticism of the march is in the exact same vein as gay-criticism of gay marches or black-criticism of black marches. Was all that criticism right in its dire predictions? In the big picture, no.

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

Rusting Car Bumper

"Have yous stopped beating your wife yet?"

All marches are not equal.

The civil rights march of the 60s with MLK made it clear for example that the black mans fight was also the white mans fight.

I fear this March will make non-believers look exclusionary, confrontational, and anti-religious.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

They aren't criticisms of a march in general. They are criticisms of the way its being carried out inthis specific case.

Your objection is irrational. You are essentially objecting to even QUESTIONING the motivations and execution of such an event.

DC

vixstile

My objection? What objections? I have made no objections! My comments aren't in regards to anything in this thread specifically, but generally.

But in regards specifically to this thread, the criticism is unfounded. I believe AA will be entirely cautious in there handling of the march. They're not idiots! They know the potential seriousness of this march. AA has stated it doesn't intend on turning the march into something anti-religious.

galiel

The point is not that obscure. There are hypotheticals and hypotheticals. If I set out to climb a mountain, I intend to reach the summit, even though it is, technically, hypothetical. I deal with that hypothetical while planning my ascent. If, on the other hand, you say to me: but what if an invisible blue dragon flies down from the summit and tells you to turn back? - that is the kind of hypothetical with which I choose not to deal.

No, in fact you were not. since you are nitpicking details, what you said was:

So, Mr Closet Atheist says "But I'm quite happy in the closet, thank you very much".

That was what I was responding to.

Irrelevant, rhetorical and sarcastic. For once, I will not respond in kind (see, I'm learning, folks).

Then I must have imagined the following quote:

Three of the for options are hostile and the first two are clearly militant. Your use of "Cause" capitalized and the phrase "for the good of the Cause" clearly suggest militancy. Again, I was merely responding to what you actually wrote. I can only judge by the actual words.

It tells you that the first two of the four options are not even an option for me, and the fourth is rather offensive. Of course, I don't accept your premise that those are the only options in the first place, but that is not the point.

Why in the world would he not? 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).

The topic is suggestions for generating momentum prior to the match and maintaining it afterwards. Please explain how your question constitues a suggestion for building momentum before or after the March.

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. 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 se just been horrendously bad? Or has your suggestion already proven inneffective?

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.

Yes. I love it! He was truly brilliant.

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