GaryP

How about placing some Freedom From Religion Foundation's "non-tracts" around the building?

You can find them here
<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/" target="_blank">ffrf.org</a>

Alonzo Fyfe

Well, you asked....


First, make your arguments consistent with a belief in God.

You need allies, not enemies. Given that most people believe in God, and will continue to do so, if you adopt the battle plan of "first, defeat their belief in God; second, get them to see the wrongness of these laws," you have assigned yourself an unwinable battle.

There is nothing inconsistent with saying, "I believe in God, but I do not believe that it is right (or that God would approve) of forcing worship on people against their will."


Second: Do not get in war of quotes.

No single person ever holds a consistent set of views over all situations, and our founding fathers were the same. Dueling quotes is never winable -- it is waste of valuable time and effort.

Item 1 above will disarm almost all quotes that others may use against you anyway, because about the only quotes that you will encounter are quotes where the founding fathers, from time to time, endorsed some sort of religious sentiment.
Rather than finding a relevant counter-quote, instead simply dismiss the quote as irrelevant.

Answer something like: "So what? It is possible to believe in God and, at the same time, still believe that it is wrong to use the government to force worship on unwilling people -- that others must come to God willingly, not because the Government required it of them."


Third, Focus on a single message.

This follows the military doctrine of not spreading your forces out too thinly. Instead, make a surgical, pointed attack at one key point of weakness.

I make one consistent point against the Pledge, against the national motto, "In God We Trust", and against posting of the 10 Commandments, that they all deliver the same message.

"If you believe in God, you are welcome here among us. If you do not, then please go away, we do not want you around."

If you pledge allegiance to one nation under God, then you are pledging allegiance to one nation without atheists.

If your motto is "In God WE Trust", then you say that WE do not have any person who does not believe in God amongst us; those who do not believe in God do not belong.

The first 4 of the 10 Commandments combine say nothing less than, "Thou shalt worship the Judeo-Christian God and no other." Post that on the school wall, and you are saying, "Only Jews and Christians are welcome here; all others -- well, you should become either a Jew or a Christian."

Whatever you decide your message is: stay focused until you win.


Fourth: Find a lot of different ways to say the same thing.

Somebody will understand the argument put one way, another person will understand the argument put in a different way. And you will not sound like a broken record.


Fifth, do not be long-winded.

Think of quick soundbites -- one or two sentences that communicate your core point. Most people will not read through anything particularly long. They do listen to a slogan.

Correspondingly, take your opponent's slogan and think of slogan-type answers. "Separation of Church and State do not appear in the Constitution." Answer: "Neither does God."

This is a start. Good luck.

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

god-free-pen

Alonzo,

I have read quite a few of your posts and I must tell you your logic is wonderful...I love the art of logic.

Its' not very often that I am taught something new at my age but you have managed that difficult
feat!

Thanks

capsaicin67

Alonzo, I wish that you would found a National Board of Nontheistic Marketing and Spin or some such thing. I think that is the level where this whole war is being lost. Nontheism needs a focused, funded, creative task force to tackle the problem of how theists and other supernaturalists dominate pop culture. It needs people that think and write clearly and understand the importance of a surgically precise message, plus a catchy spin. You would be good at such a thing. We need a national marketing campaign that makes us the Macintosh of belief systems! Coolness and pop culture relevance will transform the debate and the landscape in ways that individual court cases and grievances may never be able to do [for instance even though the Pledge ruling is understood to be correct, it is widely believed that the majority will circumvent it nonetheless].

Incidentally, I am impressed with this site---- it seems so well-moderated, easy to use, and generally clean and hip. Most other resources I have associated with on the freethought front have all the appeal of orthopaedic shoes!

Toto

I think that the Community of Reason was supposed to fill that role, but I suspect that everyone connected to it wears sensible shoes, many with orthopaedic inserts (alas). Keep thinking along those lines.

capsaicin67

I'd like to tie-in my prior post with the topic at hand----oppression in the public schools in particular. For me it begs a question about the long-term strategy. [And I do like some of the brainstorming that has gone on in this thread to suggest more immediate tactics/support----pretty interesting and important to hash over, IMHO]. But I got to thinking. If they were to put up "Eminem Will Burn In Hell", or "Listen To Eminem and Go To Hell" posters in schools I imagine there would be zillions of dollars [more] in sales of Eminem merchandise overnite. Kids would immediately identify even more strongly with Eminem as being a great way to piss off parents, teachers, uptight peers, The Man, etc. I'm wondering what others think------isn't nontheism and nonsupernaturalism the ultimate way to piss off the establishment? Why isn't it, and how could it be, rebelliously cool?

Defiant Heretic

First of all, I would like to say that if you can solve this problem through legislation, you should. This is usually the best solution. However, in the past, the government has had a tendency to ignore the first amendment when it comes to atheists. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />


If this happens here, it is time to move on to civil disobediance. When I was in high school, we had a chemistry teacher put up signs advertising the Society of Christian Atheletes. He pushed it repeatedly in class (and also gave a lecture on creationism, but that's another story)

I walked past the signs every day and eventually just decided enough was enough and started ripping them off the walls. I mentioned this to some friends and they started doing this too. It didn't really solve the problem, but it let people see that there was a problem, where previously they were oblivious. Bringing the problem into the open is often the first step in solving it.

Something else that might work is printing a page of stickers with the first amendment written on them and putting them on or next to any of the theistic signs in your school.

Whatever you choose to do, the important thing is that you do something. A despotism will never form except on the backs of an apathetic people. Keep up the fight.

Actually the constitution expressly prohibits a religious test as a requirement for public office (Article VI, I believe) Some states try to ignore this, but the law is on our side.

Alonzo Fyfe

Civil disobedience may be necessary, but it is also very dangerous.

One possible outcome -- civil disobedience can be ignored. The perpetrators are punished, life goes on, and no change is effected.

Another possibility -- civil disobedience degenerates into something that is less than civil.

And a third possibility (easily associated with the second) is that the disobedience generates a backlash.

Essentially, civil disobedience is a form of communication. If you have an important message, and that message is not getting heard, then civil disobedience adds some action to the message for the purpose of getting people to "look over here" and, thereby, hear the message.

As such:

The act should be consistent with the message.

This is easier to illustrate by example. Allow me to give two examples of possible actions; one of which is not consistent with this principle, the second of which is consistent.

You wish to protest the fact that "In God We Trust" is posted on a public school, or the fact that the 10 Commandments is posted in a courthouse.

One option would be to simply destroy or vandalize the sign. But this does not communicate the desired message. It can easily be taken as an attack on God and country.

On the other hand, you could make a sign of approximately the same size containing the words "E Pluribus Unum" on it. Glue, or otherwise afix, the sign to the posting that you want to protest. This, now, communicates the desired message -- that you wish to replace divisive slogans with a unifying slogan.


Another type of activity to protest would be the Pledge of Allegiance containing the words "under God."

I believe that raising one's fist in the air, or sitting silently, is an ineffective means of protest. This form of action paints one as anti-American (which, in fact, is just the image that fundamentalists wish to create of us).

Instead, I would recommend, after the "regular" pledge has been given, to stand separately and pledge allegiance using the pledge without the words "under God." Now, you are no longer anti-American, you are pro-American. And if they try to silence you, simply continue. At any opportunity, simply state, "I sat silently while they said their pledge, why could they not offer me the same courtesy?"


Civil disobedience should have a specific purpose.

Before starting any act of civil disobedience, you should state a clear and specific objective (e.g., "we call for the repeal of law &lt;insert name of appropriate statute here&gt;", rather than some vague, ill-defined concept (i.e., "We demand that the government show more respect toward non-Christians).

For one thing, this allows you to determine if you were successful or unsuccessful.

But more importantly, it tells everybody else exactly what they have done wrong and what they need to fix -- it follows the rule of clarity in communicating to others. There is no ambiguity, no cause for confusion, no way for the opponent to twist your objective by redefining vague or ambiguous terms in their favor.


In addition to a specific purpose, the course of activity should have a general theme that few people would disagree with.

For example, a possible relevant theme would be unity. A march could be called a "Unity March." This would be consistent with the widespread use of the motto "e pluribus unum," and focus people's attention on the fact that what is disliked about the particular laws is the attempt to split Americans into two groups -- believers and nonbelievers. And it is something about which few people would disagree.


The protest should be public.

Do not skulk around the school in the dark covering "In God We Trust" with "E Pluribus Unum." Walk up to the plaque at the start of the day, when the halls are filled and when the school will have the whole day to discuss what you have done -- and post your sign.

It is very easy to call a secret group of people hoodlums, to villifi them and, in doing so, villifi the message that they are trying to communicate.

Being open, being willing to be identified with the action, communicates sincerity and strength of conviction.


Keep your nose clean on every other matter.

It is a fallacy to argue that "This person did this wrong over there (e.g., drunk driving), therefore we should not listen to what he says over here."

But, it is an effective piece of rhetoric and one that should not be made available to the opposition.

Ghandi succeeded not only because of the truth of the message he was trying to deliver, but also because of his admirable character.

Dress clean, speak respectfully, do not let anything else distract from or confuse your message.

To do otherwise is like getting permission to speak before an assembly, and purposefully rigging the sound equipment so that nobody can understand a word you say. It is simply not a rational way to proceed.


Keep it civil.

Decide at the start that you will not allow tempers to flare into violence. If any violence is to be done, it will be done by others to you. Use any violence that does occur against you as a reason to say, "See for yourself, which of us is a danger to society."


Make sure that the punishment does not fit the crime.

For example, assume that you protested the posting of "In God We Trust" by gluing "E Pluribus Unum" to the face of the sign. For punishment, you are told that you must remove the damage.

This punishment must be refused. For all practical purposes, you are being asked to take back that which you have tried to communicate -- to rescind your previous statement. If you are going to take back what you said, then you might as well not say it.

BUT accept any other punishment willingly -- even eagerly.


In summary, I repeat that the purpose of civil disobedience is NOT to attack anybody, either physically or verbally, its purpose is to communicate an idea.

So, make sure that your message is true and honorable. Make it a message that people should and probably would agree with if only they had an opportunity to hear your side of the story (e.g., that it is wrong to divide the country or to reject people not for what they did but merely for what they believe). Make sure that your communication is clear, ungarbled, unambiguous, and free of irrelevancies, noise, and destructions.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

I am flattered at the request.

In fact, I have studied marketing and political strategy.

(I do not like the word 'spin' because, to me, it sounds like a practice of deception, but I sense that you did not mean this literally.)

But I am not sure that such a board would be necessary.

If the advice makes sense, then please follow it. And repeat it to others whom you think are violating these principles to their own (and our collective) detriment.

If any think that I could make a positive contribution to some existing plans, I would be pleased to participate.

Simply send me an e-mail.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

uhcord

Thank you for all the great suggestions Alonzo

I like the idea of putting up stickers that says "E Pluribus Unum". I think I probably will also have to put up the translation, and a very short history of it (suggestions?).

Which translation should I use?
Out of many, one [I personally perfer this one]
One from many parts

Sticker idea:
-------------------------------
E Pluribus Unum [large text]
(Translation) [slightly smaller text]
The Original Motto of the U.S.
Exclaiming our two most cherished virtues
Diversity and Unity
-------------------------------