Buffman

Alonzo Fyfe

(Back from my local yard safari.)

I think that I must start with saying that I tend not to like THE MASTER PLAN way of thinking. It tends to be unrealistic -- on the model of "if a huge block of people agreed to be my puppets what would I have them do?" Or, more generally, "What would I do with control of a huge quantity of resources that I do not have and cannot get?"

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by it tends to be unrealistic. I tend to believe that it can be very useful.

<a href="http://linz1.net/biz/bplan.html" target="_blank">http://linz1.net/biz/bplan.html</a>

(1) Take an inventory of the resources available here and now.

(2) Make a real-world plan that makes use of only those resources.

Though those are certainly appropriate actions at some point, I would suggest that the first step should be:

(1) Determine as accurately as possible those things we wish to accomplish. (Click on Chap. 2 to read the justification for identifying the Purpose, Goal, or Objective first.)

<a href="http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/comm-skills/st22-2/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/comm-skills/st22-2/index.htm</a>

(2) Identify the problem(s) to be solved.

(3) (Now review the rest of Chap. 2 in order to select those items that can be applied to solving the identified problem(s) vis-a-vis Item (1).)

Using many of the things from this format would go a long way in preparing someone to effectively and efficiently use that "huge block of puppets," and how to manage what resources they do have, or how to get the ones they will need to accomplish (1).

Perhaps you are right, but it is always possible to do the best that one can with what one has available -- which is a whole lot better than doing nothing with what is not available.

I suspect that that is exactly what Dr, Newdow is doing.

I have given some thought to the creation of a weekly or monthly thread devoted specifically to what is done -- where people can report the letters they have written, the interviews they have given, the testimony they have offered -- with an eye to seeing what can be done to grow that list each month, and to improve the effectiveness of that which shows up on the list.

To a certain degree, doesn't the KIOSK offer one type of storage area. I think it is a very viable idea if "II" can afford the increased band width and monitoring. However, it would be even more helpful if everyone had free access to copy and post these specific letters, or portions of them, to their own media outlets under their own names. In other words, no requirement to obtain permission for total plagiarism. Often the speed of response can aid in keeping an issue fresh in the minds of the readership. Many of my counter-letters lost some of their public purpose because I was too slow to get them submitted. Now I attempt to submit them on the same day that I read what stimulated me to respond in the first place. Having an easily accessible, compartmentalized by subject matter (individuals/issues/historical fact/etc.) thread could be very beneficial to those of us a little slow to get our thoughts written down, or lacking the available time to do the accurate research to counter the propaganda.

But the specifics are not important. The general principle is the important part of this -- of spending less time debating about what would happen if we tried various options, and to actually do them (on a small scale) and test these different ideas.

Hmmmmm? Based on the last part of that statement, it would seem that the specifics are very important. Organizing small and diverse sets of state marches simply don't happen because someone thinks that they are a good idea. There have been many great, and not so great, ideas proffered in these forums. The good idea may be the appropriate starting place, but until that idea is fleshed-out by the specifics of its implementation, we won't know just how great an idea it really could be. I have learned, the hard way, that attention to detail is a major contributor to success. (That is one reason why a good business plan is so critical to financial success...of which marketing, sales and advertising are only "specific" aspects of the overall plan.)

And if this tool is not in the toolbox, then one should set up a trade to acquire more -- or to acquire that which the money would be used for anyway.

Naturally this assumes that one has something to trade that others desire. If one can acquire what they desire without money, all the better. However, that depends on whether we are talking about the goal of the Master Plan or simply satisfying one of the necessary specifics to help to reach that goal.

Here, I bring it up as yet another example of the same principle. It is better to do something with the money one has than to dream about what one would do with money that one does not have.

Another hmmmmm? I am not sure that I would consider that a "principle" for growth (greater influence). It isn't a matter of "dreaming" about what one could do with more money. It is a matter of "knowing" how much money is required to accomplish ones goal(s) ...and then taking the actions required to obtain that amount before frittering it away on projects with little/limited, or no, chance of ultimate success. (i.e.: Too much money spent on TV advertising and not enough left for printing or paying the staff/employees. The goal should be to quantify, before hand, the amount required to mount the most cost effective and successful type of enlightenment campaign.)

These thoughts are offered merely as encouragement for continuing dialogue on these issues for those of us unable "to carry on a long and detailed discussion on topics such as moral realism and ontology at a level unmatched since graduate school. " Tsk! Tsk!

I do think that this is a resource worth developing.

Agreed.---I know that that was your purpose behind the graduate school remark. However, I am not inclined to consider such a remark as a good "marketing" strategy...or tactic. (But that's just my opinion...which couldn't even make a down payment on one share of Viacom...unless I bought it in 1998. See what happens when I replace the smoke in my lungs with fresh air?)

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Stephen Maturin

Congress currently spends over $280,000 a year to pay its chaplains. As I understand it, there's never been a non-Christian hired to serve as chaplain in either house. Given these facts, the institution surely ought to be done away with.

The trouble, of course, is <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=463&invol=783" target="_blank">Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)</a>, the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court essentially held that the practice of hiring chaplains to open legislative sessions with prayer and paying them with public money is exempt from standard Establishment Clause analysis. The case was also pre-Scalia application of a fundamental principle of Scaliaism (if it's been around long enough, it's automatically constitutional).

Newdow writes a first-class brief, to be sure, but the legal problems here are probably insurmountable. Even if he can persuade the trial court to distinguish Marsh, the D.C. Circuit will torpedo his constitutional challenge in a heartbeat, and it's tough to imagine any set of circumstances under which the current Supreme Court would be willing to make new law on this issue.

Oops! Forgot to mention that the D.C. Circuit has already decided this very issue. Murray v. Buchanan, 720 F.2d 689 (1983) (per curiam). Five gets ya fifty they won't decide otherwise here.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen Maturin ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

Here's the e-mail that went out to all the "Focus on the Family" members;

Atheist Wants Congressional
Chaplains Booted
By David Brody, Washington, D.C., correspondent

The man who got a federal court to rule the Pledge of
Allegiance unconstitutional is at it again.

Michael Newdow, the man behind the effort to remove the
Pledge of Allegiance from public school classrooms, has filed a
lawsuit in Washington D.C., to remove the chaplains from
Congress.

"We don't believe that Mr. Newdow has standing to bring this
litigation," said Nate Adams, of the Christian Legal Society, just
one of many who believe Newdow has no chance of winning
this lawsuit.

But Newdow has beaten the odds before. He thinks paying
chaplains with taxpayer money is a violation of the
Establishment Clause of the U.S Constitution, which bans the
government from establishing an official religion.

"It appears that Mr. Newdow misunderstands what the
Establishment Clause says," Adams said. "The first Continental
Congress, in 1774, even adopted a procedure which allows for
opening congressional sessions with a prayer offered by a paid
chaplain."

Most observers believe Newdow has simply launched another
attack on religious liberty. Pat Bryan, a legal counsel for the
Senate, said she is confident in winning this case.

"We are fairly comfortable, in fact, extremely comfortable, that
we will ultimately prevail and that the Supreme Court has
already ruled on this issue," Bryan said.

In his lawsuit, Newdow names the entire body of Congress as
defendants. This may be one of those rare times when all of
America rallies behind Congress.

The responsibilities of Congressional chaplains include leading
the Senate and House in opening prayers and counseling
individual members. The Supreme Court ruled in a case 28
years ago that paid chaplains do not violate the U.S.
Constitution. Chaplains in Congress are paid anywhere from
$100,000 to $147,000 a year.

Alonzo Fyfe

Buffman:

A few quick comments before I start work.

(1) Though I do not think that Mr. Newdow is making the best use of the resources he has available, I am pleased that he is doing something. Rather than complain that he should stop and reconsider his strategy (which would be a fruitless waste of time on my part anyway), I hope instead to be able to make some contribution in helping to cover his blind spot.

(2) I wrote my original post in a context where I took a general goal of church/state separation to be an assumed background condition. You are correct in pointing out that one must first pick a destination before one starts to evaluate different routes.

(3) I read your comments about my graduate school remark as interpreting it as a put-down. Quite the opposite was intended. I infer from the quality of data in the fields that I do know that the quality of data in fields I do not know is also high. I cannot pretend to have the historical and legal knowledge that are relevant to these discussions. I come here in part to learn from others who have researched fields I have not had time to research myself. And I have come to admire the quality of data and of the analysis that is generally provided.

joedad

<a href="http://www.ifas.org/fw/9404/prayer.html" target="_blank">Here's</a> an interesting read giving examples of how the Court has reversed itself, and also how it has used the precedent of simple historical practice to justify it's decisions.

joe

Rusting Car Bumper

Newdow is haphazard and only doing this to bolster his own war.

He should try to win some public opinion behind these ideas before proceeding. Instead he does it backwards. He files the lawsuits and then plays damage control. It doesnt help that his damage control does more damage.

He could very well cause a horrible constitutional amendment to be passed which could, in pragmatic terms, be permanent.

DC

Buffman

DigitalChicken

He should try to win some public opinion behind these ideas before proceeding.

OK! So exactly how does he do that in a "Christian Nation" that is currently at war with "Evil?"

Rusting Car Bumper

In the ways I've discussed before. Slow and difficult transformation of the unbeliever into a social role model instead of a political pariah. That is, understanding that your neighbors opinion is more important than that of the judge. When my neighbor respects me then politics will better take care of itself.

Oh of course he doesn't get to file the lawsuit and get on talk shows if he takes the slow and hard route...

DC

Buffman

Alonzo Fyfe

(3) I read your comments about my graduate school remark as interpreting it as a put-down. Quite the opposite was intended.

I have discovered that we are faced with certain interpretation problems when attempting to communicate exclusively through electronic symbols. Emoticons were developed in order to help decrease possible misunderstandings of true intent.

The paragraph that immediately followed my comment about your "moral reality/ontology" discussions attempted to explain why I made the comment I did...just in case the emoticon didn't.

In other words, though I thought I understood the intent of your remark, I wasn't convinced that it was necessary to make the point that you did. I merely wished to to let you know that "I" felt the remark could be interpreted two ways. One that enhanced the discussion, and one that detracted from it. Not being the bashful type of personality, I thought you might appreciate knowing "one" person's view...that couldn't even buy the paper cup in which the coffee is delivered.

Buffman

D.C.

Though I have absolutely no disagreement with you concerning the approach you recommend as a beneficial one to freethinkers everywhere...if they happen to run into the local group of people who have been positively influenced by your efforts, I do not see that your approach, which used to be my approach, has accomplished one single thing in advancing critical thinking in America. Just the reverse. I see "my" America slipping further and further into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition. I am unwilling to keep saying, "Give it time! Give it time! Set the example by being a loving, compassionate, moral atheist. The theists will have to acknowledge that we are good people." No they won't! They can't afford to. They have constructed their lives on a house of cards. For them to acknowledge that atheists are just as good, moral and patriotic as they are blows-over that house.

More and more I am coming to think that Dr. Newdow is simply forcing as many people as possible to look at their homes in order to determine of what materials they are constructed. I view Church-State separation as a cornerstone of my home. I only wish that everyone who has sworn to uphold and defend our Constitution started with same stone.