capnkirk

I agree with your observation, but not with your implicit conclusion. Some constructive answers to precisely this question is what we are looking for here on this thread.

If the GOP was able to overcome the bias against them sufficiently to gain both the White House and both houses of Congress, doesn't that suggest that we aren't completely prisoner to our image. Also, I would argue that your claim is held mostly by a small minority, mostly fundies and evangelicals. There are a whole lot of others who base their negative image of us on much less theistic grounds. These people can be moved, the fundies can't.

capnkirk

I am not claiming that they ARE! I am claiming that this is the perception in the general public. In the arena we are discussing, perception IS reality...counterintellectual as that may be.

Certainly we can't squelch litigation initiated by non-atheists, but we can avoid adding fuel to the fire.

ybnormal

Capnkirk:
The intolerance I am referring to is, more accurately, an anger at religion in general and Xtianity in particular, that is perceived as intolerance by most non-atheists.

I can only answer to what I know and what I have said... I think my "leave me alone" position is fairly representative of nonxians... thus I think I have already explained my position and challenged your anger at religion charge, yet you repeat it, seemingly without giving a thought to my denial.

I do not deny that many folks have VALID reasons to be angry at the REAL harm that people behind religion have caused them, most likely thru parents who had FORCED religion on them... forced on them when they were innocent and defenseless children... children, who in any other area are deemed by our society as being too young and immature to consent, and too young and immature to comprehend, much less make objective decisions regarding their personal belief system.

I was/am NOT one of these forced children, but...

Are you saying that such children, after becoming adults, have NO right or reason to be angry?

I don't care how you try to slice this "anger" issue (as some we-all-want-the-same-thing argument) you WILL inevitably be left blaming the victim... every_single_time.

You don't seem to like answering my direct questions, however, would you try to answer this simple one?

In the whole scheme of things, exactly which group do you see as being on the defensive?

capnkirk

I favor the effort to prevent creationism from being taught in schools in any but a course in comparative mythology...because it can be prosecuted as a scientific issue rather than a tolerance issue (remember, I am talking about perceptions here).

While "we" may intellectually harrummpph at the accusation that many of the establishment clause cases are tolerance issues, they are being spun that way, and it is working.

In that light, we must answer the question, "Is the tactical gain worth the strategic loss?" Full frontal assault is not necessarily the best way to win a campaign.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by capnkirk
I am not claiming that they ARE!

I didn't say you were. I was just asking. I went back and read a chunk of the opinion and I didn't find any reference to the plaintiffs' religion, or lack thereof. They may be atheists, or they may be Muslims or Zoroastrians or Buddhists for all I know. Hell, they may even be Christians and Jews. Often in these establishment clause cases amicus briefs are filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by Christian groups, even when the alleged "establishment of religion" is of a decidedly Christian nature.

These are the sorts of facts, in my opinion, that need to be impressed upon those who blame all of this "get god out of government" business on non-believers. As far as I know, the framers and ratifiers of the First Amendment itself were believers. Furthermore the members of the Supreme Court that have been interpreting the establishment clause, from Hugo Black on down, were and are believers, as far as I know.

If the "general public" is so dim as to completely ignore these facts, I'm at a loss as to what to do about it. And, as I am fond of pointing out, an overwhelming majority of Supreme Court justices over the last 45 years or so were appointed by Republican presidents. And as we all know, the author of Newdow is an old GOP hand from way back, appointed by none other than Richard Nixon. So the solution for the "general public" may be to have the disciples of Rousas J. Rushdoony appointed to the federal bench ... I don't know.

Originally posted by capnkirk
I am claiming that this is the perception in the general public. In the arena we are discussing, perception IS reality...counterintellectual as that may be.

I agree, and it is a problem. We saw it on the day Newdow was announced, right there on national TV in the United States Senate. No one can convince me that that egregious display of sanctimonious grandstanding was inspired by a reading of the 9th Circuit's opinion. Short of making the reading of establishment clause opinions a requirement of the general public in lieu of the irrelevant blathering of people like Robert Byrd and David Barton I'm afraid I have little to offer in the way of solving a problem caused by pure, apparently wilfull, ignorance.

capnkirk

yb,

If I have avoided answering your direct questions, it was not intentional. Sometimes the implicit answer to your question that I see in my response isn't clear to others. I don't mind being reminded so. Let me try to be more specific.

I am NOT disagreeing with your claim of a "leave me alone" attitude of (at least) a majority of non-xtians. We may differ, however on the size of the minority. I think it is larger, you think it is smaller.

I am also drawing a distinction between the kind of anger associated with grieving over loss of faith with targeted anger over specific abuses carried out in the name of religion. Nor did I address the justification for either kind of anger. I do in fact consider both as natural and justifiable. I am attempting to address how to manage that anger, how to process it into something less (outwardly) threatening, but much more fundamentally potent. It has nothing in common with capitulation. It has everything to do with designing a more effective way of protecting our gains thus far, and preparing to significantly increase our influence along with our numbers in the future.

Personally, I have finished my grief-work over my loss-of-faith, and that anger is just gone. As to the targeted anger, that has been processed into a cold determination to remedy what I personally can of those abuses. This thread is one manifestation of that resolve. Anger generally produces an emotionally motivated outlook and response; determination and resolve are much easier to harness to intellectually motivated action. I am just saying that it is counterproductive to retain anger as such. It is far more productive to forge it into an instrument that will submit to your intellect.

So far as "blame" and "victims" enters into this, blame is useful only so far as it relates to recognizing cause and effect. As an emotion, it's worthless. As for victims, everyone has been a victim of something. The measure of a person is whether they wallow in it, or claw themselves up and out of it, and go on with their lives. I am the antichrist of victimology!

In the whole scheme of things, our public image places us on the defensive.

capnkirk

In the "pledge" case, I seem to recall (if memory serves) an interview with the plaintiff on one of the cable networks, probably CNN, who was both plaintiff and plaintiff attorney, who identified himself as an atheist. The (unintended) impression I got was that the man's real motivation for his suit was to make a name for himself. Certainly not the result of an organized atheist group initiative.

For the general public, I would not necessarily charge willfulness. It's more like complacency. Far too many seem satisfied to watch the evening news, and maybe read the headlines on the front page before turning to the sports page or the comics.

ybnormal

Capnkirk, I am often accused of being and/or sounding angry... my style is aggressive and absolutist in a sincere attempt to get to a bottom line using exacting questions... from my perspective, there is no other way to deal with theists/xians who refuse to be pinned down to anything concrete, and I have no interest in dealing with them any other way... (I do unintentionally let that get into discussions with other non-believers, and I do apologize for that)

But, this is mostly my whole point in my responses to you thus far... that, I am NOT coming from a position of anger, and that your statement which I first responded to, on this site, atheist intolerance of religion is pervasive., implies that you probably perceive ME as being angry at and intolerant of "religion" when I am not, from my perspective. My point was, that you might also be making the same mistake with others who you perceive as being angry at and intolerant of "religion".

My bottom line here, and you will NOT move me from it, because I can back it up, is that it is totally impossible for me (and those like me) to be intolerant of an aggressor who first targeted ME as their enemy. I am not talking about some offhand and abstract political rhetoric repeated by some little old xian lady at a church bake sale... I am only talking about believing the literal words of the leadership of the Xian Party and its misguided foot soldiers who come here or otherwise get in my face to target ME as their personal enemy and who thus desire MY elimination.

That said, I fully understand your distinction with the word "perceived", as in your, We are perceived as militant iconoclasts "driven" by hatred...

I stated above that, "it is totally impossible for me (and those like me) to be intolerant of an aggressor", but as exampled in my very first response to you, I fully understand that I AM perceived as being angry and intolerant, not just by xians, but by you too. See what I mean?

That is precisely why I asked for your opinion...

admice

This post was originally about consolidation, brainstorming and action, yet it 'deteriorated' (my opinion) into attacking and arguing with each other. Give it a rest. Do something constructive.

capnkirk

ybnormal,

I took the time before posting this PM to reread our dialog on this thread, just to try to recapture my initial impressions. Yes, you are quite strident (but I've been accused of that too), so I can well tell the difference between stridency and anger or intolerance. Besides, I have a pretty thick skin, so let me assure you, I have taken no offense at any of your postings to the thread. I could find only one question of yours that I didn't attempt to answer directly, and that was one that asked "if I would care to guess..." My answer is no, anticipating that you would present it yourself without further invitation.

I also concede that you have been posting to this site much longer than I have, and by virtue or that may have a more accurate evaluation of the overall mix here. I looked at several sites before I settled here, and rejected them because they seemed too preoccupied with refuting xtianity. I wanted to find more mature atheists who had gotten past seeing themselves as ex-christians and no longer needed the reflection of their past life to define themselves.

I want you to recognize that my approach here is sort of like battlefield triage. First, separate those you can help from those you can't. Focus your efforts on those who CAN benefit from that effort. How does that translate to the context of this thread? Very bluntly, SCREW THE FUNDIES! they're the DOA's. But there is a part of the party who are decidedly moderate, and if there ARE any targets of opportunity out there, this is where to find them.

And I'm with you...If them ol' fundies come lookin' to eliminate ME...this ol' Green Beret can defend himself pretty well with either the pen or the sword.


CapnKirk