Buffman

D.C.

What do you find disconcerting about believing that:
n C-S seperation problems are a symptom of a larger disease,
n its more effective to treat the disease than the symptoms,
n atheists PR and image problems are caused by our over focus on C-S seperation and not much else,
n That we should be engaging the help of believers instead of bashing them

I guess that it is all a matter of perspective. I happen to believe that a wall of separation immunized America against the disease of religious/non-religious intolerance. As that wall has come under attack, physically and psychologically, that immunization has weakened. Therefore, it is time for a national booster shot. Unless there is a "legal framework" in which to promote your particular world view, in what ever manner you believe is the most effective, I have serious doubts that freedom of conscience would continue to be extended to those not in the majority belief system. World and American history would seem to support that contention. The reason that you can even begin to attempt to treat the disease is because of church-state separation. Are you claiming otherwise?

I have always advocated that we should work together with those who support church-state separation. I don't "blast" anyone who acts from accurate evidence.

The anecdote has little to do with what I'm talking about. If freethinkers had been doing what I am suggesting, there would be local freethought service organizations in almost every major American city by now. There isn't. I can't name one.

Hmmmm! Sorry! I thought you were urging folks to get out into their communities and I was attempting to demonstrate that that was not a new idea. So doing what you envision isn't worthwhile unless it is done under some sort of freethought service organization? And why do you suppose that freethought service organizations haven't sprung up all across this nation...or have they and simply don't call themselves freethought services groups? Maybe they call themselves something more generically neutral and inclusive . Not all American service organizations are faith based.

That's great but its a peice of paper.

True! But it also happens to be the piece of paper whose principles I swore to defend. My integrity is important to me. I don't give my word lightly.

If the general populace does not think it protects them but hinders them then fighting C-S seperation cases helps not. Laws change and even constitutions change. Attitudes which are supportable by the masses change before laws change. You can't change or hope to uphold laws forever if you dont have the attitudes of the public behind you to some degree.

Also true! However, doesn't that mean that we must do everything we can to be assured that the public attitude is formulated on the most accurate knowledge available? If the public attitude is formulated on lies, deceptions, and propaganda, then the laws created from such a faulty foundation will tend to promote injustice and may well lead to religious conflict and social chaos. (i.e.: The Alien & Sedition Acts, Slavery, the Women's Vote, etc.)

If all you have protecting you is laws then you aren't protected. People have to mentally enjoin themselves in that law.

And if you have no laws, then all you have is survival of the fittest and "Might is Right." Without support of the law, it's back to the jungles for those who can survive.

D-C, I do not disagree with your basic premise of there being a PR image problem in this country concerning freethinkers. Perhaps the quickest, and possibly most effective, way to change that image would be to amass a treasury that could be used to hire the most professional image makers in the country to change that image rather than expecting that there are enough motivated and qualified people to go out and do it through osmosis.

Rusting Car Bumper

Since part of your statement isnt clear let me answer this way. Obviously it depends on to what degree we would have or not have church-state seperation.

Simply because, for example, the words "under god" are in the pledge, does not prevent me from carrying forth the message that the rights of non-believers are also the rights of believers.

Think back to civil rights days. The lack of vote for blacks (i.e. literacy tests designed to keep them from voting) did not keep blacks from fighting for said rights and expressing that they were equal humans under the law and under any reasonable philosophical viewpoint.

I didnt say you did. I simply stated my "attitude" (which you had originally objected to) and part of said attitude is that atheists should stop bashing believers at the same time they fight for C-S seperation because then the two become one in the same for the otherwise neutral viewer.

This isnt clear to me. I simply think its more valuable for non-believers to do these things as non-believers. It benefits the targets of said activities and it benefits non-believers in many ways. I changes how non-believers view themselves and it changes what they are.

No, I do not believe they have sprung up under some other name.

Of course. How do you acheive the desired affect? Do you do it through filing a court case to get "under god" our of the pledge? Or do you do it by convincing EVERYONE regardless of religious belief that such CSS violations are bad for everyone?

I think we do the former almost exclusively. Further, we do it while having a bad public image displayed. We do the latter generally only as damage control.

Further, you mention political examples. Again and again I say this. Our problem in my opinion is NOT political at the root. Its a much deeper societal issue. Doing politics won't change things nearly enough just as freeing slaves didn't help them in the end.

I dont know why this is an appropriate or relevant response to my statement. I never suggested that we have "no laws."

Again. Laws are almost worthless if "the people" do not, in their respective heads, enjoin themselves to them. That's whats going on now. Many evangelical Christians do not enjoin themselves to the 1st amendment in their own heads.

Anyone is qualified. If you can breath thats about all it takes. Ive said this in many threads and I'm not going to repeat it too much.

The idea I propose is hard. Its a long term idea. It will take concerted effort and a long range outlook.

This idea of only fighting court cases or depending on slick PR people is a short term MTV sound bite style solution which, in the end, is just a bandage.

DC

Buffman

D.C.

I fear that there are simply too many areas in which we would require considerable discussion in order to make positive and productive progress. Therefore, for the moment, I choose to comment only on your concluding thoughts:

The idea I propose is hard. Its a long term idea. It will take concerted effort and a long range outlook.

That sounds very much like any religious goal. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and still hasn't gained the support of all of humanity. How does your vision differ from theirs?

I have read all your posts and still don't understand how you think you are going to bring about the major changes you desire in the American psyche concerning non-theists by what you have suggested so far. That's why I shared my small effort of 40 years ago with everyone. Please explain to me how what I did is any different than what you have been recommending. Please don't sluff it off like you did last time. I did this at the height of the Cold War and the fear of "atheistic" Communism and the increasing threat of global, thermonuclear, annilhilation... and not just from a couple of "evil Rogue States."

This idea of only fighting court cases or depending on slick PR people is a short term MTV sound bite style solution which, in the end, is just a bandage.

Well, the legal cases have certainly worked for minority religions both past and present; and the slick PR has certainly worked for the fundamentalists. How else do you explain the change in the general attitude of our populace that would cause them to elect the kinds of religious zealots and cowardly politicians to the various government positions these people now hold? Certainly not by the strength of their numbers or the validity of their beliefs. They have been extremely successful, within just the last 20 years, in selling their propaganda to the general public. Do you have a better explanation?

Rusting Car Bumper

[quote]Originally posted by Buffman:
<strong>D.C.

DC Said: The idea I propose is hard. Its a long term idea. It will take concerted effort and a long range outlook.

Buffman said: That sounds very much like any religious goal. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and still hasn't gained the support of all of humanity. How does your vision differ from theirs? </strong>

I have no idea where you got this from. I'm not trying to prescribe that others be atheists or non-believers as Christians do. Thats how they are different.

The goal is simply not the same at all. A Christian's goal is to make everyone a Christian. My goal is to do what is necessary to earn the common default respect for non-believers that is automatically given to other groups.

I apologize if you misinterpreted my attempt at efficiency as a "sluff off."

See my message in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000527&p=3" target="_blank">this thead</a> which was posted August 01, 2002 09:54 AM. (There are other comments by myself on that thread so make sure you see the correct one.) Its rather long so thats why I did not repeat it here.

I know its not exactly what you wanted but I'm not sure what exactly you are unsure of. Perhaps you can refer to that particular post and I can be more helpful.

I don't think you are thinking deeply enough or recognizing the lessons of history. Anything can happen. Did anyone in modern secularized Iran circa 1975 think that it would be in the state it is in today? Did anyone in the former USSR in 1988 (or 1980) think that it would shift so rapidly? There were laws in these two places and these laws were fleeting paper tigers because enough people ignored them.

OK. These are extreme cases but shows that laws are useless if the mass of people arent ready to stand behind them. That very well could happen here if people are not convinced that CSS benefits them regardless of religion and IF (and a big important if) the see non-believers as pariahs and outsiders.

What it is the result of doesn't matter that much. Many people BELIEVE that non-believers are unamerican to a more or less degree. Many people BELIEVE that they are immoral. Many people BELIEVE that nonbelievers are not to be trusted.

It is those beliefs that we have to change. I am simply proposing one method of changing them. Its centainly not the only possible one.

I don't think court cases will change these beliefs. We ahve already heard of a movement to amend the Constitution. This should give warning to us that laws are only paper thin. If we change enough peoples attitudes in a deeper way than just by changing people's political opinions then we have essentially won because no amendment could be passed and life would generally be more tolerant for us all.

DC

Stephen Maturin

Yet another petition for rehearing can be downloaded (again in Acrobat Reader/pdf format) from <a href="http://www.aclj.org/index.asp" target="_blank">this page</a>. This one's actually an amicus brief drafted by Jay Sekulow and his merry band of theocratic legal apologists. He filed the brief on behalf of the American Center for Law and Justice (how's that for a singularly grotesque perversion of the English language!) and a gaggle of Republican House members.

Haven't had time to examine Sekulow's brief in detail, but so far I've see nothing new. It appears to be basically the same borderline-sanctionable misuse of authority that Hezekiah Jones demolished in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000440&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen Maturin ]</p>

Toto

Best argument from that brief:

THe ACLJ basically argues that the Supreme Court has said many times that there is no problem with a reference to God in the Pledge, so there must not be. Just because those references were dicta, and just because the Supreme Court is not totally consistant, is no reason to abandon that language and apply logic!

Buffman

Digital C.

The goal is simply not the same at all. A Christian's goal is to make everyone a Christian. My goal is to do what is necessary to earn the common default respect for non-believers that is automatically given to other groups.

I am not as convinced as you seem to be that the Christian's goal is to make everyone else Christian. However, I completely concur with your position about doing things that can help produce a "common default respect." Again, I believe that is exactly what a good many people have been doing for a long time and why I was somewhat non-plused when you seemingly choose to ignore my example. (An axample that could be used as easily today as it was 40 years ago.)

Thanks for the specific reference. That was a grand help. I was simply too lazy to go look for it.

(1) Pick a day in which a rally of sorts will be held in all 50 state capitals. Call it "All States Day" or something like that.

Is there a current non-theist organization capable of mounting-coordinating such an undertaking or are you seeking some sort of grass roots motivation to get out there and participate? It isn't that it's not a great way to go, but the specifics of how this gets instigated leaves me with many questions. Ones I have dealt with before and decided that if I didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. So I took a chance and did something.

(2) Allow each state to conduct its own event as it sees fit. Each state develops its own strategy -- its own rules for inclusion and exclusion, its own mentods of promotion, its own message, and its own budget.

Again this would seem to presuppose that there are organizations in each state that would be anxious to participate to the extent that you appear to envision. Again, if you have this kind of responsive, national, organization already in place and highly motivated with members willing to participate, and with the means to carry it off, that would be great. Isn't that what AA is attempting to do with the Godless March? They know that they aren't strong enough in every state to do what you suggest, so they have elected to bring as many participants as possible to the seat of government for a rally/ demonstration of grievance.

(3) Create a coordinating center (a secure discussion forum) where state organizers can post and discuss their various ideas, plans, deadlines in relative security among themselves.

I rather suspect that AA is already doing exactly that. (At least I hope so.)

(4) Include an option for soliciting contributions. If the Hawaii delegation has an interesting idea, they can post a proposal in the hopes of soliciting funds. Those with funds can contribute to the plans that they find the most worthy.

Isn't that what many of us are doing already? I send my contributions to those organizations that are best representative of my concerns/interests. The primary problem I see here is knowing that the contributions will go to any proposed undertaking. That means that the organization receiving any funds must have a structure that can be trusted by any potential contributor.

(5) On All States Day, look at the results and see what seemed to have unusual success and what did not. Look at the coverage. Look at how the events were spun.

A common sense, "Lessons Learned," post actions review. But first there must be something to review.

(6) Distribute the findings to those who will find them useful.

Simply make the findings available to those requesting them. Charge only as required to cover expense of producing the findings.

I don't think you are thinking deeply enough or recognizing the lessons of history.

Perhaps not. However, I have been around since 1935 and experienced rather a good deal of what many folks only know from the history books.

OK. These are extreme cases but shows that laws are useless if the mass of people arent ready to stand behind them. That very well could happen here if people are not convinced that CSS benefits them regardless of religion and IF (and a big important if) the see non-believers as pariahs and outsiders.

You don't have to site Iran or Russia to support your position. American history is filled with such instances.

What it is the result of doesn't matter that much. Many people BELIEVE that non-believers are unamerican to a more or less degree. Many people BELIEVE that they are immoral. Many people BELIEVE that nonbelievers are not to be trusted.

We must agree to disagree on that one. WHY do some people believe that? What/who and how were they convinced that such was the case? What is the goal/agenda of those who are selling this case? The sales techniques are as old as humanity. Unfortunately for any minority, today's media controllers have a nearly instant, world-wide, audience for their mis-information, dis-information, propaganda and outright lies. Propaganda techniques reach into every home and every mind on an almost constant 24 hour basis. Just look at how fast the Senators had that resolution on the "under God" issue surfaced , signed and issued. I hope you don't think that any of them wrote it right after the news of the 9th Circuit decision was released. I hope you don't think that all the protestors were personally aware of the findings. They were following a plan of how to respond to exactly this sort of finding/decision. Naturally they picked up some real nut cases as supporters. But there is little doubt in my mind that there is a well organized and oiled machine behind that initial negative response. (I have discussed this entire subject elsewhere...many times.)

It is those beliefs that we have to change. I am simply proposing one method of changing them. Its centainly not the only possible one.

I do understand...honestly. I am all for any approach that has a reasonable chance of changing public opinion about Freethinkers. I simply don't see how your proposals will change enough minds fast enough to make a timely difference. The people of Iran didn't rebel because of something that happened overnight. The Shah's Savak (Secret Police...trained and armed to a great extent by America) had become a symbol for anti-Shah resistance for many years. The Savak was a brutal, bloody, oppressive organization.--- The USSR faced an entirely different set of internal problems. Far too many to discuss here. However, the War in Afghanistan was very likely the final item of disenchantment with the central, Communist, government. (Don't doubt for one second that the war in Chechnya hasn't placed a great strain on the Putin government. That latest loss of 85 soldiers in the recent helicopter shoot-down helps to underscore why Putin has closed down all the formerly independent media outlets in Russia. The public reaction to the loss of all those sailors on the Kursk warned him what could happen as more and more people became dissatisfied with government secrecy and propaganda. (Last August, my youngest son and his family returned from three years living in Moscow. The big problem is that the alternative to Putin may be far worse. Russia still remains the only country in the world capable of obliterating the United States.)

I don't think court cases will change these beliefs. We ahve already heard of a movement to amend the Constitution. This should give warning to us that laws are only paper thin. If we change enough peoples attitudes in a deeper way than just by changing people's political opinions then we have essentially won because no amendment could be passed and life would generally be more tolerant for us all.

I agree completely about the necessity to change opinions. But how do you change public opinion fast enough to counter these Christian Nation Bills from reaching floor votes and the politicians worrying about the new sentiments of their constituents enough to vote against them. We are at war....aren't we? We are scared of the next attack ...aren't we? Don't you trust our government? Don't you want to protect America from another attack from within? In those famous Christian fundamentalist words, "You are either with us or you are against us." And never forget, Jesus is our President's most beloved philosopher. If you are against the President, then you must be against Jesus. (BARF!)

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Rusting Car Bumper

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Buffman:
<strong>
(1) Pick a day in which a rally of sorts will be held in all 50 state capitals. Call it "All States Day" or something like that.

(2) Allow each state to conduct its own event as it sees fit. Each state develops its own strategy -- its own rules for inclusion and exclusion, its own mentods of promotion, its own message, and its own budget.
(3) Create a coordinating center (a secure discussion forum) where state organizers can post and discuss their various ideas, plans, deadlines in relative security among themselves.
(4) Include an option for soliciting contributions. If the Hawaii delegation has an interesting idea, they can post a proposal in the hopes of soliciting funds. Those with funds can contribute to the plans that they find the most worthy.</strong>

Im not sure at all why you quoted these. I didn't say any of this. Are you sure you read the correct message?

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

You ae parsing words too much. So much so that you are helping statements lose their meaning.

The only reason I compared one Christian goal to the one I proposed was because you compared two goals (not defined) first. Frankly, I havent the vaguest idea how you came up the the comparison between 2000 years of Chrsitianity and my proposed goal. I wouldnt have attempted a response had you not mentioned it.

References to some message I didn't post have been deleted.

The lessons of history are far older than any human lifetime.

Again. I think this misses the boat and there is too much parsing. My next door neighbor doesn't think atheists are bad because of CNN. He thinks they are bad because the only unbeliever he has seen is Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Go read the thread I posted in the previous message. I go through a "put yourself in the believers shoes" thought experiment. This answers your question.


That's because (1) there is no quick fix. That's simply a fact of life. Its to darned bad if you don't like it. and (2) I think you read the wrong message and attributed it to me.

The rest of your message I think is derived from an incorrect premise because it responds in part to the message you wrongly attributed to me. Thus, I won't respond to it.

DC

hezekiah jones

Teehee.

Jay $ekulow, can you say, "<a href="http://www.vsb.org/profguides/index.html" target="_blank">Candor Toward the Tribunal</a>"?