Warning: Use of undefined constant hmt_head_scripts - assumed 'hmt_head_scripts' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/6/d154229284/htdocs/blog/wp-content/themes/heatmap-adsense-theme/header.php on line 132

Warning: Use of undefined constant hmt_preset_mode_activated - assumed 'hmt_preset_mode_activated' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/6/d154229284/htdocs/blog/wp-content/themes/heatmap-adsense-theme/header.php on line 169

Warning: Use of undefined constant hmt_logo_url - assumed 'hmt_logo_url' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/6/d154229284/htdocs/blog/wp-content/themes/heatmap-adsense-theme/header.php on line 211

Warning: Use of undefined constant hmt_show_title_and_tagline - assumed 'hmt_show_title_and_tagline' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/6/d154229284/htdocs/blog/wp-content/themes/heatmap-adsense-theme/header.php on line 224

tactics

I’m signing the petitions for the red states to secede from USA

There are some people from the red states that are currently having a public temper tantrum to secede from America.  Why not let them?  The red states are a drain.  They have higher rates of homicide, infant mortality, suicide, and unemployment.  They tend to take higher amounts of federal funds, they are less educated, less diverse, less tolerant, have a lower IQ, and are more religious.

I’m all for embracing America, I believe we should try to work together rather than divide.  I would never propose a secession for my state when I am frustrated.  When George Bush won as a result of fraud and the Supreme Court selected him in another election you didn’t see me proposing we secede.  I knew the damage he would cause, I was disgusted, I lived every day of those 8 years upset at who was in the White House.  I lived every day of those 8 years fearful of what he would do next and sad about the extreme damage he was causing to this country.  I did not propose a secession.  Instead I fought to inform the public.  And in doing so I’d like to believe that I played a very small role in ensuring that we have a better leader now.  Now it’s their turn.

If you’re upset about the nomination of Obama I understand that feeling, I lived with that feeling.  During that time I spoke out, it’s a right that we get as Americans.  A right that you would probably have restricted by an [almost] theocratic style government that you would slowly move towards in your new red state country.  A petition to secede sent to the White House, does nothing but paint you as unpatriotic immature and butthurt.  Man up.

 

 

Many of the people signing these petitions on the White House website to allow X state to secede from the Union are not from the states that are asking for a way out.  I am one of them.  That’s right, I signed every single petition asking for a red state to secede.  If they want to play 2 year old I’ll let them.  Let them taste what it would be like to be without the strength of the collective America.  They claim patriotism?  I think not!

I suggest you sign all secession petitions for states that went red in the last election.

Let’s give the whiny unpatriotic traitors what they want!

If you don’t want to sign those petitions maybe you’d rather sign the petition to strip the citizenship from everyone who signed a petition to secede.  Or you can sign the petition to deport everyone who signed a petition to secede.

I’ll leave you with a blurb from Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.  He paints a picture that talks about the weaknesses of the red states as well as referring to higher levels of religiosity:

Other analyses paint the same picture: the United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious adherence; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious literalism, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. While political party affiliation in the United States is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the “red states” are primarily red because of the overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians.

If there were a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and societal health, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don’t. Of the twenty-five cities with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62 percent are in “blue” states and 38 percent are in “red” states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states, 24 percent in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the United States are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. Twenty four of the twenty nine states with the highest rates of theft are red. Of the twenty two states with the highest rates of murder, seventeen are red.

 

By the way, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that states cannot unilaterally secede from the union. The position the court took was “once in (the union), always in”

This is a repost from my blog on Rational Responders 

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Sapient - November 14, 2012 at 10:24 am

Categories: sapient, stupid fundies, tactics   Tags:

Implosion at CFI Canada because of accomodationism vs confrontationalism

blog was written today on the implosion of CFI Canada.  As long as we keep having these accomodationist vs confrontationalist arguments we will continue to have implosions. Frankly, it disgusts me that we have done this. I felt the wrath of the accomodationists when I was known for being a confrontationalist. I probably will still have the perception of being one. Even though I am creating a feel good project that supports all atheists.  I think I am a blend of both.  I hope you are too.

Being able to adjust your method depending on who you interact with is a strong suit.  And if someone sees you are confrontational, why must they label you as always confrontational?  It is also highly hypocritical to be an accomodationalist but be confrontational on the issue of confrontationalists.  It’s time for us to elevate our game.  This division has gone on long enough.  We must think critically and with reason.

I have always supported the efforts of those who are excessively passive, and think they should support mine. We must embrace each other even when we don’t completely agree. Part of the reason I started Atheism United was to show people how there can be a united front. I look forward to universally supporting both camps.  It’s sad how I know the only way to make it work is to not rely on these groups to actually unite.  I will support them whether they support me or not.  And would you believe that there will actually be people who will kick this gift horse in the mouth?  For what?  Because I told someone Jesus was fake on twitter?

Please people, ponder it… we must work together, share a planet together. We can’t make such a big deal over tact and approach. Vocalize your disagreement so that your position is known, but you can’t let it get to the point where you are shooting yourself in the foot.

And if we’re really going to make these labels “accomodationist” and “confrontationalist” can we at least admit there are more groups than that?  If we do, we must include a class of people who are still so downtrodden by religion and brainwashed by it’s followers that they refuse to speak up and would argue vehemently against someone who does.

Accomodationists aren’t a problem… people who are scared to speak up are.  Those people need to sit back and allow everyone else to help humanity move forward, they need to go work on something else.  Maybe environmental clean up, helping the homeless, or relaxing at the pool would be a better activity for people who are so beat by religion that they argue everyone should be quiet.  I used to call that group “Chicken Shit Atheists” but you can come up with a politically correct 15 letter name if you’d like.

Reposted from: Accomodationist vs Confrontationalist

6 comments - What do you think?  Posted by Sapient - November 27, 2011 at 12:08 pm

Categories: activism/volunteering, atheism, atheist orgs, tactics   Tags:

Two types of atheist groups

Wow Darrel Ray is brilliant. He nails it on “First generation leadership.” Because of my type-a personality and my inability to trust easily I was unable to spot future dedicated activists when they aligned with me early in their activist “careers.” Ashley Paramore and Shelley Mountjoy were by my side at the beginning. If I could have known to expand their leadership role early enough, they might have never needed to go become superstars elsewhere.

Check this article out if you would like to learn more about how atheist groups function, and how we can improve them.

Two Types of Leadership in the Secular Movement
Leadership among secular groups tends to come in two general flavors, those that are led by one or a few charismatic leaders (often the founders) and those that are led by a less centralized executive group. There is plenty of room for both types of groups in the movement, but it is important to be conscious and intentional in understanding and recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of both. For purposes of discussion, we will call these groups “first generation” and “second generation,” respectively, although they may not always fit that classification.

First-Generation Leadership
First-generation groups are often led by charismatic leaders. These are lean and activist groups. The founders have a sharp vision for what they want to accomplish and move fast to get the job done. They are often the leading edge of the movement and have influence out of proportion to their numbers both within the movement and in the larger society. Their strengths are invaluable because they are pacesetters, influencing the overall direction of the movement.

Despite their major strengths, it is also important to understand the weaknesses of first generation leaders. They are often an insular group and less democratic. Since first-generation leaders are generally autocratic, they tend to attract members who respond to strong, direct leadership. This limits membership, since only a fraction of the target population responds to this type of leadership.

Challenges to their leadership or vision are not welcome. It may be easy to join one of these groups but hard, if not impossible, to gain a position of influence. For this reason, the leaders have difficulty grooming the next generation. Upcoming, promising new leaders often see no opportunity to take part in the core functions of the organization and, therefore, don’t stick around long. Further, the boards of first-generation groups are generally a reflection of the leader and, therefore, typically very insular as well. The age range within this type of board is often similar to the age of the founder. This makes for a leadership structure that has a limited view and tends to be resistant to change.

Further, he talks about how groups led by charismatic leaders suffer when the external environment changes. The decision to start atheismunited.com was born from that change in environment. The atheist world is much different today than 6 years ago. RRS is still needed, but atheism united will be more current and relevant. The project was born from the idea that we didn’t care what banner we impacted the world under, we just wanted to have the biggest impact possible. We decided it was necessary to create something different. How justified Darrel Ray makes us feel.

“As long as the external environment remains consistent with the conditions in which the organization was founded, it will continue to function. But when the external environment changes, it can present difficult challenges. To the degree that an organization influences the surrounding culture, the target of its efforts must change. Culture is a moving target, and organizations that don’t adjust their influence strategy run the risk of using yesterday’s successful methods on today’s culture.

A good example is the civil rights movement, where many of the first-generation leaders continued following a vision that was rendered obsolete with changes in legislation and social norms.”

Reposted from: two types of atheist groups

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Sapient - at 11:40 am

Categories: activism/volunteering, atheism, atheist, atheist orgs, atheists, Rational Response Squad, tactics   Tags:

I’m not talking about it here too! See my other blogs!

I’m not talking about it on this site and at my main site www.rationalresponders.com

See my posts here and here.  (and more to come depending on how my community votes)

Here’s what others have to say on the side of “boldly stand up for reason, logic, and science”

Accumulated Wisdom 2007.12.21 | Polypyloctomy

Yet another debate rages between those in the freethought movement
who favor either tolerance or resistance. In this case, the discussion
centers on the softer, tolerant approach taken by Hemant Mehta and a
group of his commenters at Friendly Atheist and the more direct, actively resistant approach promoted by Brian Sapient at Rational Response Squad here and here). As I mentioned in a previous post on this subject:

Balancing resistance and tolerance is not easy. Too much
tolerance – to the point of being softheaded – endangers important
civil liberties. Too much resistance – to the point of militancy –
places a wedge between nontheists and liberal religious observers,
deists, and others who are sympathetic to the humanist worldview but
shun the label, and foments attacks by those who most fervently
disagree with, or are most threatened by, a secular, rational outlook.
A proper balance between resistance and tolerance will foster a robust
defense against the intrusion of religious ideology into our society.

While tending to err on the side of tolerance, I must admit that
Sapient is on target when he discusses the relative failure of the
humanist movement, which holds tenaciously to its model of inoffensive,
positive engagement, and has yet to find an effective voice or any
substantial traction in the new media.

For a comparison as to
how “passive atheism” doesn’t attract people like “aggressive atheism”
does look towards the Humanist Vision challenge. A project that we were happy to support and put an equal amount of effort in to as compared to our Blasphemy Challenge. A project that I’d consider a failure in comparison and I know the reasons why, do you? Humanist vision: 6 responses . Blasphemy Challenge
1,444 responses, and there were about another 700 that have been
removed for a multitude of reasons that are not relevant to the current
discussion.

The limits of our tolerance of religious intrusion into all spheres of public life are nicely discussed at Atheist Revolution.

Given the massive influence religion has on
politics and the degree to which it repeatedly leads politicians to
make horribly destructive decisions (e.g., denying global warming,
preventing stem cell research, launching preemptive wars to fulfill
end-times prophecy, etc.), I simply do not have the luxury of ignoring
it. Given the frequent intrusions by believers into my personal domain,
I have little opportunity to ignore it. Instead, I must work to defend
reason and oppose religious extremism.


________________________

Hardliners v. Moderates: the Debate Continues

If you haven’t seen already, vjack posted an open question about RRS. Sapient responded. Hemant reported on it. Sapient responded to Hemant’s commenters. Hemant reported on that. And here’s what I have to say about it:

Sapient’s
a dick. But so is Hitchens. And Dawkins when he’s cranky. And to a
certain degree Harris. Dennett’s probably the nicest of the “Four
Horsemen,” but still is firm about his convictions. The thing that
Sapient is reminding us of, as well he should, is that hardliners are
clearing a place at the table for moderates like Hemant. As he’s said
in his second response:

… different people are
susceptible to different modes of thought. One person’s bitter pill is
another’s only chance to get through to. I’ve got a bitter pill and
Hemant carries a glass of water around with him. You see how we work
together?

He even acknowledges that synergy between the
two sides. Those of us on the moderate side need to remember that
without Dawkins boldly pushing his position, many of us probably
wouldn’t be reading about this debate today. We’d be figuring out how
to subtly live our lives in peace. As we all know, that time is over.
We’re in the public eye. And it’s time to make a difference.

The
way that we can make a difference is by those strident hardliners to
keep making their point, and the moderates to help the rest of America
(and the world) understand who we are (and I agree with Hemant; they
certainly aren’t passive). I’m not the first atheist who has made this point.
This will continue to be debated, and the moderates, for the most part,
won’t see the hardliners as anything but a threat to their progress for
the whole movement. Likewise, there will be many hardliners who will
just keep repeating the mantras about religious addiction, and lambaste
the moderates for being cowardly.

My point here is that there
are thinkers on both sides of the atheist coin, like Hemant and
Sapient, who recognize the purpose of both approaches. We need people
to spread the word about us as Americans, but likewise we need people
to mount a hard defense against the stupidity and monstrousness of the
Religious Right. The battle for scientific education, for example,
won’t be won by warm fuzzies. It will be won by hard data and brutal
reasoning. The fight for our perception as human beings and upright,
moral contributors to society won’t be won by in-your-face tactics. It
will be won by polite persuasion and community-building.

Sapient
will continue to be a dick. That’s a good thing. That means that
there’s someone fighting for our philosophy; for reason in the face of
a whole lot of woo. Hemant will continue to be a nice guy. That’s also
a good thing. That means that there’s someone out there to put a kindly
face on our community. We need them both. I spent too much time in my
life trying not to draw attention to myself and my philosophy. It’s
time to be included.

Posted by
John Moeller

at

12/21/2007 06:55:00 PM 

Labels:

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - December 23, 2007 at 9:36 am

Categories: atheism, atheist, Blasphemy Challenge, Rational Response Squad, sapient, tactics   Tags: