Rusting Car Bumper

Clearly you haven't read what I've written these many months. I explicitly do not object to a "multi-faceted approach" and never have. In conversations, I used the phrase "one size does not fit all" although I I'm not sure if I have used it on these message boards.

With regards to your first point, I understand it is a serious question. The debate here is not just what the answers are but what they importnat questions are. Questions suggest answers. (e.g. "Who should govern us?" vs. "How should proper government be contructed?")

To answer it: The number one indicator of your religious views are what your parents views are. Another strong indicator is educational level.

DC

Jayhawker Soule

Who are "they" and what, specifically, do they "have to do"?

What, specifically, have I been "forced institutionally and in other facets of the society" to do?

I've appeared in court and never acknowledged the Bible. I have said the pledge and never uttered anything about God. I've never participated in the Boy Scouts, because I do not care for that organization.

Rusting Car Bumper

There were two questions there. If you are referring to the last one, its rhetorical.

If you are referring to the first, then it is because its the most important question we can ask. It identifies the crux of the matter for any action would be unnecessary and no questions about all of this need be asked if the response to it was, "We are getting along just fine."

No. If that's what I wanted to ask then I would have asked it. Reading this thread you will note that I said I did not go to the March. I stated some reasons why I and others did not attend. From there the discussion is about basic strategy and identification as to what our problems really are.

That's where the difference is. Its not about whether or not a March needs to be justified. Its about, "What does the March attempt to say?"

I think there is a fundamental problem (or better phrased a fundamental missing element) with the mass of the non-belief "movement." Whether that constitutes a "fundamental problem" with the March is another story. I'm not sure it matters at this point for the March but it certainly matters for the movement as a whole.

Since nobody attempted to show there was problems then one might conclude that this thread didn't succeed in showing problems.

In general, standing up against something without standing for something is by its very nature, divisive. Whether anything anyone does constitutes this condition (be it march of anything else) is up to the individual to decide.

This is a good point. If you study the history of that march you will not how different the Godless March was. The Civil Rights march was explicitly inclusive without regards to racial boundries. The Godless March was not inclusive with regards to religious boundries. This relates to some of the three reasons as to why some did not attend.

DC

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

dangin

<a href="http://www.americanatheist.org/supplement/ejgamowdinner.html" target="_blank">entire speech here</a>


This is an extended portion of Ellen Johnson's speech from the pre-banquet march. I just wanted everyone to be able to read for themselves how "against" things the march was, and how it totally failed to be "for" anything.

Second, we can, and should, have what former Christian Coalition Director Ralph Reed said he wanted for the religious right -- a “place at the table in the great discussion we call Democracy.” We want input, influence, clout. We want to be heard and recognized. We want a level playing field in the dialogue over public policy. If we’re going to get that, we have to work together. And this brings me to my second point. We can work together, we should work together, but doing so requires cooperating on the basis of mutual respect. It means acknowledging that we do have differences. We need to acknowledge that and work together -- where and when we can -- on an ad hoc basis, on specific issues, and most importantly, on the basis of mutual respect. Disagree, yes. Launch personal attacks, no.

Let’s bury the hatchet. Let’s make sure that our magazines and newsletters and web sites focus on issues, not personalities, or insulting some other group.

I have to tell you, it’s a bit difficult standing here and saying this. Some of the groups and people joining us this weekend have not always acted with charity in the past, at least toward me and American Atheists and it is still going on. But I am happy to say that this weekend we are all putting our differences aside.

I’d like you to consider a couple of other things as well.

It’s time that we start talking about civil rights and what we want, rather than trying to make every conceivable religious group “like us.”

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be polite and diplomatic. I don’t think we make any progress by “insulting” religious people, or groups. But we need to speak the truth, we need to put our role as critics of religious ideology first. If religious people agree with us on specific issues, fine. But just as they have the right to speak out openly and without reservation about who they are, so do we!

We nonbelievers love to debate, we love to quote the Bible or the Koran, we love argue over the nuances of creationism and evolution, but I think it is time to begin shifting the focus a bit. Don’t get me wrong; these sorts of debates and intellectual face-offs are important. We do need to be “philosophically active.” But we aren’t going to get our civil rights by trying to “convert” the religious to our point of view. We aren’t going to get our civil rights by trying to make Christians or the Pope or some other religious figure “like us.” Unless and until you turn you life and mind over to Jesus Christ, they aren’t going to like you. They want complete submission and we cannot give them that.

One of the things Atheists or other groups often do when they get organized is go down that road of trying to win a popularity contest. They organize blood drives, or volunteer to be on a telethon, or pick up trash along a highway in hopes of winning community recognition.

Now, I’m not criticizing anyone or any organization that has done that, nor am I saying that we should not do this sort of thing. But I want you to think about Ralph Reed, remember him? Ralph Reed got handed the job of running the Christian Coalition in about 1988, and he started with a small mailing list, and he built one of the most influential political machines this country has ever seen. He didn’t donate one pint of blood, he didn’t pick up one ounce of trash from a highway, and the only phone banks Christian Coalition members staffed were their own when they were busy getting their candidates elected to public office.

beoba

Going off the pool of people I know, barely anyone watches C-Span, and barely anyone even gets C-Span 3 (I don't, either at this campus or at home in Kansas City)

The coverage was pathetic, but my overall view of the march is positive. It shows me that atheist activists are able to do more than sit at computers and post on websites. Perhaps in a couple years there will be another try.

fando

Ah, now I see what you're getting at. That is a very serious and legitimate concern. I'll meditate on the three reasons and reconsider my stance. I believe I missed the relevant posts, so please forgive the oversight. I'll concede that if the sole accomplishment of the march was to increase divisiveness a la Malcom X then it was a poor event and should be amply criticized. As I was not there, I can't say for sure.

So where can I get an accurate report of the objectives of the march and the outcome other than this thread? Are there articles covering the march and its impact?

ybnormal

In what ways am I forced "to engage in activities that are offensive to [my] state"?

Unless you are suggesting that this particular forum is totally unnecessary, and are advocating its elimination, I don't understand your question.

Like yourself, I am not personally "forced" into anything either. Intensity did say, "Atheists", many of whom are forced... minors for example, just to mention probably a few million.

Ted Hoffman

Alonzo Fyfe
I concur with this just like with the rest of that post.

ReasonableDoubt
Your questions are disingenuous as ybnormal has pointed out, therefore they do not merit an answer.
If you earnestly need an answer, there is a need to first make a case about your level of ignorance and account for its magnitude.
At the moment, I have no doubt in my mind that you are aware of these "injustices" I am referring to and if you are not, you can easily run a search and find plenty of them.

DC:
Now who is it that stood up against something without standing for something?

Who are the figures that started/ organised the march (1963 march on Washington?)? Were they multiracial? I do not think so. They were African Americans though they enjoyed some support from some "white people" (for lack of a better term).
There is a huge difference between supporting a march and leading a march. Have you seen any video or photo of white people being "hosed" out while in that march?
Even the policemen that were used to clampdown on the movement were white!
Even if there were white sympathizers, it was always a battle the blacks had to fight because they were the ones that suffered the injustices.

OTOH, I think comparing this to the Civil Rights March is a bit misleading because religious matters are private and at the same time the issues involved arent very clear.
Added to the fact that its a matter that is not very clear cut because religion preys on the mind of people and infects the reasoning mechanism of adherents. So we have to reach their minds first before we can reach their hearts (from your earlisr statements, you have already given up on this). Religion is so subtle that even the slaves that were freed became christians - worshipping the God that their owners worshipped - the meme virus spreads insidiously and isnt easy to root out.
At the same time, your country is largely christian, its a "christian" government etc. The injustices are more subtle, less physical and more pshychological etc (If Reasonabledoubt's questions are anything to go by) and this makes it difficult to "fire" up peoples emotions to a level that can get them to be engaged in active support for this movement.
Even atheists themselves: there are countless atheists who would rather go about their business without feeling compelled to engage in any sort of activism related to atheism.
Why is that?
Because atheism has no known cause.

To have a cause, we must identify the instances of social injustices that atheists have suffered and take on them. Their very subtlety and our minority status is what makes it an uphill task because we are politically disadvantaged (read the "christian government") and we must also identify clearly the kind of society we aspire to have vis-a-vis what we have today.

We must have something to offer.

There was that crank, David Matthews, who was claiming that atheism has nothing to offer. Why should we expect to excite people if we have nothing to offer? If we have nothing to offer, then all we can do is seek sympathy - yet the injustices we suffer are not that glaring and even if and when they are, the society at large are blinded by years of theistic indoctrination.
So we cant get that sympathy either.
So what do we do?
We have to look hard and identify changes we can bring about in line with our atheism. How can atheism make the society a better place?
Once we identify objectives, then we can say we have a cause. Then we can raise funds (Who TF will donate money to a movement that has nothing to offer?).
So, IMHO, step one is, examine the status quo and identify problems that atheism can help solve. Or injustices that atheists suffer from the fact that they are atheists (these are the social injustices - so it can start as a civil rights thing). Or if there are no problems, at least identify clearly why atheism is important and why it should be respected.
More importantly, why atheism is important to the common man/ woman on the street.
If there are none, then we are hopeless indeed.
But I fear that to promote atheism, one will have to discredit theism. Because its the alternative - and its what has "worked" for many.

I think its time you became specific about this assertion. All I have read about is your objection to the term "Godless".
Are you saying that that is the word that repelled some groups alone? If not, what excluded them?
Which significant groups were excluded?
Were they excluded by design?

I think that, for example, we have very little to expect from agnostics. You cant get someone sitting on the fence to take a side on this issue [I hope this is not tendentious]. For us to be able to have every group on our umbrella, it would involve getting them to share our worldview. Which is a separate matter altogether and a gargantuan task at that. The important thing is to identify common aspirations and adopt an approach for trying to bring about change. We cant allow ourselves to be frozen into inaction because our "umbrella" doesnt cover every group.

We do what we can, with what we have, now.

If we share the same "spirit" they will join us or support us. We have to maintain our own identity even as we "struggle".

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

fando

Whoa there Intensity, are you sure you know the history of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.? It wasn't exclusive.

Ted Hoffman

Why don't you teach me? I am always happy to fill up my knowledge gaps.
I am very green as far as US history is concerned anyway.