god-free-pen

Quote: IMHO, Madalyn did as much to marginalize and undermine atheist credibility as she did to thrust it down people's throats. Unquote

Come up with an explanation for that statement please!

In my opinion you are attacking atheism's greatest heroine, a prolific writer, the clearest mind and the most intelligent woman I have ever known, who did more to get atheists out of the closet than anyone else on earth.

Far from being "the most hated woman in America", she was much loved and respected.

I've read practically everything she ever wrote and I never, EVER heard or read of her forcing atheism on anyone!

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: god-free-pen ]</p>

god-free-pen

Quote: Having satanists, who are indeed "godless," in the march is a good thing. Unquote

How in the world could someone who calls himself a "Satanist" be godless?

Assuming you could credibly explain this do you really think the general public will be willing to separate the esoteric finely tuned definitions of different types of Satanists as they are marching down the street bearing flags that say "Atheists for Satan"?

Rusting Car Bumper

I think that us atheists have got our reasoning backwards. We are essentially trying to fight the symptoms and not the cause.

Atheist's problems, at the root, are not political. They are social. Our main problem is that we are seen as evil, immoral, corrupt, &lt;insert negative description here&gt;.

This is the same problem that African-americans had and lesbians/gays are finally getting through.

Although part of this is a political problem, it won't mean a hill of beans if my neighbor still sees me as evil. Its the problem of getting non-believers seen as social equals that lies at the root of our problem. Passing laws, and filing court cases will not help us win that fight.

Part of the image we have is the result of the narrow activities of atheist organizations. More often than not they do little except say "religion sucks" and complain about church-state separation. If this is all these organiztions do then what do we exect theists to think of us?

The cycle feeds on itself because thats all that atheists seem to focus on once they get "in the loop" of these organizations.

Or as I like to put it, "What you do you become to others. What you do you become to yourself."

I don't see this march addressing any of this.

Although I am somewhat undecided on this march, my initial views of it are not exactly positive.

DC

Alonzo Fyfe

None of the things you described are evil. If atheist organizations are not doing anything evil, and yet are still perceived as evil, then how is the fact that they are doing or not doing these things relevant to their being thought of as evil?

I agree atheists are thought of as evil.

However, each day in school, children are forced to cite a pledge where the words 'under God' give atheists the same normative status that the word 'indivisible' gives to rebels, and that the words 'with liberty and justice for all' gives to tyrants and perpetrators of injustice.

In other words, the sentiment 'atheists are evil' is written directly into the pledge of allegiance.

And it is a concept preached in church and that can be found throughout the bible.

Against all of this, I think that the actions any non-evil actions that any particular group may perform are not going to even be noticed.

Novowels

Easily. I used to be a LaVey-Satanist (a cheap one, it's $100 for membership so I skipped that and just bought the required books ). LaVey-Satanists believe in equal time- and indeed indulgence in- the "dark carnal nature" present in humanity. LaVey said that it has been codified by Christianity as "Satan" so why not use the label? Most Satanists are somewhat confused: LaVey used the term both as a simple label and as a shock-reactionary term to gain attention, and thus many confused adolescents in the throes of "parent-rebellion" most likely joined up for the thrill of it.

But true LaVey-Satanists are atheistic, if not naturalistic. There is a heavy magic(k) undertone through the whole thing, (the main reason I don't consider myself a Satanist anymore - I'm a naturalist) plus it's difficult to tell when LaVey was being sarcastic or serious in his books at times.

Of course not. The general public is generally stupid and easily led. They're going to believe whatever their minister tells them. Frankly, I say let them have their target. If they're taking potshots at "Satanism" they won't be able to take potshots at "humanism" and "naturalism" so much.

I'm sure many of the "normal" gay people in Gay Pride marches didn't want the leather fetishist S&M queens marching with them. Did they get to march? Of course. Just because they disagreed on a few things, doesn't mean they're not gay.

This is a Godless Americans march. Let all the godless Americans march.

-William
[edited for clarity]

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

Buffman

god-free-pen

Come up with an explanation for that statement please!

I have only one explanation. I did not care for her personality or her method of public discourse. I had to spend more time attempting to explain why MMO did not represent every non-believer than addressing the reasons for non-belief. She wrapped herself in Atheism much like some people wrap themselves in the American flag and claim they are patriots. Personally, I am more inclined to believe that she did more to create today's negative attitude about non-belief than in increasing the number of non-believers. I do not consider that to be any kind of victory for rationality.

In my opinion you are attacking atheism's greatest heroine,

I apologize if you found my remarks unworthy of her efforts. (I would be interested to know what she wrote in her diary. I don't trust what "Watchtower" claims can be found there.)

[/b]a prolific writer,[/b]

I consider Isaac Asimov a prolific writer. I consider S.J.Gould a renowed writer in his field. I consider Carl Sagan a successful writer. I consider Steve Allen a brilliant talent in many fields of which writing was only one. Robert Green Ingersoll was a brilliant writer for the cause of non-belief. What did MMO write that matches any one of these other atheists?

the clearest mind and the most intelligent woman I have ever known, who did more to get atheists out of the closet than anyone else on earth.

I only knew her from her written and televised interviews. I was not impressed. I have no idea how many atheists she helped to "come out of the closet." She did nothing for me accept make my life more difficult...even to this day. I must also wonder how many more atheists there might be if she hadn't been the type of public person she was.

Far from being "the most hated woman in America", she was much loved and respected.

Obviously by at least one good and faithful friend. That is extremely worthy of note.

I've read practically everything she ever wrote and I never, EVER heard or read of her forcing atheism on anyone!

That was an unfair shot on my part. "Force" was an inappropriate choice of words. I apologize. However, I rather suspect that theists don't believe that they are forcing their beliefs on anyone either. Did she ever demean, in any manner that you have EVER heard or read, the people of faith beliefs? Did she ever present an arrogant public persona? Is it possible that those on the receiving end of her powerful personality might view it as overly "forceful?"

I have to wonder why four atheist groups decided to form their own national organization in 1992?

<a href="http://www.atheistalliance.org/" target="_blank">http://www.atheistalliance.org/</a>

<a href="http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa013.htm" target="_blank">http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa013.htm</a>

True or False?

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

DougI

Answering with questions, how cute. Feel the need to dodge the issue any further?

Rusting Car Bumper

For that see Buffman's comments on MMO.

Organizations are the public face of atheism. If an organization posts a public face with not much more than "religion sucks" then you have to admit thats an affront to hundreds of millions of people.

You have to put yourselves in their shoes. "Gee. I believe in god and so do my neighbors and family. Its the deepest most identifying thing I can say about myself. This atheist org says I'm wrong and that my beliefs are harmful to myself and others. Further, they don't do anything else BUT concentrate on denigrating my beliefs."

If that's someone's honest experience with atheist orgs then what conclusion do you expect them to draw? Thus, my suspicion of this march. Will it just reinforce this impression?

Of course this reflects on atheists. If all an otherwise neutral theist sees in the news is atheists filing court cases and saying "religion sucks" and further the person never sees the atheist feeding the poor or what have you *because* he is an atheist, then its clear why atheists in general have a bad image. Atheists do not have "A"'s tattooed on our foreheads. When we do good, act normally or with virtue, it goes unnoticed because the public face of atheism does not associate itself with (what are considered to be) outright virtuous acts.

I will correct you that no child is forced to say the pledge. Even most theists, as far as I can surmise, agree with this position. What is of disagreement is the words "under god".

Yes I agree that the pledge is not appropriate. However, if this is the worst we have going against us then we've got it pretty good. We don't have sections of buses and water fountains labeled "nonbeliever" after all.

Further, this insistence on "under god" being included is not the problem itself. Its only a symptom of the problem. When your neighbor sees and understands that you are human just like he/she is then he will fight for you just like his theist neighbors. This is not very different than why the white neighbor stands up to the racist (who acts against African Americans) even though they are racially different and in spite of the fact that the same white guy probably would not have done so several decades earlier. Things can change and be made to change.

Note also in American history that Christian groups were very much at odds with each other. Any cursory readings about religious violence in Boston between Catholics and Protestants about bible readings or the religious history of the individual 13 colonies will put to rest any notions that Christianity has always been a big happy family in America. That has changed. Their differences seem to be less important now. There is no reason that we cannot change the minds and makeup of the social fabric in the long run also.

However, I don't think it will happen by filing court cases or denigrating the religious. We have to change the image of atheism. We have to change what it means to be an atheist.

DC

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

Toto

On Madalyn Murray O'Hair - I didn't know here personally, but it sounds like she was a complex person who in another context would have been a strong business leader or politician. (I do know some of the people who formed the rival organizations.)

But the important thing is that she was playing to the media's image of the Angry Atheist. If she hadn't done this, she wouldn't have gotten the publicity. One of our local atheist leaders is a very mild-mannered, reasonable atheist who goes to great pains to avoid religion-bashing. The media will not cover her - they can't find a sound bite that fits their requirements of Angry Hate-Filled Village Atheist Dissenting From the All-American Pro-Religious Consensus.

But I think this can and will change. It will just take some concerted effort and some media-savvy leadership.

Rusting Car Bumper

It depends on the what the local atheist leader does and what his group does.

Take for example my local group. We've been on talk shows on radio a number of times. We've been covered by that "Rest of the Story" guy, CNN, and one of the founders was on NPR.

We've been covered by the local papers, and one story of which was syndicated over the wires and was picked up all over the US. All the time it we concentrated on the fact that our group is about forming community of atheists to share values and NOT to bash religion and fight court cases. In fact the picture which accompanied that story was not one of protest but of a few atheists smiling and laughing. It simply shows me what a change of image can accomplish.

DC