atheist_in_foxhole

Here

Real Player needed.

GaryP

Thanks for the info! I'm listening to it right now.

atheist_in_foxhole

After hearing about how the good Xians vandalized Madalyn's home, sent death threats, and threatened her children, I can understand why she was so angry all the time. And all because she dared to suggest that school-sponsored prayer was a bad idea.

GaryP

Yes. I never understand it when people say" She's was always against something. She was angry." as the one woman said.

Why not, "She stood up for what she thought was right whether it was popular or not". And if something is indeed is unjust, as govt. preference for religion over non-religion is, why should she not be angry?

Should not African-Americans be angry when they see injustice or any other minority group?

HaysooChreesto!

O'Hair was an angry old battleaxe. Had she been more jovial and less foul mouthed she would've advanced the atheist cause much further than she did.
IMHO, when someone decides to take up a cause like atheism and be its spokesperson they need to be able to communicate effectively with those who are willing to listen. It's hard enough to get ones voice heard on a controversial subject without offending the people you're trying to convince.

OTOH she did bring atheism into the national spotlight and for that I do owe her a debt of gratitude.

gravitybow

I disagree that these two sentences go together.

Being overtly hositile and foul mouthed are more often antithetical to being an effective communicator. Imagine if she had been jovial, articulate, and charismatic. I can imagine religionists having to confront a dissonant image of Mom, apple pie, and atheism wrapped up in a "Mama Murray" figure. Instead, religionists use a caricature of her that is applied to us today: that atheists in general are ill-tempered, foul-mouthed battleaxes.

keitht

I thought the author's tone was condescending throughout the whole presentation. He acted like she was a trailer park kook and a trouble maker and he couldn't understand why she just couldn't be a good athiest and just be quite. She should have just spoken out against segregation and she would have been happier. Her family was threatened and assaulted but it was her own fault, because it was the middle of the cold war. I loved some of the questions: "didn't she have any spirituality, even when she got older?" (I paraphrase). That presentation is enough to make me never buy his book.

Keitht

Alonzo Fyfe

One problem with this is that we are not always the ones who get to decide on whom the limelight shines. The limelight picks its own targets. At any time, there is a fairly large number of people attempting to promote "a cause like atheism". They are unique individuals, each with their own personalities. All but a few will remain substantially unknown (or known in only to a small group).

Why does the limelight pick some for national prominence and others not? One of the most important criterion is whether the individual is good at attracting attention. To attract attention, one has to be that type of person that others are interested in giving their attention to.

I do not think it unreasonable that society as a whole wanted O'Haire as a spokesperson for atheism. There were others available, but she is the one they wanted because she is the one that matched their stereotypes and expectations.