Buffman

(remember, I am talking about perceptions here).

I believe that I understand. Digital Chicken has expressed much the same position many times before and in powerful terms. It is certainly a fine, neighborly, position and one which I wholeheartedly support on a community level. (i.e.: Lead by example!) However, as far as changing the national perception, I find it of little value in the current war for the minds of the American public on the scale necessary to reverse the current trend of anti-constitutionalism sweeping the land. (Fear is the current vehicle being used to enslave the unwary and intimidate the unsure. Political, not social, power is the engine that drives it. Money is the fuel. The final piece of the theist puzzle will fall into place when the judiciary is totally under the theist's control.)

While "we" may intellectually harrummpph at the accusation that many of the establishment clause cases are tolerance issues, they are being spun that way, and it is working.

Why is it working? The accurate answer to that question has been at the top of my issues list for quite some time.

In that light, we must answer the question, "Is the tactical gain worth the strategic loss?" Full frontal assault is not necessarily the best way to win a campaign.

Hmmmmm? It has worked very well for the theists! Perhaps you should be asking some other questions first. "Who are the designated leaders in this war that decide whether an action/inaction is Tactical or Strategic? Who are the officers? Who are the foot soldiers? Where do we get the financial support to increase the fire-power of our forces? Who are the strategic planners? What is our Intelligence gathering organization/ability? Communications? Supply? Transportation? ---BTW, sometimes a frontal assault is the "only" way to win a campaign/war in order to bring about the desired ends. Just ask the current government administration...or the Revolutionary War combatants.

The problems I see concerning perceptions are geared to education and propaganda. It seems as though the majority of the American public has lost the ability to employ a critical reasoning process to their perceptions. Many no longer seem able to differentiate between fact or fiction, right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate. (Over the last several years, these issues have been discussed at some length and depth right here. Until coming here, I had never heard anyone else, beyond a few books and Humanists, discussing them in any detail.)

Richard1366

Politics may run the country, but polls and money run the politicos.

We, as atheists, are maligned by everyone and usually assumed to be aligned with anything deemed to be evil. It is the theistic community that defines us and tag us as Satan worshippers. We all are aware of the lengths that the fundies will go to “prove” that their god exists, even to lies and personal attestations of false events if that will further their cause.

Most theists have never really met an atheist, except to be exposed to them via the media when cases such as those of Newdow or Murray are put in the forefront. Where are all the atheists? Hell, most atheists, if we can judge by many members of this fourm, won’t even declare their atheism to their own family members much less stand out in public and say “Look at me, I have values, I have morals, I am an Atheist, and I’m proud of it”.

Many on this board profess their belief that we should never be “anti” religion, I adamantly disagree with their position. Religion is a pox upon its practitioners. Exposing children to its tenets is tantamount to child abuse.
In the area of religion teaching, women are portrayed and treated as second class inhabitants of this earth; what is almost more disgusting is that most of these women gladly and happily accept this treatment.

I believe that many individuals that profess to be theistic are really closer to atheism than they believe, those who never go to church, those that only get involved in anything remotely religious on Easter and Xmas. Most christians are woefully ignorant of their own religion and have no idea how the and when their bible was written and assembled. Maybe if they knew more real live moral and hardworking atheists that they could talk to about why they are atheists, we would have more converts to the truth.

Should theists be allowed to practice their religion, of course. But we as atheists would be better off if we could convince them to begin practicing in the full light of reason instead of sequestered in the darkness of intolerence.

Grad Student Humanist

Well this is true. Most American Xtians are nominal Xtians at best. Of course, I've only ever met nominal Xtains since they all insist on following their religion's creed instead of the teachings of their master, Jesus Christ, as spelled out in the Gospels. The day that I meet a Xtian who actually follows Christ's instructions to a T, I will be impressed. Most offer some kind of cop-out as to why they don't give all they have to the poor, why they don't turn the other cheek every time, why they don't only pray in private, etc.

capnkirk

I concur with your observation. I won't stand out in public and declare (perhaps because I so disdain theists who do.), but I HAVE told my parents, my sister, and my son. I prefer to SHOW people that I have morals, I have values...then let them find out that I am an Atheist. Personally, I have found that this approach is most effective. When one knows the person first, then atheism becomes the appropriate focus for reevaluation, rather than the other way around.
I suspect that many on this board DO so believe. On this thread, I am trying to get them to see the difference between "being anti-religion, and being defined as such. On this difference, I am being ENTIRELY pragmatic. Agreement depends on how you answer this question: Which is more effective toward ultimately dislodging xtianity from its present position of power? Militant, in your face, opposition? OR quiet, constant erosion of their numbers by persistently proselytizing the weakest of them, the doubters and the apostates?

If history has taught us anything about religion, it's that external persecution STRENGTHENS it. Herein lies their rationale for demonizing us or anyone else who attacks their faith.

We simply do not have the clout at the present time to openly attack. Now is the time to build our strength and erode theirs without unnecessarily arousing their defenses.
You are advocating precisely what I am here. These are the targets of opportunity that need to be reoriented.

Rusting Car Bumper

And thats the problem. Its not to be countered by doing what you suggest below.

This is demonstrably false.

In fact, many believers lead happy and productive lives. If "Religion is a pox upon its practitioners" then how do you explain that? The fact is that believers generally have the same concerns as I do. They want their children safe. They want job security. They want lead happya nd productive lives in kind neighborhoods. The idea that they are pariahs and are all warped simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Other people's religious beliefs are not our problem. The only time they become a problem is when they infringe upon others and not a moment before.

I can just as well change your statement to this...

THAT is basically what many of the religious say to us.

Neitsche made a comment about being careful when you hunt monsters because when you stare intot eh void you will find it staring back... Well, many of my fellow atheists have done this and become waht they condemn.

This simply denies the facts.

They are not going away and we are not going away. Once this fact is realized then what are you going to do about it? Fight against others freely chosen beleifs in futility or learn how to live together in spite of these differences?

DC

Buffman

capnkirk

Which is more effective toward ultimately dislodging xtianity from its present position of power? Militant, in your face, opposition? OR quiet, constant erosion of their numbers by persistently proselytizing the weakest of them, the doubters and the apostates?

(Obviously all the following statistics are merely best educated guesses.)

Which is more effective? Hmmmmm? There are 2 billion plus humans claiming that they are Christians. There are "over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, etc."

http://www.adherents.com/

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

So of slightly over 6.2 billion humans, 850 million do not claim a specific religious affiliation. (Now look at just the USA.)

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

Forgive me if I don't hold out much hope for that 0.04% of the U.S. population, calling themselves Atheists, being able to convince theists to rid themselves, "one at a time," of superstition and myths as ultimately being able to dislodge Christianity from its present position of power ...that it has held since shortly after the first Christian set foot on this continent. However, it is with the Nonreligious/Secular, 13.2%, and those minority sect/denominational theists who recognize that it is in their own best, vested, interests to defend C-SS, at whom our efforts should be directed. Not to convert them to Atheism, but to accept personal responsibility for the ethical/moral/scientific principles that can best expose, analyze, and provide accurate solutions to the problems we all face now and in the future.

However, in order to start this educational process, I believe it is first necessary to identify and counter those Christian propagandists who have been flooding our society with misinformation, disinformation and outright falsehoods ... today and every day. In order to do that, non-theists must learn the most accurate facts/information available...first. This is one place that offers them that opportunity. Then thatinformation/ knowledge must receive the widest possible dissemination. That requires professional planning, leadership and MONEY...lots and lots of MONEY.

Therefore, I believe that it requires a coordinated approach rather than any single one. I suspect that it is because of limited financial resources that causes too many folks to think in terms of "which one is more effective." (This recent effort to establish an effective political lobbying group is a very positive development.)

If history has taught us anything about religion, it's that external persecution STRENGTHENS it. Herein lies their rationale for demonizing us or anyone else who attacks their faith.

Tell that to the Jews? A strong military, nuclear weapons, their will to use both, and the world's fear about what would happen to the oil reserves would seem to be the only real factors standing between the State of Israel and annihilation. What is the only real factor standing between the existence or demise of Atheists in America? The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights! They are the only codified protections for the minorities against the majorities. That, too, has been taught to us by history. Ask the Americans of Japanese ancestry. Or those Americans, today, of Muslim ancestry. Or those Americans of red or black ancestry. Or the Mormons of 1844 (if they were still alive).

We simply do not have the clout at the present time to openly attack. Now is the time to build our strength and erode theirs without unnecessarily arousing their defenses.

I agree with the first sentence and the first part of the second. However, there are certain members of American Christianity that declared war on non-theists long ago. Within the last 20 years, or so, they went from a defensive to an offensive mode. Only now are a few thoughtful theists and non-theists recognizing that their defensive mode is losing the war for the minds of the majority of Americans. You may win Super Bowls with defense...but only if you are able to score one more point than your opponent. I think it is way past time to start scoring some points because we are currently being outscored by an alarming amount. Far too many fans have already left the stadium because they think the winner of the contest is no longer in doubt. One thing we should have learned in Vietnam is that if you lose the support of the American public, it doesn't matter how many tactical battles your forces win in the field, you will lose the strategic war.

We had a very outspoken atheist activist start a topic last fall which attempted to answer your basic question of what are the steps/actions we should and can take to advance greater tolerance for the individual expression of conscience in this country. (Sorry! I could not locate it for your review. I had a good deal of difficulty locating any archives and time is not on my side.)


Digital Chicken

This simply denies the facts.

They are not going away and we are not going away. Once this fact is realized then what are you going to do about it? Fight against others freely chosen beliefs in futility or learn how to live together in spite of these differences?

Many Jews held that identical view during the rise of the Third Reich. Many of today's Israelis and Palestinians hold that view. Many Catholics and Protestants hold that view in Northern Ireland. Many Muslims and Hindus hold that view in Kashmir. Many Christian and Muslim inhabitants of the Balkans have held that view for centuries and have even gone through short periods of tolerating each other. But what is the single common denominator in all these cases? Religious zealotry and fatal, centuries old, animosities passed from one generation to the next without seeming end...and mindless slaughter.

However, you are well aware that I have no problem supporting your efforts as a peace-maker/educator. I merely question the rate and scope of success of your efforts.

capnkirk

I have no illusions about ultimate success in the forseeable future. That is why the qualifier "toward" is stated. I will be satisfied if I can help initiate an incremental shift in that direction. Hell, I would be overjoyed if I can shift the mindset of a number of our IIDB colleagues from defense to offense. Stating an ultimate goal mostly serves the purpose of identifying the direction. We'll almost certainly not in our lifetime reach that goal, but we may be able to assimilate a significant part of the 13% you identify in your next paragraph.
I concur that conversion to atheism is not necessary...only an acceptance that atheism supports the "values" you listed above. In fact, this is largely a clarification of what I am proposing within the "proselytizing" choice above.
Again I concur, with only small qualifications. Specifically: since the availability of sufficient money to mount a professional campaign to produce the widest dissemination is not presently in the offing, I propose a scaled-down plan where the focus of the dissemination is directed at that 13%, and the means is largely face-to-face. If we can be successful on a small scale, we improve our chances to obtain better financing, organization, and leadership.
You are correct in believing that limited financial resources are the limiting factor. So, let me restate the "which one is more effective" choice more clearly: "Within present constraints, how can we best present ourselves so as to attract the initial targeted 13% and convince them that we value many of the same things they do?"
While your analysis of current political factors RE: Israel is accurate, the ability of Jews to avoid assimilation for nearly 2000 years without a homeland at least partly by exploiting their persecution as a unifying factor illustrates MY point. Similarly, Roman persecution of early xtianity culled the weak from the flock, and strengthened the resolve of those who remained. Similar attacks on fundies today can be expected to produce similar results. In fact, haven't theist attacks on OUR beliefs served to strengthen those beliefs? AND to increase OUR militancy?

Are you arguing that the constitutional rights of atheists are under direct attack...by theists? ...to the extent that this defense should be our first priority? My personal view is that the constitutional rights of ALL Americans are under attack, theists included. But I also believe that the source of that attack is from Americans who hate America for political/ideological reasons, not theists. Further, I propose that the place for that discussion is on the Politics Forum.

Without arguing the merit of your position, I would posit that the offensive tactics and strategies we are discussing here represent the first steps toward utilizing the means we have to begin to win back the support of the American public. I don't see that anything we are doing here is incompatible with that end.
I don't read the implicit passivity of "learn how to live together" that your comparison with German Jews requires. If Digital Chicken meant it that way, I'm sure he will so advise us. I would prefer to interpret current discussion as searching for the means to accomplish the latter choice. My general strategic vision is to find ways to isolate the fundies from the majority and marginalize their theocratic aspirations. The most obvious way to do this is to sway public opinion. We are just now starting to brainstorm ways to get that process started.
The real-world response to your question is one I got from my CO in response to my frantic request for immediate reinforcement: "Can't help you LT, You'll just have to pee with the d__k you got!"

Buffman

capnkirk

You are correct in believing that limited financial resources are the limiting factor. So, let me restate the "which one is more effective" choice more clearly: "Within present constraints, how can we best present ourselves so as to attract the initial targeted 13% and convince them that we value many of the same things they do?"

Upon what do you base your position that they aren't already convinced that we value many of the same things that they do? (GWB Jr. didn't even get the majority of the popular vote.)

While your analysis of current political factors RE: Israel is accurate, the ability of Jews to avoid assimilation for nearly 2000 years without a homeland at least partly by exploiting their persecution as a unifying factor illustrates MY point.

I fear that it illustrates a good many points. Not all of them positive. Why do you think America has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel? (Here is an interesting story from the 1939 period. Be sure to read about the S.S.St. Louis Incident.)

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_histo...ions/six2.html

Similarly, Roman persecution of early xtianity culled the weak from the flock, and strengthened the resolve of those who remained. Similar attacks on fundies today can be expected to produce similar results. In fact, haven't theist attacks on OUR beliefs served to strengthen those beliefs? AND to increase OUR militancy?

Do you mean our belief in one less god than they do? When one's individual expression of conscience is threatened in a federal republic such as ours, I don't view it as strengthening our beliefs. I see our response as supporting and defending our Constitution from enemies either foreign or DOMESTIC. When anyone attempts to pervert, undermine or ignore our Constitution in order to achieve a vested interest goal, they are the enemy. I consider Presidential resolutions that violate the separation of religion and government to be a direct threat to me and everyone else...as American citizens. It should be considered as a direct threat to every person who has sworn allegiance to our Constitution...theist and non-theist alike.

Are you arguing that the constitutional rights of atheists are under direct attack...by theists? ...to the extent that this defense should be our first priority?

YOU BET I AM! (A minority group of Christian theists have managed to take over the Southern Baptist Convention, the Republican Party, many state governorships and legislatures, the current Federal Congress, the Presidency and current administration, and are just one or two Supreme Court appointments away from a clean sweep of the entire U.S. Government. (If you believe otherwise, I hope you will share your facts and reasoning in this forum...even if under a different topic.)

http://www.au.org/

My personal view is that the constitutional rights of ALL Americans are under attack, theists included.

I agree! Here are some of the theists who also see the threats to everyone's constitutional protections and freedoms.

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/about-us/index.htm

But I also believe that the source of that attack is from Americans who hate America for political/ideological reasons, not theists.

Exactly, specifically, who are these people? Who supports them and why? Are you saying that religion and theists aren't ideological...and political?

Further, I propose that the place for that discussion is on the Politics Forum.

Perhaps you are correct. However, C-SS has a very political factor involved.

Without arguing the merit of your position, I would posit that the offensive tactics and strategies we are discussing here represent the first steps toward utilizing the means we have to begin to win back the support of the American public. I don't see that anything we are doing here is incompatible with that end.

Nor do I. However, you have indicated that an offensive action by non-theists is counter-productive. I am taking exception with your belief/opinion and attempting to give it a full, public, airing. It is up to you to present the case why folks should support your passive recommendations while I play Devil's Advocate...because I believe that it should be a combination including direct involvement activism.

buffman:This simply denies the facts.

(Sorry D.C.! I think that capnkirk made a little typo error with your remark...but not like the one I messed up a few months back. That was a real pip. I'm still wiping the egg of my face after that one.)

I don't read the implicit passivity of "learn how to live together" that your comparison with German Jews requires. If Digital Chicken meant it that way, I'm sure he will so advise us.

There is no doubt in my mind that D.C. did not mean it to go in the direction that I took it. But then, how many SVN villagers admitted that they were being threatened with mutilation or death by the VC if they talked, let alone helped, Americans? Do you really think it was all that different for the German Jews/Communists/Non-Aryans of the 1930's? Why had so many Jews already left Germany before Kristallnacht (Crystal Night)? Why didn't they stay and attempt to reason with their neighbors? Where were their Christian neighbors that night, and in the round-ups in the following years? (Not that a few Christians didn't give their lives attempting to help...but only a very few, truly courageous, ones.)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERcrystal.htm

I would prefer to interpret current discussion as searching for the means to accomplish the latter choice.

My general strategic vision is to find ways to isolate the fundies from the majority and marginalize their theocratic aspirations. The most obvious way to do this is to sway public opinion. We are just now starting to brainstorm ways to get that process started.

This is your topic. After this post, I will refrain from further comment in this topic because I do not have anything of import to contribute to your goal beyond what I have posted many times in the past.

The real-world response to your question is one I got from my CO in response to my frantic request for immediate reinforcement: "Can't help you LT, You'll just have to pee with the d__k you got!"

That's why so many Lts. needed to ask their 1st Sgts how to keep them from getting into those kinds of situations in the first place. In the real world of C-SS, it's the judiciary that decides our ultimate fate based on "their" interpretations of constitutional "intent." Just five votes stand between us and the call to...to...to whom for reinforcements?

capnkirk

If they are, then so much the better. It just means that there is slightly less work to do. The next step is to transform "passive/tacit" support into active/explicit support. Definitely easier said than done!

Quote:

buffman:

When a group perceives an outside threat, the natural response is to close ranks and prepare to defend! To set aside petty differences and present a united front. If the focus of the threat is ideological, then the defense is ideological reinforcement. (Since theism utterly depends on its "articles of faith" for survival, and faith by definition cannot be supported by logic, it must rely on emotional intensity to defend itself against logic in order to survive. Doubt is the archenemy of faith, and rationality is its harbinger. This dynamic is both congenital and intrinsic to faith-dependent systems, so the merchants of faith have honed this defensive reaction to a fine edge.) While our group response to outside threat is less vicious than that of theists, It DOES nonetheless strengthen our resolve to maintain our (rational) beliefs, and to do so more militantly.

Quote:

buffman:

I most emphatically am NOT indicating any such thing! I am trying to argue the relative merits of modeling that offense more after the fox (low-profile efforts aimed at quietly building grass roots recognition and support among otherwise "neutrals" in preparation for the actual main thrust, so as to maximize our advantage of surprise.) than after the bull (bellowing, snorting, and pawing the ground in militant announcement of a head-down, head-on charge that ensures maximum defensive response.). You have conceded that we don't have the strength for the latter; I propose that we just might have the wits to pull off the former. Our task here is to see if we can find ways to get that process started.
First, I don't agree that these are valid corollaries to the viability of atheism in America today, but even in it was...it would argue for a response that would be admittedly more militant, but much lower profile, completely clandestine, and wholly subversive... an underground resistance. Even if your analysis proves correct, a guerilla response will certainly be more likely to succeed than open revolt.
P.S. This was one 1LT that readily listened to (and sought out) the insight and knowledge others had gained from direct experience. One of the factors that drew me to SF in the first place was its focus on results over pecking order.

Rusting Car Bumper

Mere assertion and doubtful. Not of any relevance even if it is true.

If they did "hold that view" then there wouldn't be warfare, suicide bombings, and the other respective forms of violence in these regions. I simply see these statements as false.

In any case, the context of these is irrelevant.

You make a hasty generalization from one tier of proposed solution (in what I see as a social problem) to the more complicated cases where violence and in some cases willfull physical oppression is the norm. The American non-believer's situation isn't like any of these. If these facts were sufficeintly parallel for nonbelievers then of course your comments might make sense. But they arent like these cases so it's not relevant.

It works and worked for others then why not us?

DC