galiel

How about it? The more I discuss things in these forums, the more I think the more compelling struggle behind which we all can and should unite, is not the negative one against encroaching theism, it is the positive one of shoring up and protecting one of the vital pillars of the American system, Church-State Separation (which, conveniently, happens to be the name of this forum).

Presented in that light, our allies are legion (most theist communities support the Separation principle) and our internal differences muted, if not moot (most nontheists are Separationists, and differ only on the best tactical way to deal with the broader theist community).

As well, presented in that light, our struggle becomes in the popular eye a conservative one of defending our American traditions against a minority of extremist theocratic radicals, rather than a radical attempt to 'disembowel the spiritual heart of America'.

Just semantics, or a profound insight? Inquiring minds want to know - I want to know!

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited to change topic from "True issue" to "More compelling issue" and to change "real struggle" in first sentence of this post to "more compelling struggle", based on input from Alonzo Fyfe, by: galiel ]

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

HelenM

I think that you are raising a good point...

PR is a big factor. You will have to contend with the people who think you are trying to undermine everything that is good about America and somehow persuade them that that is not in fact your goal...

take care
Helen

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

I think that both are relevant issues, but I clearly give a higher order of priority to the separation of church and state.

Theism is a problem when it inhibits scientific progress (particularly progress in medicine), or when it causes people to dismiss global problems (e.g., a future asteroid impact) on the grounds that God will not let anything so dire happen to us -- when ineffecitive faith-based solutions are offered to real-world problems.

But church/state separation is not a theist/nontheist issue. When I write on these issues I make it a point to discuss what is wrong with violating church/state separation in a way that a theist can support as well -- in a way that is quite compatible with theist beliefs.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

galiel

I agree with your post. I should have clarified that I am making a tactical/strategic distinction, not discounting the need to combate the maifestation of theist unreason in our culture. Even then, however, I wonder if it isn't useful to couch it in affirmative terms, as efforts to promote critical thinking and the scientific method, both of which are key focii of mine.

In fact, I have now edited the topic as well as the opening sentence of my initial post to reflect your comments. Thank you.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Stephen Maturin

You're absolutely correct, Galiel. Well do I remember my early years in public school, when every day began with a teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, the Lord's Prayer and a passage from the Bible. My mother, a died-in-the-wool Presbyterian fundy, was absolutely delighted when the prayer and Bible reading were done away with. She loathed the notion of a government employee telling her kids when/how to pray and how the Bible should be interpreted.

Increased chuch influence over government comes at a high price, namely increased government influence over churches. In my experience, that price is too high for many if not most reasonable theists (please pardon the seeming contradiction in terms ).

HelenM

My experience is that thoughtful theists can understand why separation of church and state is important.

It's a shame the way issues get polarized and distorted so that something that theists and nontheists ought to agree upon ends up being seen as an issue belonging to only one side.

And then the other side is immediately defensive when the subject is brought up.

(Except the thoughtful people who think before reacting)

Helen

Rusting Car Bumper

Everyone knows my opinion.

We spend far too much effort on Church-State seperation, we don't include theists in our CSS battles.

We should spend more effort building bridges instead of burning bibles.

DC

Toto

Atheists do not burn Bibles, and have never advocated burning Bibles or other books. Burning books is a medieval Christian tactic that we want no part of. Many people become atheists after actually reading the Bible.

I don't know what you mean by "we" don't include theists in our CS battles. Most of those battles are being waged by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. You may have noticed that AU is headed by a minister and includes a number of relgious members, and that most of the plaintiffs in ACLU's CSS cases are theists protesting the efforts of other theists to impose their practices on them. (This may be because the ACLU spends time looking for the most media attractive plaintiff before bringing suit.)

We owe much of our legal heritage of religious freedom to dissenting theists, and most of the CSS action takes that into account.

Rusting Car Bumper

Hello?

poetic license maybe?

Did you think I was also suggesting that we go out and literally build a bridge too?

As far as "we" I mean atheist orgs tend to concentrate on little but bashing religion and CSS. Yes, I am aware that the two groups you mentioned are as they are.

Oh no doubt. However, we don't seem to be delivering that message.

DC

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

d'naturalist

I don't really see a theist vs. non-theist struggle -- it's more a difference of opinion. We're separate communities each trying to live our lives in peace. Yes, we have our squabbles, but for the most part, I think there's a live and let live mentality.

Separationist vs. Anti-separationist is the real battle. Here's a good motto for separationists (put this on your placards at the March): Good walls make good neighbors! (I know, it's supposed to be 'fences', but all those people living in apartments, dorms, condos, and duplexes know what I'm talking about. )

The government has to be fervently objective & neutral. It can't take sides, play favorites, or give any group an advantage over any others. It's job is to keep the peace and protect rights, not sabotage them. The notion of the "bully pulpit" is a perversion of what civil service is all about. I have absolutely no problem sharing this great country with christians, muslims, jews, wiccans, new-agers, hindus, buddhists, or anyone else. In fact, I love the diversity we have -- it's fabulous to be able to meet people from different countries and experience different cultures and points of view without having to spend the money or risk my life traveling all over the world.

The more compelling issue is keeping the government neutral (separation). If the various cultural groups don't feel threatened or oppressed, then they're more likely to get along with each other.