Rusting Car Bumper

I agree... I'm almost finished reading "Testament of Hope" which basically includes every major speech or interview MLK ever gave.

I don't mean being called an "accomodationist" or an "Uncle Tom" because that's exactly what MLK was called.

The major civil rights marches have been inclusive. Clearly and unambigiously inclusive. Our activities are generally not. That was a very strong point in their favor. Long before the big civil rights march of the 60s MLK and SCLC was already active so their philosophy was already formed before these huge marches began. Its important to remember that he and their group, in all that time, never lost sight of the fact that whites were not going away and that they have to live with them. Further, they clearly recognized that the plight of the blacks includes the whites. Their struggle was not entirely political... not by a long shot. We are generally missing these elements. If this march changes that, I'll be happy and dancing boy oh boy howdy I can't tell you. However, if the march reinforces atheist stereotypes then it could be a start of a downhill spiral.

Many of us engage in a dogma that they will never change, they are all fundies, the only way to beat them is all out warfare. It sounds like Dubya's handling of the Iraq thing!

When people were jailed and run down with fire hoses in many of those marches one needs to remember that whites were often amongst them and in increasing numbers as time went on.

Someone else said that we are comparing those to precisely and indeed, whoever it was that said that is correct to degree. However, there are things to learn. The biggest lesson is inclusiveness.

If, as a group, we don't learn this lesson then we will be perpetually butting heads.

Its not so much a matter of "marching in step". The questions are, "What should the message be?", "How will they be delivered", and "Do I want to be associated with the message and its deleivery?"

DC

4th Generation Atheist

galiel, I'd also add that the Separationist/ Anit-Separationist divide is a pretty good way to describe all the culture-war battles affected by religion; with a few exceptions, most people's stances on culture-war current issues such as abortion and gay rights are informed by religion or absence thereof as well. One way the Civil War has changed in our modern society is the introduction of a specific style of religion on the Confederate side, and the issue of C/S separation has become a defining one in the whole war. If successful, the Godless March will become a major gathering point for those on the Separation side of the battle, and if not, it will become just another little splinter group demonstration.

Our side needs some sense of unity and cohesiveness. The enemy has marshalled his forces well despite doctrinal differences between evangelical denominations, fundamentalist ones and conservative-Catholic ones. These groups work together to achieve their objectives anyway. Our side is much more numerous, but we aren't as cohesive; the squabbling and infighting between the various elements of our army is a major weakness. It could lose us the war despite our numbers. This is why I'd like to see the March become a big, inclusive thing; it shouldn't matter whether an attendee is an atheist, a freethinker/agnostic/humanist, a member of some minority non-"fundie" faith, a liberal Xtian theist or whatever, provided they are there to support the Separationist cause. I'll be disappointed if such an opportunity is missed.

I'm also realistic about how much immediate and real change can be brought about by the tactic of marching. We could show broad public antipathy to the faith-based legislative agenda, sending a powerful message to Congress and to the voting public. But to make long-term change it'll have to be backed up by other methods. This is where the sorts of things others here have been suggesting come in.

In short, I don't have a particular objection to any one set of (reasonable and legal) tactics, but I wouldn't want to limit myself to only one set unless I felt my talents so limited me. I hope this march goes well, because it's an important opportunity for one particular type of action. Conversely, if it goes badly it could do a lot of damage. This is why it turns over and over in my mind, and I'll likely make a decision at the last minute.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: 4th Generation Atheist ]</p>

d'naturalist

Sidebar: Hmmm, an apologist is someone who makes excuses for someone or something, right? Okay, so what's an accomodationist? Sorry, I've never heard that term before, and I want to make sure I get my buzzwords straight.

Buffman

galiel

I don't think Buffman and I differ as much in substance as we do in style and tactics).

Absolutely the case.

The real issue is not theists vs. nontheists. The real issue is Separationists (all those who support the principle of "The Wall" as a core pillar of the American system) vs. Nonseparationists (including Accomodationists among non-believers as well as the Anti-Separationist religious right.)

Well said...though I am not sure what is tactically gained by attempting to divide and label the freethinking community into "Accommodationists and non-Accommodationists." And therein is one of those areas in which we often find ourselves at odds. Not on the ultimate goal, but on the tactical means of accomplishing it.


I still believe that, at this moment in history, it falls on the nontheist community to lead the fight to preserve Separation, because we are the ones sufficiently threatened to goose us into action. At other times in history, it was various minorty faiths who were sufficiently oppressed to lead the charge.

Again we are in full agreement...with only the specific tactics, of how best to achieve the ultimate goal, separating our approach. However, I admit that you have me a little confused on exactly how you define the "non-theist" community. I do not view it as the sole possession of the Atheists. (And one reason why I am still not happy with the title of the Nov 2 March. I view the title as "exclusive" rather than "inclusive." )

In that light, many of the differences among us pale in comparison.

Hear! Hear! I applaud your interim aim and effort to motivate all atheists (depending on your definitions of atheists) to rally around one course of action...even though I personally suspect it ignores certain realities...and could have had a a better chance of success if only a few changes in the current "group" effort had been instituted. It was the discussion of those changes that seemed to upset you. Some of your initial posts came across like so many things I hear from certain Christian zealots. "You are either with us or you are against us. If you aren't with us, then you are in league with Satan." It is exactly that kind of philosophy, whether theist or non-theist, that will stir my juices. I am an American first. I have sworn to uphold and defend our Constitution...not religious or non-religious dogma. It is just that simple.

(If I am unfairly or inaccurately characterizing the tactics you were employing, I most humbly apologize to you and anyone else distressed by my previous comments. However, I did find myself being a little put out by certain comments that seemed to be "shuffling me, and anyone like me, off to Buffalo" (no offense intended to those from Buffalo) simply because I was unwilling to say "Hallelujah" and rush to make my Godless March placard.)

Then I read your comments about these two forums being inappropriately titled "Activism Forums" and found myself agreeing with you. IMHO, that is misleading to anyone seeking physical action on behalf of either CCS or SL&S, and would most certainly contribute to confusion among the various folks posting to them. That is why, when you established this specific string, I felt that I should contribute what little I could to supporting your stated goal and what I could to help others to do the same without falling back into the intellectual arguments about what are or are not the most desirable short/long range tactics/strategies to accomplish our common ultimate goal.

galiel

It is a significant distinction. Separationists believe in the principle, Accomodationists do not. Accomodationists believe it is possible to live within a religious society without the protections afforded by the "Wall"--some even believe the Establishment Clause itself is unneccesary. Thus, they will not support any effort to protect CSS, let alone clarify or extend it.

I didn't think there were many people like that left, but there are a few here on this board, which led me to do some online research, and, in fact, there are a few non-believers even today who argue AGAINST separation efforts.

The point is that it is a waste of energy to argue with people who say everything is fine,that the problem is not political and is not subject to politics or law, and that we just need to get people to like us. It is not meant as some kind of insult, as everything I write these days seems to be taken, but merely as a useful distinction between two diametrically opposed schools of thought on CSS.

I was wondering when someone was going to call me on that. I use "nontheist" as meaning other than theist, a more inclusive term than "atheist", although linguistically they are probably much the same.

Nontheist, for for the purposes of discussion, defines all those who think that laws and ethics come from men, not god. That used to be part of the definition of "humanist", but that term has become too muddied and now includes various "religious humanist" groups (an oxymoron in my mind, but obviously not in theirs) as well as UU, which is certainly not a nontheistic church.

Basically, anyone who is not a theist, is a nontheist.

Since there is a lack of consensus on terminology, I am trying to find words that resonate with me, and throwing them out to see if they resonate with anyone else.

By the way, it is far from a perfect term, since it excludes modern Deists, with whom we have no quarrel, and who probably constitute one of the largest unrecognized segment of the "other" or "not religious" categories in surveys. By modern Deist I mean those who believe that a conscious entity created the universe and its physical laws (via the Big Bang), but otherwise has no involvement with the world today. I suspect most scientists who are believers and honestly practice rational science fall in this category.

That is one of the reasons I think "Separationist" is a great, inclusive and resonant term that should be revived.

Oh, and, I don't like the name of the March either. I believe it was meant as a pun on "God Bless America", but most people will not get the point and will, in fact, interpret it as a March to eliminate God from America (as opposed to eliminating God from American government and raising awareness about those of us who are Americans without God). As I said, I think action is more important than perfection at the moment, and I don't see any other nontheist organization taking on the expense, logistical nightmare and outreach that AA has in sponsoring this March.

Thanks for your (as usual) cogent analysis.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Buffman

I had hoped that others might wish to respond to galiel's thought provoking last post. I feel that it contains some very fine meat for further discussion. As a matter of fact, I feel that this whole arena of "activism" has earned considerably more discussion before we allow it to quietly fall off the board with less than thorough appreciation for exactly what each of us believes that it means and how to successfully employ the positive aspects.

First, I feel we need to be able to agree on a definition of "activism.". My "American Heritage Dictionary" defines it as: "A theory or practice based on militant action." Personally, I find that definition far too narrow and limiting. An activist is an "agitator." IMHO, not all agitators are necessarily militant.

Second, perhaps we might wish to consider activism in terms of "overt" and "covert." The overt activism might be considered to be the militant, "in your face," group/individual, publicly demonstrative type. Whereas the covert activism might be considered to be the daily, individual/group type activities that contribute to the same ultimate goal, but with minimum public fan fare and maximum cooperation in all quarters.

As can easily be seen, I'm stumbling over a way to "accommodate" both militant and non-militant activism...if we can even agree that both exist. However, I am convinced that both are required. The problem that seemed to surface in our previous discussions was how to do both simultaneously without dimishing the positive potential effectiveness and success of one because of too much emphasis on the other.

If we can get some agreement on a defintion of activism, just perhaps we can deal with the specific problems of harmonizing all manner of activist undertakings. ("Help! I've fallen and can't get up. Won't some bright and creative person give me a hand with this...if they believe it has any merit?")

CaptainDave

I think of activism in a broad way. I see the need for at least three different types of action.

We need direct political action. This involves writing letters to newspapers, school boards, our elected representatives, etc. Sometimes it involves litigation. This action is necessary to both stengthen the wall of seperation and defend it against the endless barrage of attacks.

We need to make a lot of noise. This is necessary in order to wake up the huge majority of non-theists who are not active in church/state issues or who don't even care about it.

We need to put a face on atheism. This is a necessary component of gaining the support of religious liberals and moderates. It's too easy to turn a blind eye toward the sufferings of people you don't know. Every atheist should be an ambassador. Just come out of the closet and be a moral person.

I believe that each of these three components are vital. The trick is to coordinate these three components so that one does not interfere with another. Easier said than done!

I do believe we could benefit from a national network of the type Buffman proposed. I think a basic manual on activism would be even more useful. Such a manual would start out by stating the ultimate goal(s). It would go on to outline several different approaches to achieving the goal(s), Along the way it would advise on which methods are effective, ineffective, counter-productive, etc. We probably have all we need in the archive of this forum - but it's spread across thousands of unrelated posts! If anybody is interested in trying to assemble such a thing, we could start a seperate thread on it.

galiel

Extremely well thought out, CaptainDave.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I would like to propose superimposing a functional template on your goal- and audience-oriented distinctions.

I see the functional arenas as breaking out into:

Political, Educational and Interpersonal.

By Political, I mean everything from lobbying; to litigation; to public protest; to coalition-building; to election campaigning; to boycotting; to endorsing--in other words, anything that involves working through and on the organizational systems that make up our uniquely American system of government;

By Educational, I mean everything from promoting the teaching of critical thinking, logic principles and the scientific method in our schools; to education about the value, history and threats to CSS; to educating about the nontheist way of life; to educating about the historical contributions of nontheists; to education about evolution; to education and awareness building *within* the nontheist community--everything, in other words, that involves disemination of information, knowledge-building and the advancement of reason and civic responsibility;

By Interpersonal, I mean everything from supporting nontheists in the areas of family, community and professional relationships, both among nontheists, and between nontheists and the overwhelmingly theist society within which we live--particularly: those making the painful transition from theism to nontheism; those "emerging from the closet"; and those struggling, as either mutually nontheist or "mixed" partners, with the appropriate philosophical and educational context for their children.

I think that organizing our talent in terms of these functional distinctions will put a vaste array of resources in the service of accomplishing the goals we set.

I do not presume to take a lead in the discussion about goal-setting and efforts to create a common philosophical underpinning for all nontheist and sympathetic communities, although I am surely interested in participating in such discussions.

I do think I may be equipped to at least catalyze, perhaps organize, and possibly play a meaningful role in the creation of a sustainable functional infrastructure to support all kinds of action. I would love to hear (either through public post or private message) from those who wish to be involved in such an effort. I see IIDB as a good place to begin this process, being outside of any of the many formal and often partisan and competing organizations that serve the nontheist community.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Buffman

I think those last posts contain some mighty good thoughts that deserve to be in their own "Activism Handbook/A Non-Belief Activism Primer/Atheist Activism/Secular Activism/etc." topic string. (IMHO, even the title deserves careful consideration in order to attract the largest possible readership.)

I'm just not sure which forum is the optimum one in which to post it. It should be one that gets lots of exposure and daily, serious, participation. At some point, a finalization of the content could be made and, hopefully, the resulting product given a permanent location where all could refer to and read it.

ybnormal

If it does not officially belong on this forum, or on some future II Activism Forum, then my entire case is hereby made!