Freethought & Rationalism Archive

marylandnaturegirl · 07-25-2002, 08:02 PM

This is in reference to the Godless Americans March on Washington DC
slated for Nov 1st and 2nd.

This message came to me because I am a webmaster of two Yahoo! Groups that are endorsing it

Religion-Free Washington DC Zone
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/religionfreedc/" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/religionfreedc/</a>

& Single Atheists

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SingleAtheists" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SingleAtheists</a>

Hope this clears a lot up:

Quote:

To: Sponsoring Groups, GODLESS AMERICANS MARCH ON WASHINGTON
From: Ellen Johnson, Chairperson. "Godless Americans Task Force"

Dear friends:

As you may know, there are already nearly eighty organizations such
as yours that have endorsed the November 2, 2002 GODLESS AMERICANS
MARCH ON WASHINGTON. I wanted to touch base with you concerning
the list of endorsers.

We envision the Godless Americans March on Washington to be a
statement of unity -- certainly on behalf of the participating
organizations. We cannot speak for all "Godless Americans," that
diverse community of some 30 million people who, according to the
recent American Religious Identification Survey, identify themselves
as having "no religion." We can, however point to this growing
segment of the American population as a potential force on behalf
of positive change in culture and politics -- a force to be reckoned
with.

We also acknowledge that there are differences between and among
the dozens of groups which have endorsed the November 2 action.
We go by different labels, for instance. We have different
"styles," and modes of organization. Some of us want to be
activists, others might wish to play a different role. Madalyn
O'Hair once said that trying to organize Atheists is like trying
to herd cats (or butterflies), so imagine the problems under this
"big umbrella" of "Godless Americans"!

We're delighted, though, by the success. Atheists, Humanists,
Secularists, Freethinkers and others -- Godless Americans all --
are realizing that we often have more in common than we have
differences. We can, and should, cooperate where possible on an
ad-hoc basis, one that emphasizes mutual respect, a polite
acknowledgment of what makes each of our groups unique, a willing
to work together when possible and to "speak no ill" of our fellow
nonbelievers by making personal attacks.

We will not agree on everything. No social cause movement in
American history has been truly monolithic. From Union activists
to Blacks, from Women to Gays and Lesbians, movements for cultural
and political enlightenment have often been characterized by
principled differences. We hope that these clefts in our movement
can be minimized, that we can work together when and where possible,
and that we can politely "agree to disagree" when and where we must.

Some individuals have raised concerns about select organizations
endorsing the Godless Americans March on Washington and have asked
that we remove their names from the endorsement page of the website.
I want to share with you the perspective of the Godless Americans
Task Force on the criteria for endorsement and our position on
this issue. The main criteria for your group -- and every other
organizations as well -- that wish to endorse the November 2, 2002
action is agreement with the general statement of principles, and
that the organization concerned be "godless." We devised this
criteria in order to create a "big tent," a welcoming and open
climate that would encourage as many diverse groups, and individuals,
to feel comfortable and participate. We have worked hard to
accomplish that agenda.

Unfortunately, there are concerns about some of the organizations
endorsing the March, and even demands that they be excluded. Some
have hinted that unless this is done, they will not be joining
their fellow Godless Americans on the mall in Washington, DC. And
some fear that the presence of such organizations taints the march,
and threatens to attract negative media publicity.

I think this would be a great loss, not only to the March on
Washington but the broader causes we are trying to rally around.
Organized religion -- not Godless Americans -- would end up the
winner here!

We do not want to "pick and choose" who is an "authentic" godless
group. Some might argue that a Humanist organization should be
excluded because, say, there is a Humanist "chaplain" in Boston.
Others are simply scared of the "A-word," Atheist. Others might
object to the notion of a godless or Freethought "church." What
if other individuals wanted to eliminate a "Queer Atheist"
organization that endorsed the march, fearing that their presence
-- or the participation of some other group -- might attract undue
media attention, or thwart our efforts to establish ourselves more
in the cultural and political mainstream?

Where do we draw the line?

So far, all of the organizations endorsing the March declare that
they are "godless." I personally have talked to individuals
connected with some of the groups in question. I may not agree
with the labels they use, or other things about their organization;
but if they declare themselves to be "godless," they should be
permitted to openly endorse The Godless Americans March. Indeed,
some of the groups endorsing the November 2 action have not always
enjoyed the friendliest possible relations with the organization
I head -- American Atheists. I think that all of us want to put
past differences behind us, where possible, and cooperate when
and where we can.

We do not intend to exclude any individual or group on the basis
of race, sexuality, or some other arbitrary criteria. Someone
might have a personal distaste for an individual or organization
that happens to endorse the march. But who decides which "godless"
group stays, and which would be eliminated? Not everyone will
agree on that.

The only possible harm here is in generating needless and
counterproductive divisiveness. With Supreme Court decisions
defending the First Amendment separation of government and
religion under attack and a "religion friendly" agenda rolling
ahead on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures across the land,
I think that Godless Americans need to stand together, united.
That's also the message I hear from many of you.

I remain convinced that by working together, the Godless Americans
March on Washington will be a historic "first" for our diverse
community. We intend to project a competent, mainstream and
professional image, and convey our message to media and the public
in a thoughtful, articulate, principled manner. But we need your
help and participation to do that!

We do have differences. We also have a great deal in common.
We have much to gain by working together, much to lose by
squabbling over what I think are minor points -- labels, personal
distaste, or other things which serve to divide us. The March is,
and should be, open to all lawful groups and individuals who
consider themselves Godless Americans.

Thanks for your patience and support! And I look forward to
seeing you and members from your group on the Mall in Washington, DC
on November 2, 2002!

ELLEN JOHNSON, Chairperson
"Godless Americans March on Washington" Task Force
President, American Atheists
>>>>>>>>>>>&gt ;

<a href="http://www.godlessamericans.org" target="_blank">http://www.godlessamericans.org</a>

Autonemesis · 07-25-2002, 08:31 PM

My sentiments exactly. Well said.

Alonzo Fyfe · 07-25-2002, 09:10 PM

Where do we draw the line?

One place to draw the line would be between good and evil. What about a group of NAZI atheists who believe in rounding up all the Jews and killing them? Surprisingly, such a group would not violate the "principles" of the march. By the arguments listed here, such a group should not be excluded.

The fact is, life is filled with drawing lines. One cannot get away from it. Even if somebody says, "everybody is invited," they are drawing a line.

The question is not whether to draw a line or not -- a line will be drawn. The only question that exists is WHERE to draw that line.

But who decides which "godless" group stays, and which would be eliminated?

Again, the fact is, a decision will be made.

It is patently absurd to read a letter from somebody who is asking "Who gets to decide?" in a letter in which she is announcing her decision.

Not everyone will agree on that.

Not everyone will agree with this either. If the principle in play is: "Do not say anything about which somebody will disagree," then do not say anything. And even THAT will find disagreement.

In all, this letter is substantially a contradiction. It draws a line by saying that no line can be drawn. It makes a decision by saying that no decision can be made. It asserts an authority to make decisions by somebody who asserts that no authority to make decisions is to be had.

The fact is, lines will be drawn. The only question to ask is "what justifies drawing a line here rather than there." And the response, "We justify drawing the line here because no line can be drawn" just does not make sense.

The fact is, decisions will be made. The only question to ask is "what justifies deciding this way rather than some other." And the response, "We decide this way because there is no decision to be made" just does not make sense.

The fact is, people are going to have to take authority and responsibility for those decisions. The only question to ask is, "what justifies the authority and responsibility for the decisions made." And the response, "I exercise this authority because there is no authority to be exercised", again, does not make sense.

Would you accept the NAZI atheists advocating the death camps for Jews? If the answer is 'yes', then there is a problem. If the answer is 'no', then the whole argument that there is no line to be drawn, no decisions that can be justified, and no authority to be exercised, simply does not hold up to reasonable analysis.

Krieger · 07-25-2002, 09:38 PM

Obviously they would never let Nazis endorse the march. No one even remotely like that (racists or fascists) have endorsed it anyway.

Autonemesis · 07-25-2002, 09:43 PM

Alonzo, I don't think Ellen Johnson is proposing a model for governing society, or even any persistent organization of atheists. This is just a march. If atheist Nazis try to endorse, Ellen and her sponsoring organization can use their discretion, which I predict will be to decline the endorsement should that situation arise. Whatever they decide, if the rest of the endorsing organizations and participants agree, then the march is not in any danger. "Ruling" by consensus on an ad hoc basis is fine for a venture of this nature. Call it mob rule if you will, but this is a peaceful venture and anyone is free to withdraw. Ellen is just trying to emphasize the main focus of the march. Why advertise who will be excluded, when that is antithesis of what the march is trying to accomplish, and no such organization has come forward?

lpetrich · 07-25-2002, 10:16 PM

In the case of Nazi atheists, tell them about all the Jewish atheists that will be joining in.

The idea is that they won't want to be associated with something too "Jewish", though they may be the immature sort who likes to pick fights.

Toto · 07-25-2002, 10:25 PM

That was a very insulting press release. The issue is self-proclaimed Satanists joining the march as "godless". Johnson is being disingenuous in talking about possible reaction to Gay Atheists or Humanists who maintain chaplains.

Krieger · 07-25-2002, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
<strong>That was a very insulting press release. The issue is self-proclaimed Satanists joining the march as "godless". Johnson is being disingenuous in talking about possible reaction to Gay Atheists or Humanists who maintain chaplains.</strong>

Actually, that was not a press release. It was just something they e-mailed to all of the endorsing organizations.

Alonzo Fyfe · 07-26-2002, 05:06 AM

I would like to applogize for the tone of my previous post.

The content of the letter touched a nerve, not with respect to the decision that was expressed within, but with respect to the logic that was used to defend it.

I think that it is one of the most distracting fallacies in ethics, to draw a line based on the assertion that no line can be drawn.

The fact is, a line is being drawn, a decision is being made.

So, rather than assert the obvious contradiction that this is based on the idea that no line can be drawn and no decision can be made, I would have preferred to have heard an argument explaining why the line was drawn here and not somewhere else, of why this is the right decision and the alternatives would have been a wrong decision.

I would prefer never to hear the rhetorical questions: "Where do we draw the line?" and "But who decides...?" offered in argument by the very person who is drawing a line and making a decision.

It just drives me nuts every time I hear or read that contradiction.

Ron Garrett · 07-26-2002, 06:19 AM

I've sent this to Ellen in response to her letter:

Quote:

Hi Ellen:

On Internet Infidels I saw your letter to supporting groups and organizations about standards for inclusion in the event, i.e. "ya'll come." Several people shared a reaction I echoe, i.e. that the letter was evasive of the issue of concern for many of us, i.e. being identified with "Satanists."

However an individual Satanist organization may identify itself or its doctine, the broad association of Satanism, both in mythology and fact, with devil worship and various superstitious practices serves to taint atheism with an image of merely being the dark and skulking side of theism, as opposed to a rational world view that rejects these superstitions altogether.

I am willing and anxious to associate myself with this event. I am not willing to associate myself with superstitious rituals and magick makers. I am fully aware that this is a popular view of Satanism that cannot be broadly applied to all identifying themselves as Satanists, but at the same time, I see no possibility of atheists appearing mainstream if fundamentalists are provided the easy target of opportunity afforded by the official participation of Satanic groups in this event. Such an association will only serve to make us the target of vehement and mindless acts of oppression and discrimination, and will prompt endless streams of cash to TV evangelists for their new campaigns against "the forces of Satan."

Sincerely,
Ron Garrett

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-25-2002, 08:31 PM	#2
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	My sentiments exactly. Well said.

07-25-2002, 09:10 PM	#3
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	Where do we draw the line? One place to draw the line would be between good and evil. What about a group of NAZI atheists who believe in rounding up all the Jews and killing them? Surprisingly, such a group would not violate the "principles" of the march. By the arguments listed here, such a group should not be excluded. The fact is, life is filled with drawing lines. One cannot get away from it. Even if somebody says, "everybody is invited," they are drawing a line. The question is not whether to draw a line or not -- a line will be drawn. The only question that exists is WHERE to draw that line. But who decides which "godless" group stays, and which would be eliminated? Again, the fact is, a decision will be made. It is patently absurd to read a letter from somebody who is asking "Who gets to decide?" in a letter in which she is announcing her decision. Not everyone will agree on that. Not everyone will agree with this either. If the principle in play is: "Do not say anything about which somebody will disagree," then do not say anything. And even THAT will find disagreement. In all, this letter is substantially a contradiction. It draws a line by saying that no line can be drawn. It makes a decision by saying that no decision can be made. It asserts an authority to make decisions by somebody who asserts that no authority to make decisions is to be had. The fact is, lines will be drawn. The only question to ask is "what justifies drawing a line here rather than there." And the response, "We justify drawing the line here because no line can be drawn" just does not make sense. The fact is, decisions will be made. The only question to ask is "what justifies deciding this way rather than some other." And the response, "We decide this way because there is no decision to be made" just does not make sense. The fact is, people are going to have to take authority and responsibility for those decisions. The only question to ask is, "what justifies the authority and responsibility for the decisions made." And the response, "I exercise this authority because there is no authority to be exercised", again, does not make sense. Would you accept the NAZI atheists advocating the death camps for Jews? If the answer is 'yes', then there is a problem. If the answer is 'no', then the whole argument that there is no line to be drawn, no decisions that can be justified, and no authority to be exercised, simply does not hold up to reasonable analysis.

07-25-2002, 09:38 PM	#4
Krieger Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: ... Posts: 2,191	Obviously they would never let Nazis endorse the march. No one even remotely like that (racists or fascists) have endorsed it anyway.

07-25-2002, 09:43 PM	#5
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	Alonzo, I don't think Ellen Johnson is proposing a model for governing society, or even any persistent organization of atheists. This is just a march. If atheist Nazis try to endorse, Ellen and her sponsoring organization can use their discretion, which I predict will be to decline the endorsement should that situation arise. Whatever they decide, if the rest of the endorsing organizations and participants agree, then the march is not in any danger. "Ruling" by consensus on an ad hoc basis is fine for a venture of this nature. Call it mob rule if you will, but this is a peaceful venture and anyone is free to withdraw. Ellen is just trying to emphasize the main focus of the march. Why advertise who will be excluded, when that is antithesis of what the march is trying to accomplish, and no such organization has come forward?

07-25-2002, 10:16 PM	#6
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	In the case of Nazi atheists, tell them about all the Jewish atheists that will be joining in. The idea is that they won't want to be associated with something too "Jewish", though they may be the immature sort who likes to pick fights.

07-25-2002, 10:25 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	That was a very insulting press release. The issue is self-proclaimed Satanists joining the march as "godless". Johnson is being disingenuous in talking about possible reaction to Gay Atheists or Humanists who maintain chaplains.

07-26-2002, 05:06 AM	#9
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	I would like to applogize for the tone of my previous post. The content of the letter touched a nerve, not with respect to the decision that was expressed within, but with respect to the logic that was used to defend it. I think that it is one of the most distracting fallacies in ethics, to draw a line based on the assertion that no line can be drawn. The fact is, a line is being drawn, a decision is being made. So, rather than assert the obvious contradiction that this is based on the idea that no line can be drawn and no decision can be made, I would have preferred to have heard an argument explaining why the line was drawn here and not somewhere else, of why this is the right decision and the alternatives would have been a wrong decision. I would prefer never to hear the rhetorical questions: "Where do we draw the line?" and "But who decides...?" offered in argument by the very person who is drawing a line and making a decision. It just drives me nuts every time I hear or read that contradiction.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.