Rusting Car Bumper

You must be living in a different world than I.

No doubt some of them do bash us but you'd be surprised what kind of reaction you get when you simply tell them, "I don't want to take away your god. I simply want default respect and to understand that we are people just like you." More often that not, I get a positive reaction. Sometimes in a group I get theists to *defend us*.

As Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

This focus on politics and a victim mentality doesn't do us much good.

DC

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

Krieger

Yes, I live on Earth.

Atheist organizations don't sit around and "bash" the theist majority. They support the separation of church and state, and provide literature that disproves god myths. That is not "bashing" Xians...

Buffman

ReasonableDoubt

I have the Samuel B. Griffith edition of "The Art of War", Oxford University Press, 1963. A weak reference indicates that it was probably written around the 4th Century B.C. IMO, with only a few very minor changes, it could have been written today. Every time I review it, I am truly humbled by the clarity of insight and the wisdom in almost every thought and word.

ybnormal

The goal however should not be and is not political.

For the duration of my lifetime and yours, it should be and is totally, wholly and completely political.


Such a view, as I keep saying, is too narrow.

What you see as too narrow, I see as totally focused.

What you seem to advise, is equivalent to drinking the water from the reservoir, rather than plugging the leak in the dyke.


We need to open dialogue with believers instead of trying to bash and oppose them.

And I suppose you would also squat down, extend your hand and say "Nice doggie" to a charging Pit Bull.

Where you may think I'm yelling that the sky is falling, with all due respect, I really think you are being naive.

Now, I'm prepared to give a little with your desire to stop "trying to bash... them", but I do hope you don't mean we should literally stop "trying to... oppose them". In the political and judicial arena, that would be giving up. You just as soon go have yourself baptized and born again.


They aren't going away and we aren't going away.

As I see it at this point, only the first half of that statement could be an absolute.

*

We do not "bash and oppose" them. They do that to us, but they usually just ignore us (because so few of us are actually out of the closet).

Good grief! The overwhelming majority of "them" do nothing of the kind.

The overwhelming majority of "them" do indeed "bash and oppose" us.

If your sweet 90 year old grandmother buys one of Pat Robertson's Jesus First pins, then she does indeed, actively "bash and oppose" us.

If she just watches the 700 Club, and then truthfully answers a Nielsen's Rating Poll, then she does indeed, actively "bash and oppose" us.

If she buys a raffle ticket, a magazine subscription or a box of xmas cards from a church sponsored teenager, or even plays bingo at her local Catholic church, then she does indeed, actively "bash and oppose" us.

And if she sent $20 to the GWB campaign, then she does indeed, actively "bash and oppose" us there as well.

Peace!

galiel

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Jayhawker Soule

Thank you for your clarity. Though I do not know the precise character of the "us" you reference, I proudly decline inclusion. Too many of those you bash and oppose with your broad strokes of bigoted rhetoric I hold in high esteem. [edited for spelling - RD]

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Rusting Car Bumper

I agree and those who ignore history don't know HOW TO repeat it when needed and those who study history know how to change it.

I mean this reply to you and a few others.

Our problem is not the pledge, slogans on money, and public prayer.

Our problems is that the society does not give default respect to non-believers as they do other groups.

As such our problem is not a political problem at the root. The political problems derive from forementioned social problem. Fighting court cases and demonstrating will not change that. Thes are but bandages on the gaping wound.

Blacks did not gain my respect when other kids called them niggers by fighting court cases. They it it by demonstrating their human good will. This human good will runs afoul of the kids calling them niggers and the rational mind says the facts outweigh the empty claims. Our organizations lack this vision entirely. Except for token attempts at humanist philosophy, our organizations do not foster good will. They do not foster mutual respect.

In the case of repeating history, anyone who studies the civil rights movement understands that MLK's and SCLC's side of the movement (which was by far the most successful part) was inclusive. There was a constant message that the black man's fight was also the white man's fight.

Many non-believers are burned to heavily with hatred that it distorts the fact that those with differing beliefs are human as they are. As such they don't see that bridges can be built.

DC

galiel

I am glad you "know" what "our" problem is. With all due respect, that is YOUR problem, not "ours". You have clearly positioned yourself as an Accomodationist in many, many posts, telling us that the problems "we" feel are illusory and that you don't care about maintaining the systemic "wall" and that unbelievers are haters, etc., etc. It is clear that the sum of your argument is "this is the way it is", repeated over and over and over with no substantiation.

What I meant by my history comment was that you are ignoring all the popular protest, the legal challenges, the legislation, the role of the Supreme Court, in bringing various discriminated groups their rights. Now, you are even rewriting history. There is really no possibility of our reaching any kind of consensus here. You don't even agree with the centrality of Separation to the American political system, a fundamental premise of most tolerant people in America.

Perhaps, since you persist in denying the daily, deep hurt that many of us feel, and instruct us that we are wrong to feel excluded by "God bless America" and faith-based initiatives, you should stop referring to "us" and start referring to "you".

Frankly, I find less common ground with you than with many theists who are supporters of Separation and who are willing to support atheists' rights to live free of religious oppression. Furthermore, you simply keep repeating your mantra about this not being a political problem over and over, without ever addressing the questions you have been asked, such as providing and example of a civil rights struggle that was won without public protest and activism.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Once nontheists' grievances are aired and the general public becomes aware of the problems, and the politicians start viewing us as a significant voting block, and the courts begin to crack down on the rampant and everincreasinng violations of our constitutional rights, THEN is the time to shift to emphasising the human face of nontheism.

Until we have a place at the table, until we can be elected as nontheists, until we can not worry about our cars being keyed or our walls vandalized or our children ridiculed or even threatend, until we are formally invited to grieve as part of the American family on 9/11, until public figures stop slandering us and demonizing us in the media, we will get nowhere. Contrary to your revisionist narrative, public acceptance of blacks did not begin until AFTER the struggle for formal recognition, and then the struggle for enforcement of the laws on the books. The struggle continues, but at least leading politicians don't get away with using "nigger" every second sentence, and at least we don't see steppin fetchit character on TV. Are you really claiming that all the protests, marches, legal battles, speeches, boycotts, fights with police, had nothing to do with blacks winning their place in society? Was it all jsut a matter of "being nice"? Are you suggesting that for the nearly 200 years before they gained their rights, they were NOT being nice and kind to their white apartheid neighbors? How far are you willing to rewrite history just in order to justify an irrational conclusion, and the fallacious induction that, since you don't feel discriminated against, discrimination must not exist?

Finally, I have suggested over and over that these approaches are complementary, that there is room for all forms of activism, including the "be a good neighbor" approach that you advocate.

With all your rhetoric about extremism and intolerance, *you* are the only one negating other people's sense of injustice and *you* are the only one suggesting that "we" are wrong and must not pursue the path "we" feel compelled to take.

Perhaps you need to practice what you preach, and show at least as much tolerance of nontheists whose views differ from yours (but who share the same ultimate goal of living with dignity in a tolerant society) as you claim to show to your theist neighbors.

I suggest that both you and I let democracy work. If most people agree with you, then there will be no activism to speak of. If most people do not agree with you, If most people feel discriminated against and seek redress in the courts of public opinion, then perhaps you will be willing to reexamine your unquestioned assumptions.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

You are the authority on how and why blacks gained your respect. Don't, however, confuse inclusivity with passivity. Of equal importance, don't belittle or ignore the primacy of political struggle. It is politics, and its extension into law, that secures and defends civil rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Alonzo Fyfe

In reading these posts, I find things that I agree with, and disagree with, on both sides.

To start: Jews, blacks, and women did not gain equality before the law through good deeds. To say such a thing is to imply that their previous second-class status was due to their bad deeds -- that all they needed to do was repent their evil ways in order to purchase the respect of their fellow citizens.

I would argue that they were just as good before they won equal respect as after, and because "bad deeds" was not to blame for their previous status as second-class citizens, "good deeds" could do nothing to change that status.

Instead, they obtained greater equality because they found ways to communicate the hypocracy in the words and actions of others.

They appealed to principles that everybody could accept regardless of the color of their skin or their gender. And pointed out where those principles were not being followed.

They marched on Selma Alabama to put a story on the front page of as many papers as possible, "Here is a town where a majority of the citizens are black, yet not one black person here is a registered voter. We -- black and white alike -- believe in democracy. We hold that democracy is a great and noble institution. But there are people right here in this country, in Selma, Alabama, who are as opposed to democracy as any tyrant."

Because they appealed to principles that were independent of race, they were comfortable with having whites stand with them.

I sometimes wish that we did not have a First Amendment, so that we were required to defend the separation of Church and State on its merits, rather than on the fact "the founding fathers said so."

Because if we were forced to defend the separation of church and states on its merits, then the people of this country would have a better understanding of those merits.

This is what I think has happened in Europe -- where the lack of anything like the First Amendment has created a culture where the people not only know THAT church ought to be separate from state, but WHY it ought to be separate. Where, even though they have state churches, they have no state religion.

Blacks did not ignore the courts in their quest for civil rights. They were very much focused on changing the laws into laws that they argued were more consistent with principles that all people could accept.

For us, we are full of praise over what the ACLU does to defend first amendment rights, yet some seem unwilling to respect the fact that the majority of ACLU members are Christians -- who believe "I do not have to agree with what you say, or believe, to defend your right to say, or believe, what you wish."

While the NAACP files civil-rights cases in the court to get discriminatory laws removed, Martin Luther King was able to write such things as "A Letter from a Bermingham Jail", and give a speech such as "I Have a Dream", and organize demonstrations such as the march on Selma, Alabama, to communicate to the people the principles that the NAACP was defending. Principles that everybody could accept.

This is not "accomodationist" as I understand the word to be used here. It does not "accomodate" any wrongdoing. It does not accomodate any discrimination. It does not accomodate any membership in the category of second-class citizens.

But it does recognize that the principles of justice, equality, and respect are principles that many people already agree to and accept, regardless of their religious beliefs.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>