Alonzo Fyfe

DigitalChicken:

I agree with you in principle on many of the things you say, but I do not follow you as far as you would like to go.

I recognize that the laws will be turned against us unless we are partners in a political coalition that makes up at least 50% + 1 of the voting population, and that at current levels, theists must make up between 70% and 80% of such a coallition.

I have expressed certain misgivings about the march. I think that an anti-God march, days before the general election, that includes satanists, is a bad idea. I would have much preferred a "united we stand" march, promoting a motto of 'e pluribus unum' and 'one nation, indivisible', which included a Christian faction that supported these ends.

I agree that certain types of protests -- e.g., the display of a religious Christmas scene at city hall or removing a cross from a city park -- are not worthy of the attention given to them. We have focused on small, meaningless gestures, generated animosity in the process, and thus lost the ability to win any battle of significance.

Now, allow me to move to the other side of the room....

As somebody who was beaten often and once nearly killed merely for answering the question "Do you believe in God?" by saying "No," I disagree that "we've got it pretty good."

As somebody who, at the age of 15, decided that I wanted to make the world a better place, and that I wanted to hold public office to do so, and then spent 12 years in college acquiring the skills I thought would be most useful -- only to discover that > 60% of the population will vote against an atheist candidate FOR THAT REASON ALONE, I further disagree that "we've got it pretty good."

This did not happen merely because some atheists filed some frivolous lawsuits. The sentiment against atheists existed long before even the first lawsuit was filed.

The national motto was changed to one that divides the country into two populations: a "we" that trusts in God and, by implication, a "they" who do not, long before the first lawsuit was filed.

The words 'under God' were added to the Pledge, casting atheists in the same company that the word 'indivisible' gives to rebels, 'liberty' gives to tyrants, and 'justice' gives to perpetrators of injustice, happened long before the first lawsuit was filed.

That as long as this message is being communicated to people every day, it does not matter what good deeds we may perform, those good deeds will be seen at best as merely attempts to manipulate the heart of the unwary. And some of us (e.g., me) are prevented from doing good merely because we are atheists.

The fact that atheists seem significantly less likely (per capita) to break the law has not made any sizable impression on the public consciousness. Nor have people seen much of a difference between the atheist filing a case in a court of law vs. a theist flying a plane full of passengers into a building. A prejudiced population will only see what they want to see, no matter what we decide to put in front of their eyes. That is the way prejudice works.

If not for these matters that you have identified, they will find something else to hate.

Finally, I move into the center of the room...

There is no one course of action on which everybody will agree. To insist on finding one means wasting a lot of time and effort dictating conformity that could have been better used elsewhere.

Competition is good. Because none of us are omniscient, it is good to try different approaches, and allow experience to tell us which of these work and which of these fail. Let those who are the more successful draw the most resources because of their success; those who are less successful whither and die.

If you believe that others have sullied the name 'atheist', then do not use it. One does not have to use the word 'atheist' to argue for separation of church and state. Clearly, most of our founding fathers were able to make the argument without themselves being or promoting atheism.

I see reason and value in debate. One person expresses a conclusion as to which route he sees as best and his reasons, while another expresses a conclusion as to which route she sees as best and gives her reasons. But debate can be carried too far. Eventually, each individual must put aside the debate and decide which road they will travel -- together or not. That is the way of things.

For me, I think that the Godless March is a bad idea, and I think I will not travel that route.

I think that certain lawsuits are a waste of political and economic capital, and I will not travel that route.

But I believe that some issues are important to deal with.

The existing pledge states that atheists should not be citizens at all -- because an honest recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance can only be made by one who believes in God, and an honest recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is a pledge to make the country atheist-free.

The national motto "In God We Trust" states that atheists are not a part of this "we". And what is this "We?" that we are not a part of? "We" refers to the good people of the United States -- the ones who are welcome here, the ones who belong here.

I consider these two lessons -- taught to citizens from the earliest age in the nation's schools -- are not an insignificant cause of the discrimination and violence that I have experienced. I expect that the situation will only get worse as each generation is taught that "we" includes no person who does not trust in God, and that atheists share the same normative status as rebels, tyrants, and perpetrators of injustice.

And, yet, I recognize that no battle can be won unless one fights it in a way that welcomes and accepts the help of at least 40% of all theists.

This is the road that I think it is best to travel.

But that's just me.

Rusting Car Bumper

I do not recognize that as a certainty at all. It certainly is a troubling possibility however. The world is dynamic and not static. It surely will not be one specific way, for nothing is really sure in the realm of human culture.

I understand your point. However...

I didn't say that "we've got it pretty good." I stated a hypothetical. I said "If X, then Y". You are extracting the "Y" without the explicit condition of the "X" and thus you've hoisted a straw man of sorts.

There is no singular "they." I'm not sure what you mean by "they" but, to treat theists as if They are a single unit is to do to them what we do not want done to us. Most theists, I find, are really in the middle and when calm they are more interested in common ground. Stereotypes are defeatable. Hate cannot rest in large numbers on stereotypes alone if they are consistently battled.

Im not interested in separation of church and state. My life is not fulfilled by carrying protest signs or by fighting court cases. These, like surgery, are only done when necessary and sometimes its elective. Separation of church and state is a symptom and not a cause.

Again... What my neighbor thinks is more important and powerful than laws and judges.

What sad lives us atheists must live if ALL we can do is worry about separation of church and state and refute other people's religions. (Watch out. That's one of those pesky hypotheticals.)

I am, as of now, undecided but leaning toward your opinion. Your comments on the subject were well spoken.

No argument with you there brother.

DC

CaptainDave

Have you guys ever heard of being TOO analytical? Maybe that's our big problem. The time has come to DO something. If we screw it up, let's learn from our mistakes and move on. Debate and contraversy can only advance a cause so far. How far would science have advanced if all anyone ever did was theorize and never conducted any experiments? At some point you have to actually DO something and see if it works. If it doesn't, go back to the drawing board and start over.

We need to start taking action NOW! We'll make mistakes but we'll learn in the process. Eventually' we'll get it right.

See ya at the march!

Mad Kally

An <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/517wiclv.asp" target="_blank"> article: </a>

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Mad Kally ]</p>

Buffman

CaptainDave

Your frustrations are understood and appreciated...at least by me. However, what constitutes a successful sea voyage? Now ask yourself what would constitute a successful march for the goal of increased rationality...if indeed that is the ultimate goal? What would constitute a failed march?

Have you guys ever heard of being TOO analytical? Maybe that's our big problem. The time has come to DO something. If we screw it up, let's learn from our mistakes and move on.

If your ship went down at sea and you scanned the horizon looking for someone to come to your rescue, you might have wished that you had done more analysis/planning than you did.---Can every eventually be foreseen? Of course not! However, to whom would you turn to give you the best information about the potential problems and solutions? Probably the most experienced professions you could identify. All that I, and perhaps some others, are doing is questioning in a calm and unemotional manner whether the timing of this march is in the best interests of increasing a more wide-spread secular understanding of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, or if it will wind up increasing emotional, rather than reasoned, responses in the public-at-large.

When those human beings, drugged on their supernatural God, took so many other human beings to a horrible and senseless death, many Americans screamed for our government to bomb Iraq into the Stone Age. But then it was Afghanistan and the el Queada. Soon the Taliban was included. Then the word came out that 15 of the 19 mass murderers were from Saudi Arabia, who initially and officially refused to believe it was so. The Arab media blamed the Isrealis for the horror. All this time, plans and analyses were going on concerning how America would respond to this senseless and obscene loss of life and property at the hands of zealous theists, who were labeled as "Terrorists" to make them seem more anti-theist than theist inspired. Then the Anthrax terrorism began...and more innocent people died. Again some people wanted us to bomb Iraq back into the Stone Age.

My point is that simply doing something for the sake of having done it may not be in the best interests of achieving the goals for which we are motivated to do something in the first place. IMHO, the most successful actions have clear and achievable goals and the means to achieve them.

Debate and contraversy can only advance a cause so far.

That's what produced the Constitution and Bill of Rights. (Some pretty good stuff in my opinion.)

How far would science have advanced if all anyone ever did was theorize and never conducted any experiments?

"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." But first there must be a hypothesis to test.

At some point you have to actually DO something and see if it works. If it doesn't, go back to the drawing board and start over.

If you inject yourself with a potential cure that winds up killing you, then what?

We need to start taking action NOW! We'll make mistakes but we'll learn in the process. Eventually' we'll get it right.

I love and support the positive attitude if not necessarily the means employed to achieve the ends.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

CaptainDave

Buffman,

I would be the last to discount the importance of calm, rational thought before action. I agree that rash action for action's sake is not desirable. But at some point, SOMEBODY HAS GOT TO TAKE ACTION! If you are able to not only suggest but IMPLEMENT a more logical, rational action, then I will jump on your bandwagon without hesitation. But until you do, I'll either DO something myself or follow those who have the initiative to DO SOMETHING.

There are only three options here: Lead, follow or get out of the way! Unless you are prepared to lead, your most logical course of action is to help those who ARE taking the lead to do as best as they can. Since the march (for better or worse) is GONNA HAPPEN, let's all do our best to make it as positive a force as it can be. Use your calm, rational voice (It's needed!) to make the best of something that is going to happen whether you thing it is wise or not.

Buffman

That's why I am offering what knowledge and expertise I do have for everyone's review.

You seem concerned with the pychological impact that my thoughts might have on the enthusiasm others have concerning this march. Good! I am concerned about the psychological impact this march might have on further separating Americans by their personal expressions of conscience.

I'm sorry that the concept of a "Godless" march disturbs me. But it does. I have always been against anything that can increase divisiveness among Americans. Ignorance, bigotry, prejudice, and superstitions are the enemy. Not Theists, Christians, Atheists or people who are different.

I still remain confused about the goals of this march. If the ultimate goal is simply to demonstrate that there are some Americans who do not believe in a God, that's fine...but certainly not news. If one of the goals is so that atheists can meet with other atheists, that too is fine. If the goal is to further energize those who are obviously already energized enough to attend, there is nothing wrong with that. If one of the goals is simply to have a good time, that's great. Unfortunately none of those holds any interest for me. What does hold my interest is the potential for this "Godless" march to be used as the Christian fundamentalist poster boy for increased political and financial power and influence. A visual and audio validation of all the hypocritical propaganda and lies they have been pounding into the American psyche for the last decade plus.

Moving from the original Sep date to the weekend before the mid-term elections looks as fishy as a three dollar bill. It looks just as fishy as the Senate having a Resolution all ready to go when the moment seemed appropriate. A Resolution based on 16 items riddled with lies, half-truths and outright irrelevancies. Yet 99 Sentors leaped at the opportunity to sign-on to this outrageous piece of historical garbage.

So, yes, I am very concerned about a "Godless" march on 2 Nov.

I hope you have availed yourself of my other posts where I provided the names of the professional Conservative movers and shakers, and how they have been the driving forces behind this increasing polarization of our nation and the increasing tyranny of a specific religious majority faith belief.

There are many ways to fight fear, superstition and myth. I have dedicated my retirement years and resources to educating as many people as I can with the accurate facts/knowledge. (You're down in the Keys. Come on up here to Lake County and central Florida and see what it's like to make yourself a public target of the fundamentalist hoards. I have been doing that for many decades.)

Alonzo Fyfe

My day is spent in a ratio of about 25% analysis and 75% action. But you don't see the action, because it is not done here. (Preaching to the choir and all that.)

Here, I offer my ideas on what has worked and what I think will work, and read similar ideas from others.

So, now you have the "experimentation" and "discussion" that you have suggested.

And it is on this that I have offered the opinions that I have offered.

I have my concerns. Yet, I have also said that there comes a point in any debate where the decision has been made, and now you must decide what to do GIVEN those decisions, however wise or unwise you may think them to be.

You have spoken about experimentation. In that light, I offer this.

That state leaders organize some sort of similar demonstration in their local state capital. That each group be given the freedom to design their local march as they see fit. That, after November 2, we discuss which options seem to have been the most effective.

d'naturalist

Not to make a nuisance of myself (although that can be fun), but the one thing you're overlooking in your call to "stop talking and start doing" is the fact that the march is three months away. As far as the march is concerned, there's nothing else to do at this point except discuss it.

I like your enthusiasm, but there's plenty of time to have both talk and action.

CaptainDave

Actually, there's plenty to do concerning the march. Those who support it should promote it to the max. Those who have concerns about it should take those concerns to the people who are organizing the march. It's too late to change it's name but perhaps you can influence the tone of the event. Several of you make valid points and I suggest you direct them where they might make a difference.