galiel

I suppose Rosa Parks had more force than Hoover.

I suppose Gandhi was richer than the British Empire.

I suppose Elizabeth Cady Stanton was more powerful than the entire male political, social and economic hierarchy of the United States.

I suppose Margaret Sanger had some previously unknown source of training to resist the Comstock Laws and bring birth control to American women.

And how to you explain Major General Nathaniel Greene, second to Washington and the man credited by more historians with more influence on America's victory in the War of Independence than any other? What training did he have that would have explained his success, let alone his qualification to be even a low-ranking officer? None.

There are always instances of unsuccessful endeavors, and for every example you tout I can cite many counter-examples. That is beside the point.

The point is that the freethought movement has in recent decades become fearful, cautious, inwardlooking and complacent. We spend too much time preaching to the choir, not enough time talking to the world.

The point is that we need to make noise, not sit in our drawerrooms and fantasize about marshalling single-minded troops.

I have waited long enough, I am tired of joining organizations which do little more than ask for my donations and preach to the choir.

I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore, and, since there is nothing special about me, I suspect that there are many other nonbelievers who feel the same way. This is one of those rare opportunities to fan the growing sparks of discontent into a raging fire.

This is an opportunity to launch something new; a popular movement, not one carefully organized and strategized by the elite, but a broad-based, grass-roots movement of people united in their unwillingness to be disinvited to the American party.

I prefer to learn from people other than the Taliban. We each derive our life-affirming lessons from whence we feel they are most valuable.

Perhaps that is the problem. No one ever changed the world by doing what was reasonable.

I suppose you would have counselled Gandhi to stop being so naive...I suppose you would have counseled Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus like a good little girl and let those with "resources, training and qualifications" handle things.

Sigh. I spent my youth trying to reason with believers. I would much rather spend my remaining energy campaigning for atheist rights to practice what they believe in a free society without condemnation.

Perhaps if atheists can openly participate in society, more people would be likely to consider the merits of a life free from belief. It's a bit hard sell when conditions are what they are today. Don't you think we can join in common cause--making life better for atheists in America?

Um, precisely the opposite. You are telling me that one needs resources, training and qualifications to fight, I am saying one needs ordinary people committed to act.

Just to cite one example out of many, gays constitute a smaller percentage of the population than nonbelievers. Gays did not have equal rights under the law, had no acceptance in popular society, and had to hide in the closet even more avidly than we do. The first D.C demontration for gay rights had just a handful of participants. If those brave few people had listened to "prudent, experienced" people like you, we would still be in a situation with well-meaning people wringing their hands and commiserating with their own, rather than the sea-change we have seen in the past 20 years.

Where did Gandhi derive the power to resist the full might of the British Empire? For that matter, just look at the the civil rights movement. You might be surprised at the conservative judges whose minds were changed and who ultimately overturned segregation.

The fact that force often imposes its will does not mean it is the only way to succeed--that is the argument sold to us by people in power, in order to weaken the people's will to resist. Most times, it is powerless people rising up who defeat powerful oppression.

Besides, you keep using actual violent conflicts as your examples. We don't have to overthrow anything, we merely need to campaign, within our constitutionally protected rights to campaign, for our constitutionally protected rights to equal treatment. It has worked before in this country. Stop giving me examples of the Taliban and start looking at 20th century America.

You should read "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell. It takes less than you think to create a critical mass for change.

The fact is that, historically, it is more often than not the actions of very small numbers of people who ultimately change the direction of history.

Since you seem deferential to authority, I would note that Paul Kurtz has been calling for increased exposure and increased activity, particularly in the political arena, for quite some time now. He is largely being ignored by the atheist "orthodoxy", such as it is, despite his prominent role in creating it. One private individual, Dr. Newdow, has acted, on his own, and look at the powerful discussions he has generated.

Also witness AA's decision to move ahead with the DC march, and the willingess of other organizations to endorse it, despite their reservations about AA itself.

It is time to act. Time to stop talking and planning and making excuses, and to act.

If you disagree, fine. I have no interest in "converting" you. Some people get it, some people don't. That is fine. What I don't understand are the voices of people who are trying to squelsh this popular movement and push us unruly masses back into the closet so that "qualified" people can continue their current ineffective path.

The results.

Should I bother to cite all the critical, norm-changing cases that were brought by "unqualified", resource-poor individuals in the past 200 years? Unfounded excuses is all I hear.

Look. I have no doubt that what I am saying is uncomfortable. I have no doubt that many here wish I would just go away (just as they wish Newdow would just go away). It is more comfortable, ironically, to moan about the futility of it all than to act anyway.

I spent all too much of my life trying to make friends and be agreeable. 9/11 was the final straw. I'd rather have "he was an irritating gadfly, but he made a difference" inscribed on my tombstone than "he was properly deferential to those with resources, training and qualifications."

Would you make the same argument if your boss was embezzling money, or discriminating against non-whites? Would you even WORK for someone who was a virulent anti-semite, called employees "niggers" or who openly groped women? All you are revealing here is the relatively small value you place on your right to self-determination and free expression as an atheist in a free society. All you are revealing is that, in the grand scheme of things, you don't think it's a big deal to be a theist bigot. Not if the bigot is paying your bills. I do NOT agree.

Ironically, you will find your arguments strongly echo those who urged civil rights leaders not to act, and women not to fight for their rights, and gays not to increase their visibility lest their be backlash. Thankfully, in each case, individual people got tired of being deferential and patient, and decided to act.

I suppose Rosa Parks and MLK and countless others had nothing to fear when they took action, and paid no price for their courage and commitment.

I, too have a family and a mortgage, I am facing repercussions because of my decision to live with integrity. I will be driving down to DC (hopefully carpooling) because I can't afford to take a train, let alone a bus, and I may have to drive back the same night, unless I find free accomodations.

Your assumption that the only people who speak out are those who can afford to speak out is not supported by the facts. If anything, it is those who have the most to lose who most often find the courage to leap into the void. Comfort breeds complacency.

That is a myth so often repeated that we have started to believe it is true. One does not have to be a fanatic or a zealot in order to fight for what one thinks is right, and one does not have to be an army of identical clones in order to share common interests. I hardly think one could characterize all those who fought for civil rights, or all those who supported equality for gays, or all those who fought against Nazism, as fanatics. Does anyone in the "rainbow" think it is right for atheists to be treated as second-class citizens? Does anyone in the "rainbow" approve of Bush Sr. saying that atheists should not be considered citizens?

Furthermore, are you suggesting that the entire theist population of the United States supports the oppression of atheists? Believe me, that is far from the truth. Most people act out of ignorance and fear, not maliciousness. We are not fighting 85% of the population, only those who abuse their power and influence to deny others their rights. And we are lucky to live in a country that provides demonstrated opportunities for ordinary people to precipitate great change.

What you say only has merit if you assume the goal is to convert the world to atheism. That is not what is at issue here. The goal (my goal, at least) is to be heard and recognized as equal Americans by American society, regardless of their personal beliefs, and to freely raise my children to freely choose their own beliefs without shame.

What leads you to think not? Perhaps you are not willing to. I have "come out", quite vocally and publicly, and in coming days intend to do whatever one, single, ordinary individual can do to make noise and be an irritant to the comfortable. Whether or not I am being reasonable or am "qualified" is besides the point. It is a thing worth doing.

I would emphasis, however, that the "war", as you insist on calling it, is not for "our" ideas to win and defeat their beliefs; the "war" is to open the minds and hearts of America and practice the tolerance for diversity that is so often preached.

It is interesting that you choose to characterize those who prefer action over rhetoric as uninformed and naive. After studying the way many successful popular movements have operated, and the way many successful people have attained their goals, I have come to the conclusion that action is more important than anything else. Rather than fall into the trap of debating its merits forever, why don't we just each pursue our choices and see what works. I am less concerned about which tactic is effective than I am about actually seeing change come about. I do not intend to waste any energy fighting against existing freethough organizations. I do not, however, intend to follow their lead. So far, their effectiveness in recent years as far as swaying popular opinion has been vanishingly small, despite their resources, training and qualification, which are undoubtedly more impressive than mine.

Then you should have no problems with a call for a broad-based, spontaneous, grass-roots activist movement. Instead, you seem to be counseling that we wait until the right leader, the right resources, the right time, the right alignment of planets, before we act. Kind of negates your last point, doesn't it?

In effect, you are challenging my call for action with a call for prudence. What are you afraid of? Why should this (according to you) amorphous, weakly committed "rainbow" commit to following a single course of action dictated by those with "resources, training and (most troublesome,elitist phrase of all) "qualifications"?

Your kind of "organization" tends to exclude and select and create hierarchies of power. Been there, done that. It's time to stop waiting for an atheist messiah, time to take actions into our own hands.

You know those out-of-control, devastating wildfires in the West? Let's ignite one in the public imagination. Not by carefully planning, but simply by generating lots and lots of sparks.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Buffman

I suppose Rosa Parks had more force than Hoover.
I suppose Gandhi was richer than the British Empire.
I suppose Elizabeth Cady Stanton was more powerful than the entire male political, social and economic hierarchy of the United States.
I suppose Margaret Sanger had some previously unknown source of training to resist the Comstock Laws and bring birth control to American women.

Exactly how did these individuals accomplish what they did? Specifically, if you will.

And how to you explain Major General Nathaniel Greene, second to Washington and the man credited by more historians with more influence on America's victory in the War of Independence than any other? What training did he have that would have explained his success, let alone his qualification to be even a low-ranking officer? None.

<a href="http://www.qmfound.com/MG_Nathanael_Greene.htm" target="_blank">http://www.qmfound.com/MG_Nathanael_Greene.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/lafayette.html" target="_blank">http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/lafayette.html</a>

About MG. Greene's military leadership and operational brilliance there can be little argument. That he was one of Washington's most trusted officers there can be no argument. However, I can certainly question any historian who would attempt to claim that the Continental Army could have won the War for Independence without the aid of some of our native Americans and the French Army, Navy, and material support.

There isn't much effort required to single out individuals, after-the-fact, upon whom the credit for change, for better or worse, is bestowed. What you seem unwilling to appreciate is that a valid principle requires no one specific person of great person will in order to produce chance. It wasn't simply MG. Greene's willpower that allowed him to recapture most of the South from the British. He had learned his military craft well before he was given that assignment. Then it took the training of the men, the material resources that allowed them to fight, enormous individual acts of courage, and great planning how to carry out the individual battles that could lead to victory. Normally, Generals get the credit, or infamy, for what the people under their command do or don't accomplish. The fact that Greene actually served as a private at one point provided him with experiences seldom shared by many officers.

There are always instances of unsuccessful endeavors, and for every example you tout I can cite many counter-examples. That is beside the point.

Au contraire! It is exactly the point. Why does one crusade fail and another succeed? I have discovered that many "willful" people are slow learners from experience. They keep making the same mistakes over and over again. I would prefer to follow someone who learns from the mistakes of the past rather than follow someone whose willful arrogance clouds their good judgment.

The point is that the freethought movement has in recent decades become fearful, cautious, inwardlooking and complacent.

Exactly what makes you the all-knowing judge of this? Personally I think the free thought movement has made great strides forward. If it hadn't, I doubt that the fundamentalist Christians would be screaming as loud as they are about being oppressed. Thay certainly aren't accusing other Christians of oppressing...are they?

We spend too much time preaching to the choir, not enough time talking to the world.

In this, I am in complete agreement. However, how do you propose to get our case (facts) before the greater public? Do you have the means to buy your own national TV/Radio network? Perhaps you plan to cross the country on a bicycle carrying a sign. It might capture some media coverage...or less desirable outcome. Of course you could attempt to go stage a sitdown protest in front of Air Force One. (By-the-way, whatever did happen to that courageous young Chinese student who stood in front of those ChiCom tanks? That took enormous willpower.)

The point is that we need to make noise,...

What kind of noise? (Don't get me wrong! Obviously I am enjoying your emotional platitudes or I won't bother to keep responding. Who knows? You may actually surface a new and viable course of action and how it can be successfully accomplished.)

...not sit in our drawerrooms and fantasize about marshalling single-minded troops.
I have waited long enough, I am tired of joining organizations which do little more than ask for my donations and preach to the choir.
I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore, and, since there is nothing special about me, I suspect that there are many other nonbelievers who feel the same way. This is one of those rare opportunities to fan the growing sparks of discontent into a raging fire.

Oh my, yes! I can smell the burning meat now. Damn! I think my feet are on fire. (I know! I know! Don't go in the kitchen if you are afraid of getting burned. However, neither do I have any intention of walking into a burning house and expecting my willpower or screams to save me.)

This is an opportunity to launch something new; a popular movement, ...

Popular?

not one carefully organized and strategized by the elite,

Whom, exactly, do you consider to be "elite" free thinkers? Have any of them claimed that they are "elite," or is that merely your self-comparative assessment?

but a broad-based, grass-roots movement of people united in their unwillingness to be disinvited to the American party.
quote:
( Look at all the posturing that went on by the Taliban before the real, live, bombs started dropping.)
I prefer to learn from people other than the Taliban. We each derive our life-affirming lessons from whence we feel they are most valuable.
quote:
What I am attempting to explain comes from some very practical and realistic experiences.

Including the Taliban among all the others. As a matter of interest, I think the Talban demonstrated, better than my words could, what happens to a nation and peoples who allow "any" fundamentalist religious force to take control of everything. That the American public apparently has failed to recognize the parallels is most distressing.

No one ever changed the world by doing what was reasonable.

No one? Perhaps we need to define "reasonable" before discussing this goody.

I suppose you would have counselled Gandhi to stop being so naive...I suppose you would have counseled Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus like a good little girl and let those with "resources, training and qualifications" handle things.

I have no idea what I would have said or done had I lived their lives in their shoes.

quote:

Obviously you seem to believe that many folks here simply lack the kind of motivation it takes to overcome every problem situation. Would that that were the case and all that we required was motivation to reverse this long term trend of religious craziness. (It has been around for 2,000 years and hasn't been stopped yet.)

Sigh. I spent my youth trying to reason with believers. I would much rather spend my remaining energy campaigning for atheist rights to practice what they believe in a free society without condemnation.

I worked in 1958 Boston, please tell me more about believers. I was one of two non-Catholics on the entire staff of the Mass. Soldier's Home/Hospital in Chelsea.

Perhaps if atheists can openly participate in society, more people would be likely to consider the merits of a life free from belief. It's a bit hard sell when conditions are what they are today. Don't you think we can join in common cause--making life better for atheists in America?

I have always attempted to lead and influence by example. Beyond that, I have attempted to educate from accuracy not merely from faith.

quote:

You seem to believe that right is might and always wins.

Um, precisely the opposite. You are telling me that one needs resources, training and qualifications to fight, I am saying one needs ordinary people committed to act.

I am not clear about your answer. Are you saying that wrong is might and always loses? --- Would you send someone into battle with the Christians just because they were committed to go even though they could not defend themselves? That sounds a little like what the Iranian fundamentalists did against the Iraquis which prompted Saddam to use chemical warfare against the Iranian soldiers/citizens. You've lost me here.

Just to cite one example out of many, gays constitute a smaller percentage of the population than nonbelievers. Gays did not have equal rights under the law, had no acceptance in popular society, and had to hide in the closet even more avidly than we do. The first D.C demontration for gay rights had just a handful of participants. If those brave few people had listened to "prudent, experienced" people like you, we would still be in a situation with well-meaning people wringing their hands and commiserating with their own, rather than the sea-change we have seen in the past 20 years.

And do you think those gays just decided that today was a good day to have a protest march? (Please don't assign your beliefs to me. You have no idea what I would or wouldn't do. At the moment, all I'm attempting to do is to get you to add a little flesh to your frustrations in order to make them more viable...and palatable...to me. I am recruited by the facts, not the homilies. Success is in the details...in my world.)

Where did Gandhi derive the power to resist the full might of the British Empire?

I hope you have studied the life of Gandhi and his struggle to obtain home rule for the Hindus. When you talk about the full might of the Christian British Empire of 1947, I hope you take into account that part of the British presence at that late date was due to their fear that Hindus and Muslims would butcher each other over religious differences. (Obviously a valid concern based on current headlines.) What is ironic is that it was a Hindu fundamentalist that assassinated Gandhi. Personally I would venture a guess that his education in England and becoming a successful lawyer had much to do with the techniques he honed to get concessions from the other side. Willpower be damned. He was a brilliant strategist, politician and religious leader. His use of the hunger strike(Fast) was an essential weapon in his art of "peaceful" persuasion...especially against Christians and Hindus. I can find no indication that it would have worked against Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

For that matter, just look at the the civil rights movement. You might be surprised at the conservative judges whose minds were changed and who ultimately overturned segregation.

Please! I lived before, through, and now, after the Civil Rights Movement. Much of that time was spent living south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

The fact that force often imposes its will does not mean it is the only way to succeed--that is the argument sold to us by people in power, in order to weaken the people's will to resist. Most times, it is powerless people rising up who defeat powerful oppression.

If you are seeking a strong example of your contention, might I recommend that you study the factors involved with the Polish "Solidarity" Movement.

<a href="http://www.projectgcse.co.uk/history/solidarity.htm" target="_blank">http://www.projectgcse.co.uk/history/solidarity.htm</a>

Besides, you keep using actual violent conflicts as your examples. We don't have to overthrow anything, we merely need to campaign, within our constitutionally protected rights to campaign, for our constitutionally protected rights to equal treatment. It has worked before in this country. Stop giving me examples of the Taliban and start looking at 20th century America.

The primary reason I use violent conflicts as examples is to educate you on what CAN happen if you don't plan and prepare any time you are attempting to go "directly" against the God of the Christians. Atheists have already frightened them about the purpose, meaning and direction of their very lives and eternal salvation. You aren't messing with folks concerned about racial discrimination/segregation, abortion, doctrinal interpretations, homophobia, the women's vote, or any of the other examples you have presented. You are attacking the basic belief upon which these folks have structured their view of the world around them and their personal survival. That goes a long way in accounting for why you have been unsuccessful trying to reason with them. Your world offers them nothing but an emotionless, uncaring, random universe filled with chaos and danger. Until you can find some method of convincing these blind faith believers that you have a more positive, beneficial and secure, for them, way of living one's life ethically and morally, the most you can hope for is what we had and are now losing because they have been frightened anew by the threats of these so-called "evil" terrorists. Terrorists who are, in fact, more devout in their mindless faith beliefs in a benevolent and loving god than the Christians are in their beliefs about that same supernatural god. Our fundamentalist, Christian, governmental leadership understands that. They know that Islam is growing faster than, and becoming as strong as, Christianity. Why can't you? In the world of our current leaders, anything that might weaken Christianity strengthens Islam. Therefore, if you are not with Christianity, you are against it...and evil. That is why they are attempting to tie the PoA and our Flag to patriotism ...not "jingoism. Unfortunately, history, common sense and the facts indicate that their concerns are not without merit.

(I better make two posts before my system cuts me off due to file size....and besides, we may be giving other members a headache with our personal presentations/views. Anon)

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

Curses! another missed quote udentification

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

galiel

Buffman, you can continue to argue forever about minutae such as whether or not Nathaniel Greene won the Civil War. I am sure it is more comfortable than confronting the task ahead of us.

In order to avoid wasting everyone's time, I prefer to actually *do* something--NOW--rather than worry about winning tangential debates. I invite all like-minded people to join me in doing whatever they feel they can to make a difference, and to continue doing it until the goal is reached.

In the meantime, Buffman, please continue your discussions ad infinitum, but please, please, don't get in our way. You may have done much in the past, for which I salute you, but perhaps you are too cynical and discouraged to "get it up" one more time. At 42, a veteran of military, political, entrepreneurial and philosophical battles, I feel that, to steal an historic phrase, I have not yet *begun* to fight.

I sincerely have no interest in scoring points or debating semantics into the ground. We have enough opposition to face out there, we really don't need nitpickers and naysayers sucking out all our energy in here :-)

Oh, one last observation: you have apparently decided that the battle is to "convert" theists to nonbelief. I have no interest in that at the moment. Right now, *my* rights and those of *my* children are threatened. The cause of which I speak is the freedom of atheists and other nonbelievers to openly and proudly practice their beliefs, and the goal of which I speak is to educate and inform the public--not to evangelize my POV. People hate what they fear, and they fear what they do not understand. With understanding comes empathy, and with empathy comes, eventually acceptance of diversity.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Buffman

galiel:

(You type much faster than I do. I just read your latest. I agree. No more to be gained. Your mind is closed. My nit-picking is my weakness. I like people to have the accurate facts. Sorry that they aren't all that important to you. Thank you for your responses.)

quote:
That sounds good until you actually try to move the earth...for real.

You should read "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell. It takes less than you think to create a critical mass for change.
The fact is that, historically, it is more often than not the actions of very small numbers of people who ultimately change the direction of history.

Thanks for the book reference, but I spent much of my career creating critical masses that would produce changes. (Aside: I had one gentleman accuse me of coming to meetings, pulling the pin out of a hand grenade, throwing into the middle of the table and leaning back to see who was hit by the explosion/shrapnel. He paid me a somewhat backhanded compliment by saying that he would never miss any meeting that I attended.)

Since you seem deferential to authority, I would note that Paul Kurtz has been calling for increased exposure and increased activity, particularly in the political arena, for quite some time now.

I do respect accomplishment...in any field. I exchanged some comments with Paul many years ago. I never called him a pompous ass, but I thought it at the time.

He is largely being ignored by the atheist "orthodoxy", such as it is, despite his prominent role in creating it.

He has done yeoman work in bringing Secular Humanism into the daylight. Now, if they could only manage to bring the costs of their various magazine subscriptions into the world of the little fellow, they might reach far more people than they do. It just takes MONEY...or advertisers willing to associate themselves with a quasi non-theist organization.

One private individual, Dr. Newdow, has acted, on his own, and look at the powerful discussions he has generated.

No denying that Dr.-Attorney Newdow has helped to surface a long overdue and important issue for a so-called secular society. Though he had almost no control over the time line, I am still unsure about whether or not this is the most opportune moment to launch an atheist crusade. (One more military analogy: American forces are far better equipped for night fighting than any other force in the world. To plan only day attacks would be plain ass stupid. Additionally, for anyone to think that today is as good a time as any to die is also pretty naive/stupid. The goal is to win by killing the bad guys until they give up...not to arouse a sleeping giant like the attack on Pearl Harbor did.)

Also witness AA's decision to move ahead with the DC march, and the willingess of other organizations to endorse it, despite their reservations about AA itself.

Also note the planning, preparation, coordination, advertising and everything else it takes to make it a successful and meaningful demonstration....and the fact that it has been suddenly moved back into a colder time period and closer to Thanksgiving and Christmas. Was this a countermove to weaken attendance/enthusiasm? How can this delay be used to increase attendance and enthusiasm? Could the expenses involved in this brief, and hopefully influential demonstration, have been put to better use in even more influential ways than this? Is this a convenient way for the government, using the legal protections of the U.S. Patriot Act of 2002, to start a new dossier on each person in attendance...like it did during the Civil Rights and Anti-War rallies?

It is time to act. Time to stop talking and planning and making excuses, and to act.

"Take that hill now, Marine! Do it with your bare hands if you have to, but take it!" Have you read Alfred, Lord Tennyson's poem about the "Charge of the Light Brigade?" Then read one of the better histories about the actual battle. (Not much to do with our discussion, but an interesting and educational read.)

<a href="http://eserver.org/poetry/light-brigade.html" target="_blank">http://eserver.org/poetry/light-brigade.html</a>

<a href="http://www.pinetreeweb.com/13th-balaclava2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.pinetreeweb.com/13th-balaclava2.htm</a>

If you disagree, fine. I have no interest in "converting" you. Some people get it, some people don't. That is fine. What I don't understand are the voices of people who are trying to squelsh this popular movement and push us unruly masses back into the closet so that "qualified" people can continue their current ineffective path.

And what qualifies you to make these remarks? What makes you believe that you get it and others don't? Could it be because they suspect that reason should prevail over emotions? You are the one describing yourself as part of some unruly mass. Is that what you are? Is that how you wish others to view you? Perhaps you are giving them good reason to hope that you stay in the closet before your uncontrolled actions undermine everything that others have sacrificed so much to gain. (These are just rhetorical thoughts for your consideration since you seem adverse to looking in a mirror. Unfortunately, you seem to be sounding more and more like the false picture that theists have of atheists. Are you anxious to fulfill their prophesies about non-theists? To present them with a living, breathing, arm waving, jumping up and down and turning blue, example of all the wild and ridiculous claims that they have been making about atheists...just because you have personally become frustrated and lost your grip on reality? Never forget just how far the loss of reality can take some folks. All the way to hurling themselves and others into buildings filled with people, many of whom are just as devout as they were.)

quote:
May I inquire what makes you think that folks haven't been doing that...the ones that can.

The results.

What results do you seek?

quote:
You can't take a case all the way to the Supreme Court unless you can "afford" to do so.

Should I bother to cite all the critical, norm-changing cases that were brought by "unqualified", resource-poor individuals in the past 200 years? Unfounded excuses is all I hear.

Yes! By all means list them. There are probably many lessons we could learn by examining them.

Look. I have no doubt that what I am saying is uncomfortable.

Not in the slightest. Sorry!

I have no doubt that many here wish I would just go away (just as they wish Newdow would just go away). It is more comfortable, ironically, to moan about the futility of it all than to act anyway.

I would be quite surprised, and unpleasantly so, if that were the case.

I spent all too much of my life trying to make friends and be agreeable. 9/11 was the final straw. I'd rather have "he was an irritating gadfly, but he made a difference" inscribed on my tombstone than "he was properly deferential to those with resources, training and qualifications."

Hehehehehe! Loved it! (Out of curiosity, why did it take until 9/11 before you affected this attitude chance. Was it because you felt so violated and vulnerable?)

quote:
When your Christian fundamentalist boss wishes you a Merry Christmas next time, and you are married, with children and a mortgage, by all means tell him that you are an atheist and that he is treating you as a second class citizen.

Would you make the same argument if your boss was embezzling money, or discriminating against non-whites?

If I had the legal evidence to prove it, you bet I would. In a heart beat. I have blown the whistle before...and face to face.

Would you even WORK for someone who was a virulent anti-semite, called employees "niggers" or who openly groped women?

I have not been faced with any of those particular situations by anyone for whom I have worked. I can only speculate that I would confront the situation by voicing my protest and the reason for it(them) and proceed from there...which I have done with many colleagues and those under me. However, since I have always been rather vocal on where I stand on these issues, I rather suspect that others have wisely elected not to surface them in my presence.

All you are revealing here is the relatively small value you place on your right to self-determination and free expression as an atheist in a free society. All you are revealing is that, in the grand scheme of things, you don't think it's a big deal to be a theist bigot. Not if the bigot is paying your bills. I do NOT agree.

I did not intend my words to convey any such thing. What I am attempting to expose is that one must weigh the potential consequences of their words and actions...not exclusively based on their own welfare, but also upon the welfare of those around them if one is to be a truly responsible adult. I am somewhat surprised, and a little disappointed, if you do not agree with that.

Ironically, you will find your arguments strongly echo those who urged civil rights leaders not to act, and women not to fight for their rights, and gays not to increase their visibility lest their be backlash. Thankfully, in each case, individual people got tired of being deferential and patient, and decided to act.

I am sorry that you chose to interpret them that way. Obviously you have already made your mind up about me. That is certainly your prerogative. I wish I had your gift of accurate insight based on these posts.

quote:
"JUST DO IT!" All it takes is willpower...and a financial suicide wish....unless you are fortunate enough to be financially independent

I suppose Rosa Parks and MLK and countless others had nothing to fear when they took action, and paid no price for their courage and commitment.

Of course they did. Life is filled with fear and risks, courage and cowardice, strengths and limitations, facts and fictions. We encounter all of them every day. If we are fortunate, we live long enough to even learn a little bit about ourselves. However, if we are really fortunate, we live long enough to learn how little we really know or understand.

I, too have a family and a mortgage, I am facing repercussions because of my decision to live with integrity. I will be driving down to DC (hopefully carpooling) because I can't afford to take a train, let alone a bus, and I may have to drive back the same night, unless I find free accomodations.

Good for you....sincerely!

Your assumption that the only people who speak out are those who can afford to speak out is not supported by the facts. If anything, it is those who have the most to lose who most often find the courage to leap into the void. Comfort breeds complacency.

I am trying to point out that the wise person picks their battlefield if they can. Obviously that is not always possible. Therefore, it would seem to be a good idea to be as prepared as possible to be able to stand and fight anywhere.with a chance of a successful conclusion. However, I do tend to support your final thought. Comfort can induce complacency. (In my former profession, complacency was a, for real, killer.)

quote:
Non-Believers are more inclined to view the world as a rainbow. Perhaps that is an atheist weakness in a war for survival.

That is a myth so often repeated that we have started to believe it is true. One does not have to be a fanatic or a zealot in order to fight for what one thinks is right, and one does not have to be an army of identical clones in order to share common interests.

I don't disagree with that view...although I am not sure you understood the thrust/intent of my words. (My bad!)

I hardly think one could characterize all those who fought for civil rights, or all those who supported equality for gays, or all those who fought against Nazism, as fanatics.

Hmmmmm? I was talking about fundamentalist theists. ("Fanatic" = A person possessed by an excessive and irrational zeal, especially for a religion or political cause.)--- I suspect it is the word "irrational" that makes the real difference. Those individuals who fought for civil and gay rights certainly had ample amount of zeal when compared to those that didn't fight. Concerning Nazism: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue.". Barry Goldwater. (I voted for Barry.)

Does anyone in the "rainbow" think it is right for atheists to be treated as second-class citizens? Does anyone in the "rainbow" approve of Bush Sr. saying that atheists should not be considered citizens?

We both know the answers to those questions.

Furthermore, are you suggesting that the entire theist population of the United States supports the oppression of atheists?

Good heavens, no! However, read Barry's second sentence again. I want to hear the voices of the rational Christians plastered all over TV/Radio/Media. Where are they? I am well versed on AU, PFAW, and several others. But where are the Christian?religious spokespersons who ultimately have the most to lose by destroying church-state separation? Will they be out in front of the AA parade...in force? Many of them were in the Civil Rights marches...and even a few in the Gay Rights parades.

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

Believe me, that is far from the truth. Most people act out of ignorance and fear, not maliciousness. We are not fighting 85% of the population, only those who abuse their power and influence to deny others their rights. And we are lucky to live in a country that provides demonstrated opportunities for ordinary people to precipitate great change.
What you say only has merit if you assume the goal is to convert the world to atheism. That is not what is at issue here. The goal (my goal, at least) is to be heard and recognized as equal Americans by American society, regardless of their personal beliefs, and to freely raise my children to freely choose their own beliefs without shame.

Preaching to the choir.

quote:
And believe me, the Christian fundamentalists have declared war on all that "they" consider to be evil. Are you ready to openly admit that you are at war with them...and willing to go to whatever lengths it takes to defeat them? I think not!

What leads you to think not? Perhaps you are not willing to. I have "come out", quite vocally and publicly, and in coming days intend to do whatever one, single, ordinary individual can do to make noise and be an irritant to the comfortable. Whether or not I am being reasonable or am "qualified" is besides the point. It is a thing worth doing.

I have no basic problem with that. I just wonder to what extremes you might go that you are not appropriately prepared to go. additionally, making noise may have a different meaning for you than it does for me. When a person becomes emotional, quite often their words are just "noise." The words of the calm, rational, deliberate thinker tend to be more concise and meaningful. (Not like what we are doing on this string. Chortle! Guffaw!) ---I can assure you that my secular credentials are not at issue....especially not in this locale.

I would emphasis, however, that the "war", as you insist on calling it,...

That's what the far, radical, religious right have been calling it. Not me.


...is not for "our" ideas to win and defeat their beliefs; the "war" is to open the minds and hearts of America and practice the tolerance for diversity that is so often preached.

No problem with that goal here. Now convince the far right that that is your only goal.

quote:
We are fighting for the principles that undergird our Constitution....Church-State separation and a secular government. We also stand for fact over fiction. But is that enough to win the war. Hell NO! Having a motivational speech as the basis of action is just fine if there is a practical means of implementing the actions that will lead to success.

It is interesting that you choose to characterize those who prefer action over rhetoric as uninformed and naive.

If I did say exactly that, it was in error. All I thought I said was that people who think that "noise" alone is all that is required to change the current course of events need to re-examine where it is that they wish to go and better prepare themselves for the journey.

After studying the way many successful popular movements have operated, and the way many successful people have attained their goals, I have come to the conclusion that action is more important than anything else.

Why didn't you make that clear from the beginning for slow people like me to better understand your level of preparation.

Rather than fall into the trap of debating its merits forever, why don't we just each pursue our choices and see what works. I am less concerned about which tactic is effective than I am about actually seeing change come about. I do not intend to waste any energy fighting against existing freethough organizations. I do not, however, intend to follow their lead. So far, their effectiveness in recent years as far as swaying popular opinion has been vanishingly small, despite their resources, training and qualification, which are undoubtedly more impressive than mine.

A perfectly valid observation as far as I am concerned. However, I know of no non-theist organization that has the financial muscle to compete with even the weakest of the fundamentalist organizations...which are intertwined throughout the country. They have also been able to gain control over some major philanthropic organizations as well as individual CEOs of some major corporations. (Amway, Coors, Wal-Mart, Domino's former boss, the 300+ businesses belonging to the Rev. Moon, etc.) The list I have been attempting to keep current on all this might knock your socks off. But can I conclusively prove that they are doing anything more than funding organizations that they personally favor? Of course not. Can I prove that they seek to make America into their own Theocracy? Hell no! Can I prove that they are attempting to destroy the secular protections of the Constitution? Not if the public can't discern between fact and fiction.

quote:
And that's one of the beauties of critical thinking. It represents individual, rather than collective, thought. For me, that was always one of the true American strengths. Multicultural, pluralistic, input before action. Not immediate, single-minded, "followmeism."

Then you should have no problems with a call for a broad-based, spontaneous, grass-roots activist movement.

None whatsoever. I simply question what you think is going to actually be a "broad-based, spontaneous, grass-roots activist movement."

Instead, you seem to be counseling that we wait until the right leader, the right resources, the right time, the right alignment of planets, before we act. Kind of negates your last point, doesn't it?

You are assuming way more than you should. My counsel is that running out the door waving your arms and shouting at the top of your lungs just "ain't" going to get the job done. Initially, that's what the fundamentalist did. But they learned. They armed themselves with a plan, training, money and the best minds they could enlist in their crusade. They have succeeded. Nearly 20 years ago I started telling people to pay attention to what was happening. I tried to convince people that the fundamentalists were using all the old Communist tricks to gain control of our country. I was told that I was being silly if not paranoid. There was no way that those ignornat and gullible Christians would ever amount to more than a minor irritant in the fabric of our country. Oooops! (My "Library of Congress Indictment" is currently a small inclusion on the Thomas Jefferson CD sold by the Bank of Wisdom. Emmett Fields has been a one man dynamo for the rights of free thinkers everywhere. Though he and I may not always agree, he is one of my modern day heroes in the name of liberty and the free exercise of conscience.)

In effect, you are challenging my call for action with a call for prudence.

Prudence is your word, not mine. All I'm attempting to relate to you is that "Prior planning and preparation prevents piss-poor performance." Is that really so difficult to understand?

What are you afraid of?

Muhahahahaha! Riiiiigghht! That must be it. (Tremble! Shake! Shiver!)

Why should this (according to you) amorphous, weakly committed "rainbow" commit to following a single course of action dictated by those with "resources, training and (most troublesome,elitist phrase of all) "qualifications"?
Your kind of "organization" tends to exclude and select and create hierarchies of power. Been there, done that. It's time to stop waiting for an atheist messiah, time to take actions into our own hands.

(Again, please don't put words in my mouth. "Amorphous" and "weakly committed" are your words.) --- I can hardly wait for a return of mob rule and the individual free-for-all. Do you suspect that humans developed hierarchies for any reasonable purpose? Our Framing Fathers worked very hard at establishing one that had built-in checks and balances and that is currently under attack by those that would prefer a Theocracy to a secular federal republic.

You know those out-of-control, devastating wildfires in the West? Let's ignite one in the public imagination. Not by carefully planning, but simply by generating lots and lots of sparks.

Riiiiggghhht! And exactly where did you say the people were that set those wild fires? And they accomplished exactly what? I can think of a bunch of former home owners that would like to meet them on dark road one night. I can think of a bunch of people whose homeowner insurance policies will be increased having wonderful words for them. I can think of a bunch of folks who no longer have jobs being thrilled by their actions. I can think of a bunch of tired fire-fighters who want to pat them on the back and tell them what a good job they did. But what the hell do the arsonists care? They accomplished their goal didn't they? Instead of enlisting new/more grass-roots support, they simply burned it down.

I think we have now beat this to death. It is your choice if you wish to respond, but I am finished with this particular dialogue. Thanks for a super workout. I wish I did have some constructive ideas to share of how to prove to the American public that we are being led down one of the most divisive and dangerous roads possible. I don't beyond what I have already indicated. Go get'm Tiger!

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Oresta

I certainly agree that we should actively resist attempts to breach the the Wall of Separation, but I want to go on record as a hard core atheist whose activism is not motivated because of discrimination sgainst my minority status. It is the powerful, well-orchestrated attack on the First Amendment which protects free thought - both theist and non - which is my concern. In that sense, we free thinkers have the same vested interest in protecting the Establishment Clause as the wiggiest theists among us. It is to that educational end I am willing to work: for a better understanding of the benefit to all of a secular government, rather than "evangelizing" for godless, rational conversions.

galiel

Buffman, you erect strawmen rather than respond to the essence of my argument. I have said nothing about running around waving arms or acting like an extremist. If anything, it is you who have talked about fighting a war and needing to defeat "the enemy".

I take issue with your contention that this issue should be left to those with "qualifications" to decide, and that the lack of resources or whatever is a legitimate excuse for the utter failure of the self-appointed "leadership" of the freetought movement to actually DO anything. Hell, they can't even agree to join the same umbrella organization. They can't even agree to coordinate media responses to important events, let alone have the cohonas and the humility to put aside the bickering, stop spending so much time writing obscure scholarly articles and get organized.

Sorry, but I have a feeling I am not the only "unqualified, resource-poor, untrained" regular person who is tired of waiting. Contrary to what you claim, this is not the kind of effort that is best served with clever, expensive PR campaigns, glossy preach-to-the-choir magazines and slick new buildings in Hollywood. Those merely serve as justifications for fundraising.

What I propose is to take back the initiative from the elite and for each nonbeliever who is concerned about their future to take action in whatever responsible way they see fit. Unlike you, I do not assume that one needs "qualifications, resources and training" in order to be responsible or effective, nor do I make snide, elitist remarks about:

You don't ultimately seem to trust "the people", PC rhetoric aside. It doesn't take qualifications, special resources, nor training to hold a sign at a demonstration, write a letter to the editor, wear a t-shirt or button or have a bumper sticker on your car, or to call in to a talk-show. It doesn't take qualifications, special resources, nor training to request a meeting with the high school principal and inform them of your concerns as an atheist parent. It doesn't take qualifications, special resources nor training to ask a candidate at a forum whether he supports Bush Sr.'s statement that atheists should not be considered citizens nor patriots, and force them to make a statement on the record. It doesn't even take special training to object to the office Christmas party, and then find pro bono support for a discrimination lawsuit when fired, although that is certainly not the right act for everyone. It doesn't take special qualifications to run for local office as an open atheist or other freethinker. Sure, you will lose, but you will get discussion going, just like Dr. Newdow did, even if his case is overturned.

Most of all, the Internet affords opportunities for communication, education and outreach that go a long way towards negating the advantages of money and access.

It doesn't take anything special to do any of these things, it just takes the willingness to act, and a willingness to take the heat from authoritarians among us who wish we would just continue waiting for the "qualified" people to finally get off their asses.

Believe me, organization and coordination will come. There is no shortage of ambitious people who will jump on board and claim credit for "leading" the movement, once it gains momentum. But nothing will happen if we let a bunch of academics debate the arguments against the existence of God in Free Inquiry.

Just DO SOMETHING.

galiel

We are in total agreement. I don't wish to convert the world. I merely wish to preserve our rights and to educate people to accept us as legitimate members of American society.

Buffman

galiel

Just DO SOMETHING.

I have been doing things for longer than you have been alive. What were you doing before 9/11?

I take issue with your contention that this issue should be left to those with "qualifications" to decide, and that the lack of resources or whatever is a legitimate excuse for the utter failure of the self-appointed "leadership" of the freetought movement to actually DO anything.

You should take issue with that if it was what I said...but it isn't. Why do you continue to ignore what I do say? "Prior planning and preparation prevents piss-poor performance." Do you think that you would be saying or doing the things you are without some form of planning and preparation "qualifying" you to say and do them? That is the kind of "qualification" that I am talking about. Perhaps I am being too basic.

Last time! I have no idea what would qualify someone to guide atheism into the American mainstream and out of second class citizenship. I remain open to any suggestion/recommendation. Not only have I considered all those that you have suggested so far, I have personally done many of them...and many more beside.

I responded to your initial post because you came-on sounding like just one more frustrated zealot whose unconsidered actions would wind up increasing divisiveness and accomplish little else. I initially believed that that could wind up supporting all the misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and lies out there concerning those who were not inerrant Christians.

IMHO, this is the opportune time for a coordinated plan of how to cut the rational believers from the irrational ones. To enlist potential supporters to a clear understanding of the enormously special, unique and precious gift that Church-State separation is for everyone, whether theist or non-theist. It is not the time to give our oppenents the opportunity to point to a few overly zealous atheists and say, "There! I told you so. Atheists are trying to destroy religious faith belief. They are attempting to undermine patriotism and the American way...which the majority of Americans, since the days of our Founding Fathers, know is a faith in God."

galiel, you have already seen how quickly they marshalled their automaton forces on TV, radio in print and in the government to put their "spin" on the "under God" decision. That took an "in place" plan, coordination, communications, money and manpower. If you are unable to believe that, then I have wasted our time, for which I apologize.

galiel

Sorry to do that, but you may be so used to being supercilious that you are not aware you are doing it.

Look at the situation. I come here to this forum and talk about the need to take action. I urge each individual to do what they are able to do, from writing letters to their representative to marching in DC.

Rather than welcome that message, and give an attaboy to someone with energy and motivation to spare, you come out with a superior attitude and say:

"wait thar, sonny, don't get all hot 'n bothered, you better leave this stuff to us perfessional-types, we knows what we are doin'. No sense goin' off half-cocked. Hell, we been patiently workin' on a plan fer ages, ain't got one yet, but best let those of us who gots 'trainin' decide what's right. Now, run along and play--we'll call ya when we need ya."

When I hear that kind of attitude (and you are the second "vet" on this board to dish it out to me), my BS radar starts pinging somethin' powerful. Now don't get me wrong, I can take what I dish out. But I am concerned that your wet blanket will serve to discourage others who are not satisfied with the results to date and wish to take a more active role and not leave everything to the "experts". Or, is that your deliberate intent?

Except a call to action. So you're saying: I haven't got a clue what will work, nothing I've done so far has made a dent against these powerful people, but I still think it's better to suppress anyone who actually wants to DO SOMETHING instead of talk about the good old days and trade war stories about the front lines in 1958. No, better to debate the role of Nathaniel Greene rather than respond to the point being illustrated.

With diminishing respect, what the hell qualifies YOU to decide what actions are or aren't considered?

A thriving movement welcomes new, energized blood. Activists are immediately absorbed into it and there is a continuous flow of activities.

A moribund group of cynical veterans, on the other hand, feel threatened by calls for action, and pull out the "I been doin' this since before you was born" bit.

I would love to see us exploit your knowledge, organizational savvy and wisdom. I would hate to have to just pass you by because your cynicism and rigidity prevent you from regaining the fire in the belly you once undoubtedly had. The choice is yours. Judging by the private responses I am getting, people are itching to see us MOVE.

(by the way, I didn't just materialize post 9/11, but, unlike you, I see less value in tooting my own horn than in just making a point and being judged on its merits. I'm sorry you seem to prefer prefer the seniority system.)

Buffman

galiel

We are not communicating! It happens.

Have a safe and productive trip.