Rusting Car Bumper

Alonzo,

A lobbying group is not the same as a PAC. This alters the implications of your comments.

DC

Bill

The Secular Coalition for America has a secular (as opposed to nontheist) outlook. We debated at length the exact point that you raise.

One of the difficulties in our movement is that some of our organizations (American Atheists and the Council for Secular Humanism) are so opposed to theism that they refuse to have anything to do with any group which is insufficiently atheistic in their outlook. Thus, each of those groups limits their available options for joint action by imposing a "litmus test" upon the groups that they will work with.

Sometimes, that results in "shooting ourselves in the foot," such as the broad attack on the American Humanist Association that is contained in the latest Free Inquiry magazine published by the Council for Secular Humanism. Public attacks like that only make it more difficult to foster mutual cooperation between the AHA and CSH.

Anyway, the three of us (Atheist Alliance, Institute for Humanist Studies, and Internet Infidels) have committed to be "issue oriented" and, to the maximum extent practicable, "put past differences aside." We stand ready to work with theistic groups, like the Interfaith Alliance, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and so forth, when the issues demand cooperation between us. While CSH has been perfectly willing to join ad hoc efforts of this sort, it has (so far) been unwilling to join a formal permanent organization dedicated to mutual benefit.

In any case, Alonzo, the current leaders of the Secular Coalition for America do recognize the point that you make, and we do state unequivocally that we will be attempting to work with theistic groups who share our positions on key issues. If Jefferson were available to join our group, I would welcome him, and I presume that the others on the Board of the Secular Coalition would as well. However, I doubt that any theistic group would be motivated to become a formal member of the Secular Coalition; but who knows? Deists are traditionally viewed as "freethinkers," so if the World Union of Deists wanted to join us, would we turn them away? I hope not, but I can't say with any certainty because the formal membership requirements for new groups remain to be developed by the existing member organizations.

== Bill

Alonzo Fyfe

That is the answer I was hoping for.

I'm in. I stand ready to receive my marching orders.

DonaldW112

I am generally a lurker here but I must break my silence to tell Bill that he has done an excellent job explaining the ii position. I live in the Albany, NY area and know the people from the Institute for Humanist Studies and I applaud both of your efforts to make an impact on issues important to Secular Americans. As IHS already knows I stand ready to help out where I can.

Donald

Bill

I hope that galiel will come back and read this. Speaking of multiple PACs (not that the Secular Coalition is even a PAC): The above comment is from Conrad Goeringer of the American Atheist Center. Frankly, I couldn't have said it better myself, except that I didn't know that American Atheists was already supporting TWO different PACs.

== Bill

galiel

I haven't gone anywhere, I simply don't see the sense in discussing this with people who seem utterly closed to suggestions from people outside their little circle of seven. Your organizational culture seems to be one of anti-democratic elitism, and you interact with this community only to the extent it is necessary for you to make your case, which to date consists mostly of negative comments about several other organizations rather than making an affirmative case for your own. You present an air of infallibility, and you seem to view questions are threats rather than welcoming the opportunity to learn from others. You have never once asked for input or expressed any willingness to solicit advice from this community before making your decisions. This sends the clear message that you think you already know best, and that there will be absolutely no room for constructive input from others. You will happily, I am sure, accept contributions of money or labor to carry out your orders, but that makes you no different from all the other top-down elitist organizations that blanket the freethough community. I had hoped you folks were different.

That is why I stopped posting on this thread. I am still debating internally whether I should leave this board altogether, as I am not sure it would reflect integrity on my part to continue to enjoy the benefit of this board from an organization with whose methods I so thoroughly disagree. I would hate to lose connection with this wonderful community I value so much an the many friends and respected opponents I have gained here, but these is such a cognitive dissonance between the open, respectful nature of the iidb community and the closed, intolerant culture of your organization that I am not sure what to do. I only know that, for me, trying to contribute to your new Coalition is futile.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

crazyfingers

galiel,

You do realize that this discussion board is a service of the Internet Infidels organization and that these boards are only a part of what that organization does?

The admins do actually consult with the regular users and especially the moderators on issues that impact the discussion board.

But I fail to understand why you are offended that the Internet Infidels has not consulted with the broad usership of these public boards on matters that are separate from them.

galiel

Being offended is not the issue. Being distressed at missed opportunities is the issue.

If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you. It is a matter of tone, approach and attitude. It is the difference between implying "we tolerate you riff-raff, be grateful we even let you come here", and implying "you know, we could really use y'all's help. We want to do the best thing, and we know there are so many smart and talented and commited people here. Do you have ideas about how to make things better?"

I have gone into greater detail about this in my post this evening in the "Respect from Mods to Members" topic in Bugs and Complaints. If you are interested, you can read it there.

I am telling you from considerable experience that ii is going about things in a less than optimal way, that there are problems with the organizational culture and the PR approach. You can blow me off, as I already know the rest of ii will, and that is fine. You can blow off all the dozens if not hundreds of experienced and insightful people on this board that can help. It's your loss, not mine, or even the loss of our cause, because not everyone out there shares this same culture.

Do you think it makes sense for an organization that is launching a "grass-roots" lobbying organization to ignore and alienate the members of this board? Who exactly IS the "grass-roots"?

Do you think that it is healthy for the folks behind this new venture to be so clearly motivated by negatively reacting to other organizations rather than by affirmative, positive, clear objectives?

Do you think it is smart PR to announce yet another organization that has no clear mission, no strategy, little support and was born in controversy? What is the track record of the last venture, the Community of Reason? Has that rocked America?

Do you think a new political lobbying organization, started by people with, if I understand correctly,no political lobbying experience, can sustain itself with an arrogant "know-it-all" attitude?

What is the real purpose for doing this? To launch someone's political career? TO raise someone's profile? If this is a genuine public service organization dedicated to promoting a cause in the interest of the nontheist community, does it make sense to go to extraordinary lengths to remind everyone that the community is excluded?

Hey, if you think THESE are tough questions, wait until the first time you face a hostile press, or testify at a hearing, or are outmaneuvered by the NRA (the Christian group, not the gun lobby).

The correct, mature organizational response to criticism is not defensiveness, it is embrace, consideration and repair.

All I sense from this organization is defensiveness and self-righteousness.

But I don't expect my critique to be taken seriously. I have been blown off since day one.

jger1

I'd like to defuse something that has been misstated more than once in here. Ellen Johnson did NOT solicit funds for the PAC. She clearly stated that the "hat" was being passed to help pay for the many expenses of putting on the March. Makes a big difference now, right? She is in no trouble because of any particular organizational status. No PAC fund solicitation!

Check out the tapes. BTW they're for sale for approx. $60 on C-Span (Yahoo C-Span Store). Four hours and 11 minutes. Very likely of higher quality than be obtained from a home video tape and for sure better that a copy of one such.
I am the Jerry Williams that Bill and Clark exchanged emails with on GAM-Org@yahoogroups.com

lpetrich

Remember one of the lessons of "Life of Brian":

Fight the real enemy!

This pissing contest is very childish.