Buffman

DC

How do Christians (or any theists) spread their belief systems?

Rusting Car Bumper

I'm sure you will tell me.

I will then hope you will explain to me how the question has anything to do with the question, "How do I get along with others in a pluralistic society?"

This is the question which I see as the crux of the matter.

DC

Jayhawker Soule

I believe that those who endorse a theology are necessarily wrong. I do not believe that those who endorse a theology are necessarily bad, nor do I believe that my rejection of theology constitutes a lifestyle. IMO, I thought the Godless March was silly at best.

Buffman

DC

Mine was a serious question. Thank you for taking the time to respond and encourage meaningful dialogue. Evidently you haven't bothered to examine the process.

I keep hoping that you will see the advantages of a multi-faceted approach to gaining respect for non-belief while ensuring the current legal protections are maintained.

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

Ted Hoffman

DC:
This is the wrong question. "getting along" is not the issue.
Atheists are being branded non-patriotic and being treated as second-rate citizens and you are talking about getting along?
There must be mutual respect for people to get along.

Atheists are not respected and are forced institutionally and in other facets of the society to engage in activities that are offensive to their state (atheism is a state - not a belief).

This must first change before we can talk about getting along.

You can't justifiably talk about "walking together" yet we are crawling and they are walking. There is some ground we must cover before we can aspire this idealistic and passive vision that you hold.

And ultimately, we know the ills of theism. It must be rooted out in the end.
That might just happen - it depends on how many answers science can provide. Our education systems, socialization processes and human experience.

fando

Why are you asking this question? I suppose you want us to justify the Godless March. There is no need to justify it. The view that it does need justifying assumes that there is a fundamental problem with the Godless March. I don't think anyone in this thread has succeeded in showing any problems. Please demonstrate undisputably how standing up for what you believe in on a national stage is divisive and will cause harm to atheists. Then we can discuss what not to do.

This attitude is disheartening. Are you sure you have your fingers on the pulse of the U.S.? Here, there is a cultural expectation for people to stand up for what they believe in and what they are. Standing up involves being seen and heard. Marching on Washington is a good way of going about this, and we've had tons of these marches already, including a very peaceful gay and lesbian one. The most significant march to date has been for Civil Rights, the one in which Martin Luther King Jr. made a very famous speech about equality and respect. It is now a tradition to march on washington when a group feels the need to assert its identity and place in the U.S., to gain a voice that will be heard.

I don't understand the fear some have about being vocal about one's beliefs. You won't change what people believe and how they behave by infiltrating their groups and instilling sympathy. Sure, you might convince one or two people in the audience to be more tolerant, but I don't see how it will encourage mass acceptance. It is far more efficient to erect a flag and rally around it. With presence, you have a voice. With a voice, you have an audience. And this audience, a national audience, is far bigger and more important than some dinky little debate between theists and atheists in the deep south.

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

Jayhawker Soule

In what ways am I forced "to engage in activities that are offensive to [my] state"? Perhaps at least part of the problem is that some who view atheism as a lifestyle are quick to take offense and adopt the stance of victim. Note, for example, the "Congress attacks Michael Newdow (again)" thread.

Ted Hoffman

What was that about the allegiance pledge? ("One Nation Under God"?)

And the BoyScouts thingy?

You are in Chicago and you are not aware that atheists have to do things they do not appreciate?

Alonzo Fyfe

On the issue of whether we should find common ground with Christians or try to convert them, I actually think it should be both.

Any type of successful political move must include a substantial number of Christian supporters to pass. No rational politician can support a policy that 1% of the population favors, 85% oppose, and 14% don't care. And it is a waste of time and effort to advance such a program. These types of efforts should focus instead on projects that 51% of the population can support -- and this means a substantial number of Christian supporters.

At the same time, advancing a political agenda that requires a fairly large portion of Christian supporters does not preclude the parallel strategy of defending one's beliefs. It does not preclude the possibility of going before an audience and saying, "We are right, they are wrong."

What it means is advancing a program that says, "These types of issues are those which private citizens should debate among themselves and decide for themselves, without the Government taking sides and funding one group against the other. That whenever the Government is brought into these types of disputes, it leads to injustice, discrimination, and many times in violence and internal conflict as has been seen all over the world."

A great many Christian opponents can agree with this assessment. They need only look at their own organization's histories.

So, I have no opposition to the promotion of reason and the defense of atheism in debate. But I would argue that the debater should use whatever opportunity presents itself to make the above "laisse faire" policy statement about government or religion.

(And, indeed, it may be useful to use the specific phrase "laisse faire". Since strong religous commitments tie in with conservative economic sentiments, then arguing for a "hands off" policy with respect to religious belief may well have an effect on this particular audience.)

Alonzo Fyfe

Fundraising is not all that difficult. But it does require some interest in actually making money. Most of the people I have talked to find this distasteful for a number of reasons. The dominant are:

(1) Asking for money is like begging, and we don't want to be seen as begging for money.

Answer: An organization should not view itself as begging for money, but as selling a good or service. The American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Association are not beggars, they are offering a product (a cancer-free society, a healthy planet filled with diverse life forms) and are seeking payment for those services. Because these are public goods, they cannot sell their product to individuals and withhold it from those who do not pay, so they must make their services available to everybody, while reminding those who benefit that they should be giving something back in return.


(2) Fundraising interferes with "the message." We want to be purists who are free from the strings that come with money.

I hold that the purists who spend 100% of their $10,000 devoted to their message are doing far less significant work than the non-purist who devotes a mere 50% of their #1,000,000 to their message.


(3) We're too busy to devote any resources to fundraising.

I would recommend devoting some effort to fundraising and using the money raised to PAY somebody to do the work that keeps you too busy to raise money. Else, you have voluntarily crawled into a quagmire from which there is no escape, because the lack of money ensures that you will ALWAYS be too busy to raise money.

Fundraising is not all that difficult, but it does require somebody with some business sense who is not ashamed of asking for money or too busy looking for excuses to avoid the task of fundraising to actually raise money.