Rusting Car Bumper

Any cursory search will show that not to be the case. I presume that someone might have done that before engaging in personal attacks.

DC

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

Writer@Large

Maybe it's just that, as Moderator here in C/SS, I encounter your complaints more than anything else. Indeed, a "cursory search" shows that, of your last 20 posts, only 3 have been elsewhere, and the majority of your posts for the last week have been either here, in this or the various Newdow threads, or in PD, which I can honestly say I take pains to avoid (it gives me a headache). And experience is what brought me to my original conclusion; everytime AA is mentioned, it seems that you're there tell us why they're bad.



You built your rep, DC, not I.

--W@L

4th Generation Atheist

Problem is just how many in the media are going to make the assumption that every atheist in the country is going to be there, or at least allow their viewing/listening/reading public to do so, even though that's patently ridiculous. And any religion-bashing behavior is going to be viewed as representative of what all of us think, unless we can make a side-message that that isn't necessarily so. If we can't have "tolerant" speakers (and who knows what AA actually plans to say here; admittedly their record is a bit scary, but we don't know for sure what will be said) we can at least pay attention to what's put on our signs and banners, and encourage "allies" and supporters to come along and show that we aren't one monolithic group.

This whole thing leaves me in something of a bind. If a not-especially-radical person (such as myself) goes, there's a danger that that person will simply be lending one more voice in support of an unintended splinter-group message; if that person doesn't, that's one fewer moderate face/voice at the gathering.

Helen: I can see how, if you're in Illinois and your (atheist or otherwise) husband isn't going, he might have some trepidation at the thought of your going off alone for several days to a distant city where the crime is so bad they have to keep separate murder statistics for the National Zoo. (Though if you stick with the group for the most part, you'll be perfectly safe.)

d'naturalist

First of all, let's stick to attacking the problem instead of each other. As secular people, we're probably the most diverse community on Earth, so we're going to have a wide range of opinions & perspectives. I see valid points being made by everyone here, there just coming from different points of view. The beauty in that is that the more perspectives we have the more we can see of the "big picture".

I support the March in principle, but I don't think it's going to have much impact no matter what we do. All the politcal activism in the world isn't going to change the fact that you can't legislate respect. The best we can hope to achieve politically is to block attempts by fundamentalists to impose their religion on society. It'll be very difficult for us to gain any political ground with the current state of the country.

Any real gains that are to be made in a democratic society must be made at the social level. Political activism is fine, but social reform is imperative. Win the hearts & minds of the general public and they'll elect leaders who see us as equal to the rest of society (perhaps they'll even feel comfortable electing secular candidates).

We make a mistake when we compare our fight to that of women or racial minorities. They were fighting physiological discrimination -- we're fighting ideological discrimination. What's worse, we're fighting 2,500 years of ingrained anti-secular prejudice & persecution. Right now, in most of their minds, our mere existence suggests that their entire world is a lie -- that the religions that give their lives meaning, purpose, and value are false. They're riding around on some pretty high horses and see us as some little yapping dog snipping away at the horses feet, trying to trip it up and send them crashing to the ground. That frightens them. We need to show them we're not a threat. We need to show them that what we're fighting for is the freedom to live our own lives in peace, not take away their freedom to do so.

Okay, how do we do that?

First, we need to cut the cord. We waste so much of our time & energy trying to debunk religion. Let go and move on. If people want to believe in that stuff, let them. I know some people need to go through that rebellious, "you're wrong because..." phase as part of their deconversion, but the rest of us need to blaze new trails and build our own independent secular community. The rest will join us as they feel comfortable doing so. In the meantime, it'll give them courage & hope, knowing that there's more out there waiting for them than just a life of solitude & fear.

Second, we need to develop & celebrate our own positive identity and show the world who we really are. A few examples:

1. We need artists (painters, sculptors, photographers, musicians, etc) to create works of art that celebrate life, freedom, humanity, and nature. Not anti-religious images -- pro-secular images.

2. We need authors to write novels, plays, screenplays, and poetry, that show both the joys & fears of secular life and how we deal with them.

3. We need journalists to write columns in newspapers & magazine and to host/produce shows or segments of shows for radio & TV, that give our perspective on current events, politics, the arts & sciences, relationships, and other important issues (and do so in a fair & objective manner).

4. We need political activism, but even moreso, we need political interactivism. Volunteer some time to help progressive candidates running in the midterm elections, and let's see if we can't get some of these right-wing fundiecrats out of office.

5. We need teachers & administrators working in public & privates schools, to help educate & inspire young people. They'll also be gaining experience so when it becomes feasable to start our own secular private schools, we'll have the people to make it work. Then we can put that voucher money to good use, educating our children.

6. We need people in business (and entrepeneurs starting businesses) so we can help our own with jobs, internships, and scholarships. Businesses that can also contribute to charitable organizations and sponsor community groups.

I could come up with more examples, but this is getting lengthy enough as it is and I think you get the point. Political activism is required to keep things from getting out of hand, but social reform is what we really need to improve our image in the eyes of the general public (that includes the way we see ourselves). Yes, this requires that some of us come out of the closet, but it also provides those still in the closet with the means to be supportive. The more support & positive attention those out of the closet get, the more will come out and be counted. The vicious cycle works in mysterious ways.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: d'naturalist ]

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: d'naturalist ]</p>

4th Generation Atheist

Definitely the focus for any political messages has to be on stopping the fundies' political reform agenda. Marching to demand that people "like" you is a waste of time. I can tell you that adding to D.C.'s already intense traffic problems is not a way to make friends. Each of us will have to do the friend-making on our own. That's how it pretty much works for everyone.

For the more political points, which is what political marches are usually for, a good way to gain broad appeal is to point out how that fundie agenda is bad for everyone. This would gain more in the numbers department, and hopefully thus send a message to the pols that there is broad opposition to fundie faith-based legislation of various kinds. That's about the only "change" we can expect from a political march. If I were sure that that would be the message, and that godless folks of various stripes plus a whole bunch of supporters were going to turn out in favor of it, I'd be, as they say, so there. But I sadly don't see sufficient evidence of that happening. Mostly it looks like the bickering and infighting are becoming the order of the day, and it's just becoming a means to make asses out of ourselves right before a very important mid-term election.

galiel

It is too bad a few of you are of the sky is falling mentality regarding this event. But that is ok. The first gay rights march in Washington was tiny, *really* tiny. I expect a decent turnout for this March, and I know that many people are working to make sure this propels us forward rather than being a one-time deal.

There is room for everyone to do their own thing, which has been my mantra on the board since I joined. If your style is to be a nice neighborly atheist, that's fine. If your style is to write letters to the editor, that is fine too. If you want to miss the chance to be at the ground floor of an exciting historic event like the March, that is fine, too, but I expect history will show thatb you missed out.

I suppose accomodationists are going to have the most problem with this, but then I don't expect accommodationists to do much anyway--they never have. That's ok too, they will benefit along with the rest of us, they will just complain about it the whole time ;-)

I urge anyone who is worried about the March to actually read about the major civil rights marches of the past, and get a sense of what the media was saying at the time, who organized them, what kind of speeches were given, and, ultimately, what catalytical, propulsive purpose they served. I think if you do so, your mind will be greatly eased. Not because this March is going to be exactly what you want it to be, but because that ultimately doesn't matter. The most important thing is how many people show up, how many virulent kooky and pathetic fundies show up to protest it, and, more than anything else the mere fact that it was held in the nations capitol even in these holier-than-though times.
Politicians will take notice if they begin to perceive a significant voting block with common issues. That alone matters a great deal.

I urge you to show up and to carry prominent moderate signs and to talk to the press about the issues important to you. People acting as individuals aligned with other individuals who share common interests, that is what this is about, not some uniform monochrome group marching in lock-step.

Buffman

[DAMN! Once again I am running way behind some of you sharp thinking fast typers. Oh well! Once again into the breach whether it still exists or not.]


General comment for consideration.

I recently screwed-up a post when I inadvertently addressed myself to a list of items offered by Alonzo Fyfe rather than the thoughts of Digital Chicken. However, while considering Alonzo's suggestion about comparing the results of individual state marches in order to amass a sort of "Lessons Learned" data base for future use, I began to wonder if there might not be other methods of acquiring this sort of data base without engaging in the, IMHO, rather difficult agenda of conducting individual state marches.

I have noted that some folks appear to seek, and overtly crusade for, the kind of group activism that would force the appropriate, and long overdue, recognition of non-religious Americans as full citizens of this country and therefore entitled to the same constitutional rights and privileges currently enjoyed by the religious citizens. (i.e.: Stop the discrimination based on religious or non-religious beliefs IMMEDIATELY.) I, OTOH, do not believe that "in the streets" activism is currently the most promising and effective way to achieve our mutual goal. Neither do I believe that non-believers can wait for the kind of outcome envisaged by Digital Chicken. Thus, there is no difference in the ultimate goal, only in the methods/techniques involved of achieving it.

The more posts one reads concerning how to achieve this mutual goal, the more one realizes that there are many disparate opinions. IMHO, each and every view deserves a fair hearing and considered response. (I am well aware of how difficult it is to remain objective when considering an issue that is so close and meaningful to each of us. Now, back to my screw-up)

I began to focus my attention on finding ways that each of us, as individuals, could contribute to the overall goal without having to compromise our personal beliefs concerning how best to achieve them...and without alarming the religious into the false belief that we are attempting rob them of something that they sincerely believe is vital to their, and their family's, very existence. That's when I started jotting down several of the ways that supernatural beliefs intrude on my life, and about which I could personally do something that would not be overtly confrontational. It only took me a few minutes to jot down a few possibilities. Bringing any one of them, if indeed it was determined to be viable and workable, to full fruition would require far more time, effort, resources and personal motivation than many of us have available. It is the area of motivation in which galiel and I initially ran afoul. I took exception with his motivation techniques and he took exception with my exception. It was down hill from there. (Just look at some of the discussions already posted to this string for examples of similar situations.)

Folks like Digital Chicken , Alonzo Fyfe and myself feel strongly about what is the optimum long term strategy...and we don't always agree. Others feel just as strongly about tactical strategies..and they don't always agree. So, rather than continue to waste our time and energy on further discussions of the preferred techniques that should/should not be advanced or supported, I recommend we attempt to go back to the original reason that galiel established this string and save our technique discussions/misunderstandings for a different time or string.

IMHO, the issue of this string is, "What can we do in the short term, as individuals, to help promote the goal sought by all the non-religious citizens of the United States...the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...whether we believe or not in the supernatural?" Please note that I am not concerned with any one specific group of believers or non-believers. The issue is between the religious and non-religious. I call attention to this because the AA's own references indicate that:

(Extract)
According to the ARIS 2001 survey, the total "No Religion Specified" category has grown to 29,481,000, roughly 14.1% of the population. That figure could be low, since 5.4% of potential respondents refused to discuss their preference, if any, for faith. Within the "No Religion Groups," the latest survey measured the three categories from the 1990 census, with new descriptions for "Atheist" and "Secular." In the latter category, 902,000 or roughly 0.4% identify openly as Atheists to the telephone survey. Slightly larger is the "Agnostic" category, an estimated 991,000 individuals representing 0.5%. Humanists came in at an estimated 49,000, with only 53,000 under the category of "Secular." Contrary to perceptions in many non-believer circles, "Atheist" seems to be the label of choice more often within our segment of the population than "Humanist" or "Secular." "Agnostic" is slightly ahead, with most simply referring to themselves as having "No Religion."
(End extract)

Obviously these statistics are merely best guess guides to the actual numbers included within any group and are subject to all the pitfalls of poll gathering. What these figures tell me is that Atheists need all the other "No Religion Groups" to provide their concurrence that the goal I outlined above is their goal also. However, what is just as relevant is the fact that it is the identical goal of the believers in the supernatural. Therefore, we must find ways to "prove" that any overt or covert action we take is in the long term best interests of every American citizen...and every freedom loving person the world over...regardless of how they may choose to express their individual conscience...within the secular laws.

So, what other, previously undiscussed, ideas do people have that might be developed and employed to stem the false impressions about the non-religious that are currently being hyped by certain vested interest, anti-democratic and unequal opportunity, groups. Put on those thinking caps and let's have a barn-burner of a brainstorming discussion. IMO, no idea should be arbitrarily turned aside/away without adequate discussion first.

(Added)
I briefly considered changing "typers" to "typists." Then I decided that "typers" might actually be a more descriptive, made-up, word. Brainstorming does not preclude developing specialized double speak. Just ask ybnormal about his thoughts concerning the fundamentlists' effective use of "double-speak."

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Buffman

d'naturalist

If I had stopped to read your wonderful post first, I never would have posted mine. Personally, I agree with all you said...and said so well.

galiel

(this is partly in direct response to Buffman's post and partly a general observation)

This conversation and other on similar topics have provided me with one significant "revelation" (not meant in the theist sense). I suppose it puts me more in convergence with d'naturalist and Alonzo and other voices of reason than many would expect. (As I have just stated in another thread, and as Buffman suggests above, I don't think Buffman and I differ as much in substance as we do in style and tactics).

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.)

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.

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

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

Alonzo Fyfe

Buffman: If I may begin by putting together some distant comments in your post:

...while considering Alonzo's suggestion about comparing the results of individual state marches in order to amass a sort of "Lessons Learned" data base for future use...

[snip]

IMHO, each and every view deserves a fair hearing and considered response.

[snip]

Folks like Digital Chicken , Alonzo Fyfe and myself feel strongly about what is the optimum long term strategy...

My preferred strategy is one of experimentation, data collection, and going forward with whatever works.

I think that each person with a strong opinion about how to proceed should do so. They should come back here with their success stories -- or their stories of failure, compare notes, revise plans, and go forth again.

The state marches was simply an illustrative example of this as applied to organizing a march. If one is interested in marching, the thing to do is to have several smaller marches using different strategies, collect the data, and put it to use.

But the policy is more general than that.

It is true -- I will not attend the Godless March because I believe that its message is confusing and likely to be misunderstood. And because I think that contributing the cost of the trip to Internet Infidels will do significantly more good than adding one more to the head count in DC.

It is true -- I think that Newdow should not try to do everything himself. He should focus on the legal arguments, while finding somebody who is a better public speaker to handle the PR side his campaign.

But it is also true that I can offer nothing comparable to a Godless March or a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion backing the efforts that I have made.

So, I will offer my advice and suggestions. I will continue to encourage those who are going to the march to consider how their statements will be viewed by the theist who supports church/state separation. I will continue to urge those who are concerned about the PR side of Newdow's campaign to take it upon themselves to try to fill that gap where they can. I will continue to do what I can.

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