quote:The thing I found the most shocking about rollain's conversation on the previous page is that they texted the whole thing to each other.
That seriously blows my mind.
seriously, i think i would've gotten way too frustrated with text early on and just called my friend to finish the convo.
Qaz, but it wasn't even a convention. It was a gathering of a pre-existing group of atheists(atheists for human rights) specifically to hear the congressman speak. I'd call it more of a political rally. Unless you're trying to be ironic or something.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I should have also pointed out that there will be at least one pastor speaking at this event
Um. If by that you are refering to "Pastor Deacon Fred" he is not a pastor. He's the lead character of a website that is a parody of over-the-top evangelical churches.
Heh. So he is. My mistake.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: What was your motive for posting that in the first place? To comment on something you found frustrating, right? You haven't questioned the commentary that supported your point of view. If you want an echo chamber, this isn't the place.
Not frustrating. Unnecessary.
Dag,
I think it's pretty obvious we're not getting anywhere here. I really don't want to continue repeating myself, and I feel every point you've made is adequately addressed in my previous post. Obviously you disagree.
Anyway, I think it would be best to end this discussion. If you have anything else to add, go ahead. I'll read it, and I might respond if I feel a response is warranted. But otherwise I'm done.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I was tired of repeating myself, too and feel every point you've made is adequately addressed in my previous posts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a person does not believe God (or a god or gods) exists, why does he or she need to go to a convention to reinforce their convictions or belief? Why waste the time and money. The answer, to me, seems simple; if one does not believe in God, so be it. Move on and live a life without belief in God.
Posts: 1221 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: If a person does not believe God (or a god or gods) exists, why does he or she need to go to a convention to reinforce their convictions or belief? Why waste the time and money. The answer, to me, seems simple; if one does not believe in God, so be it. Move on and live a life without belief in God.
I think it's less about "we don't believe in God" than it is about promoting science, rationality, humanism, political action, etc. And if it's not, it darn well should be!
And, as has been discussed here and in public forums, we can't just go off and live our lives with our non-belief when many believers (I won't say all or even most) want to change our lives based on their beliefs.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kranky: If a person does believe God (or a god or gods) exists, why does he or she need to go to church to reinforce their convictions or belief? Why waste the time and money. The answer, to me, seems simple; if one does believe in God, so be it. Move on and life a life with belief in God.
Just calling your attention to the obvious substitution Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
The truth is Krankykat, if EVERYONE just went off and lived their lives without worrying about what others were doing, thinks would be a lot better.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's less about "we don't believe in God" than it is about promoting science, rationality, humanism, political action, etc.
quote:If by that you are refering to "Pastor Deacon Fred" he is not a pastor. He's the lead character of a website that is a parody of over-the-top evangelical churches.
Really?
I don't care enough to read the description of the convention, but this person's inclusion certainly belies the supposedly positive nature of the convention.
Pro-anything conventions are way more fun than anti-anything conventions. Let me guess: there will be someone there advocating the word "brights" for atheists, right? *amused* Aw well - there are conventions for everything. It's nice to have somewhere to belong.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I don't care enough to read the description of the convention, but this person's inclusion certainly belies the supposedly positive nature of the convention.
Pro-anything conventions are way more fun than anti-anything conventions. Let me guess: there will be someone there advocating the word "brights" for atheists, right? *amused* Aw well - there are conventions for everything. It's nice to have somewhere to belong.
Uh oh, my sarcas-o-meter is going off!
I happen to find the 'pastor' quite amusing, but that's just me.
And, just for the record, I never really liked the term 'brights'. But, if atheists/humanists/etc do end up adopting it, I would suggest using Daniel Dennett's idea. Not brights and dims or brights and darks, but brights and supers.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just it - it's funny, but it's funny in a "let's mock Christians" way. I can't imagine anything more dreary than being at a convention dedicated to mocking some other group.
I did go and look at the website. Maybe there's something good or positive to the group, but you'd never know it from the (poorly-maintained) joke page.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: That's just it - it's funny, but it's funny in a "let's mock Christians" way. I can't imagine anything more dreary than being at a convention dedicated to mocking some other group.
I did go and look at the website. Maybe there's something good or positive to the group, but you'd never know it from the (poorly-maintained) joke page.
I would agree with you if it were a "Pastor Deacon Fred" convention. He seems to only be talking twice over the weekend.
And if you can't mock Fred Phelps, who can you mock?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are only two days of workshops. His inclusion at all belies the description given above.
Is it really necessary to officially mock anybody? Like it isn't possible to build community without first establishing an underclass?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Is it really necessary to officially mock anybody?
Necessary? Maybe not.
But I don't seem to find it as objectionable as you do. And I would feel the same even if it were me or a group I was a part of being mocked.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter if you say you wouldn't mind - I'm not basing this on how you would feel. I find that kind of self-aggrandizing mocking to be...I don't know - I think it's funny when it's individual. I'm all for The Daily Show or the Onion. However, when it's CNN or a church or an organization doing it, it seems like the purpose of the organization is not for Making but for tearing down others.
At that point, what separates you from any other anti-people group?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: It doesn't matter if you say you wouldn't mind - I'm not basing this on how you would feel. I find that kind of self-aggrandizing mocking to be...I don't know - I think it's funny when it's individual. I'm all for The Daily Show or the Onion. However, when it's CNN or a church or an organization doing it, it seems like the purpose of the organization is not for Making but for tearing down others.
At that point, what separates you from any other anti-people group?
But it isn't the group. They've hired this single individual to come and do his comedy routine.
And maybe some things need to be torn down. I speak, of course, of Fred Phelps and his church. He has the right to have his religion, his beliefs and to say whatever he likes. But I also have the right to mock him and 'tear him down' with my words if I can.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Saying that it isn't the group but the person the group hired is a false distinction.
Are you seriously justifying anti-people groups by saying the people being anti-ed deserve it?
I think it's a false distinction to call it an anti-people group.
I'm for arguing points of view, beliefs and ideologies. If I find any of those things silly, wrong or contemptable I don't think it's over the line to point that out or to mock those things.
How would you feel if it was a civil-rights convention with a speaker who mocked racists? I am not saying it's the same thing, but I think it is a fair comparison.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't most conventions supporting a particular idea or ideas speak negatively about the people that don't hold the same idea or ideas? Wouldn't a Christian convention talk about sinners going to hell?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some might, but I'd hope most wouldn't, and I'm pretty sure there are plenty that don't. dkw has probably been to at least a few conferences that didn't have anything like that at all.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm actually thinking this Deacon Fred guy is going to be my least favorite part of the convention. I'd never heard of him before seeing his name listed as a speaker, so I just Youtubed him (is that a verb yet?). To be honest, I find him rather annoying. And in principle I think I'm mostly in agreement with Javert H on this one.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wouldn't a Christian convention talk about sinners going to hell?
I can't speak for other Christians, but in the Mormon General Conferences (2x a year, General leadership speaks to all the congregations all over the world) I've never heard this type of condemnation.
Sinners are often called to repentance, and sin itself is addressed...but we don't generally rally around the fact that others are going to be miserable in the eternal hereafter. (That's not even a belief in Mormonism)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Handbook for Religious Demagogues - Chapter 3
Organizing the Athiests
Nothing solidifies power like having an enemy. The majority of theists think we are irrelevant crazies, but if we can make enough people think that we're threatened, the real fun starts. Fear is the perfect tool for motivating the mob. I mean "base".
We can make it an "us or them" situation! We love those. War is great for extremists.
We can get the atheists to give us publicity. We've been having trouble making people believe that we are anything more than fringe extremists, but if we can get the atheists to talk about religion using our terms, as if we were really representative of the mainstream, we have won.
While we're at it, let's see if we can't get the Phelps guy some free publicity while we're at it. He only has a handful of followers (mostly his offspring) but he hates being ignored.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Don't most conventions supporting a particular idea or ideas speak negatively about the people that don't hold the same idea or ideas? Wouldn't a Christian convention talk about sinners going to hell?
posted
Well that's good to know. Most, if not all, of the Christian assemblies (mostly Episcopalian, a couple Catholic and one or two Baptist and Presbiterian) I've attended, while focusing more on the exhaltation of worship and what-not, still made a point to bring up the punishment for the bereft. Often these points would take the form of comedy sketches where the sinner is made to look ludicrous. (I actually acted in one. I was the host of a 'moral American Idol' that featured a ditzy slut and a moronic druggy rock star)
But, while it's good to know that not all conventions do it, the practice of mocking non-believers is not unheard of, and is fairly common in my experience.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wouldn't a Christian convention talk about sinners going to hell? [/QB]
Let's see, the last Christian conference I was at was the Annual meeting of our denomination in this area. We talked about the budget, the camping program, the Bishop's residence, the endowment fund, the bookstore, building more houses for Habitat for Humanity, whether we should petition our General Conference to support same-sex marriage, who would be our delegates to said General Conference, who had new babies in the last year, who died in the last year, whether we should be spending more money than we are on Spanish-language ministries, how nice it was that the lady who does the close-captioning for the conference session could work at home over the internet this year, why the guys running the electronic voting system couldn't seem to get the question on the screen promptly. We ordained a dozen new clergy and honored those who were retiring. We gave awards and recognized people who had completed various educational programs. We had 8 hours or so of worship time, 4 hours of study, 2 hours of hands-on service work, 9-10 hours of discussion of various budget and program issues, several meal breaks, and my son and I were asked at the last minute to participate in liturgical dance at the service of Reaffirmation of Baptism. Somehow we were so busy we must have completely forgotten to mention sinners going to hell.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
vonk: Talk of hell and damnation to me has always been more of a way to hold an audiences attention and keep interest levels up. If you rely on donations for your upkeep then the temptation to preach sermons in that vein can be quite high.
The classic bible thumping minister traveling and asking everyone, "Have you been saved?! Has Jesus saved you from the fires of hell!?" is almost a stereotype. I am sure the pattern evolved as that approach seems to get the most attention from people.
No offense intended to those whose ministers have said those words or say them now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: I wonder if Fred is along those same veins? Maybe the convention recognizes that he has a large fan base and using him as a draw will bring in more people to educate/more cash flow at the door, even though he may not be the representative that most would choose for atheism. I don't know that that would be a good thing, but it sure beats "a convention dedicated to mocking some other group"(JH 8:33a).
dkw: Do our respective anecdotal evidences cancel each other out?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
vonk: no. But yours was posted while I was writing mine -- mine was in response to your earlier post which seemed to be assuming that of course a Christian convention would be "speaking negatively" of non-Christians.
Any convention that wastes time mocking its opponents should grow up and focus on their own purpose, not tearing down others. That's true whether it's a political convention tearing down the opposing party, a religious convention scorning "unbelievers" or a atheist convention mocking Christians.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:BB: I wonder if Fred is along those same veins? Maybe the convention recognizes that he has a large fan base and using him as a draw will bring in more people to educate/more cash flow at the door, even though he may not be the representative that most would choose for atheism. I don't know that that would be a good thing, but it sure beats "a convention dedicated to mocking some other group"(JH 8:33a).
I am sure he is there to generate attendance/revenue.
I personally think he decreases the good that could be gained at such a convention rather then enhancing it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with both of you. I just thought it was worth pointing out that this isn't merely a non-thiest phenomenon. It's fairly widespread, and a bad thing in all it's forms.
However, I don't think that a single speaker is enough to bring any convention into the red (ethically that is).
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: I agree with both of you. I just thought it was worth pointing out that this isn't merely a non-thiest phenomenon. It's fairly widespread, and a bad thing in all it's forms.
However, I don't think that a single speaker is enough to bring any convention into the red (ethically that is).
Oh I dunno about that. If Fred Phelps was a featured speaker at say sacrament meeting, I would probably refuse to give him any time at the pulpit and have pretty harsh words for my bishop.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Pax Christi USA is pleased to announce this year's conference, The Pursuit of Peace in a Culture of Violence: A National Catholic Conference on Peacemaking, to be held August 10-12, 2007, at Seattle University in Seattle, WA. Seminar presenters include:
Camilo Mejia, the first US soldier to publically refuse to fight in the Iraq War and author of Road from ar-Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Dr. Jamie Phelps, OP, theologian at Xavier University and director of the Institute for Black Catholic Studies in New Orleans
Rev. Charles Morris, global warming activist and director of Michigan Interfaith Power and Light
Drs. Jeanette Rodriguez and Ted Fortier, professors at Seattle University and authors of Cultural Memory: Resistance, Faith and Identity
Members of the Pax Christi Anti-Racism Team
On Friday, at a pre-conference gathering, Pax Christi USA will host a very special event, A National Grassroots Discernment for the Peoples' Peace Initiative, to gather the voices and experiences from every level of the national Catholic peace and justice movement to articulate the challenges of Catholic peacemaking in the 21st century. Pax Christi local groups and regions are especially encouraged to send a representative to take part in this unprecedented gathering. (Thursday night housing is available.)
quote: We are inviting people of all faiths and political inclinations to come to the small pier on North Shore Beach in Roger’s Park and participate in a ceremony to recognize the profound suffering this war has caused for Iraq, our soldiers and their families, and the people of America and the world.
As many people of many spiritual and religious orientations, we are asking people to open their hearts to this immense suffering by means of performing sun salutations, prostrations or bows, offering prayers, or contributing to a collective altar of flowers, notes, incense, or candles.
quote: Dismantling racism looms large in the conference, but the other priorities of Call To Action are not forgotten: there are sessions about women's ordination, democratic church governance, peacemaking and the war, and the rights of GLBT persons and couples. Our JustChurch Project, launched one year ago, is training CTA members in nonviolent action for change, and where church injustice is most acute, nonviolent action is already occurring.
quote:Originally posted by vonk: I agree with both of you. I just thought it was worth pointing out that this isn't merely a non-thiest phenomenon. It's fairly widespread, and a bad thing in all it's forms.
However, I don't think that a single speaker is enough to bring any convention into the red (ethically that is).
Oh I dunno about that. If Fred Phelps was a featured speaker at say sacrament meeting, I would probably refuse to give him any time at the pulpit and have pretty harsh words for my bishop.
Well then, you're my new favorite...um...guy in charge of pulpit use! Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't understand all the blasting of this convention that's going on. I don't go around blasting every religious convention, vacation bible school, movie convention, sci-fi convention, Hatrack convention, political convention, and so on. Why is this atheist convention bringing out so much animosity in people?
You guys seem to think that the majority of the convention will be this:
quote:I can't imagine anything more dreary than being at a convention dedicated to mocking some other group.
The last thing I want to do is go to a convention where it'll be 3 days of religious bashing. I'm also not going so me and a bunch of other atheists can sit around and gloat about how cool it is to be an atheist. If that's what the convention entails, then I'll be severly disappointed.
Here's a list of the convention workshops and panel discussions(leaving out the lectures by the big name speakers):
From Media Zero to Media Hero Secular Parenting - Panel Discussion Legislative Outreach How to Organize, Develop, and Maintain an Atheist Meet-Up Secular Student Alliance Snappy Answers to Religious Questions: How to Combat Common Questions Posed to Atheists in Formal and Informal Settings The Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Liberties Atheists and Freethinkers in the Civil Rights Movement, 1901 - 1950 Who Pulled the Stake Out? The Resurgence of Young Earth Creationism Why Secular Celebrations are Important Group Roundtable Discussion for Learning, Sharing and Networking
Added to that you have one of the worlds eminent evolutionary biologists(Dawkins), one of our countries most respected philosophers(Dennett), a prominent atheist author(Harris, who attacks the dangers of religious dogma and how it affects our society and our morals), and another prominent atheist author(Hitchens, who i really don't know much about, but haven't been impressed by what I've seen so far).
I agree that having someone like Paster Deacon Fred there at the convention takes away from what I feel the convention is trying to do, especially in the eyes of those outside the atheist community. But he is one person, and he's not giving any lectures or hosting any workshops.
Also worth noting is that this is a new thing here. I don't think there have been any of these type of conventions before and I'm sure there's a learning process involved in setting up a quality convention like this. The last thing I want is for my atheism to be defined as "someone against religious organizations", but I understand why it might seem that way in the public eye, because the fact is a lot of the stuff going on now IS a reaction against much of the religious turmoil and religious political agenda in our society.
I'm hoping that the end result of this convention is that a more organized group of like minded people come out of this with a more solid base built to do some good in the world. That the next convention can deal with more specific social and political issues that affect us and the world around us. Atheists are the most distrusted minority in this country. Admitting you're an atheists basically makes you unelectable to any political position. Many people think atheists are all amoral. And also, given how important religion is in this country to social life and community belonging, by becoming an atheist you basically ostracize yourself from a very important part of human existence. This needs to change, and I'm excited at the prospect of trying to figure out how to do that.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strider: Paster DF aside how do you feel about the rest of those workshops/functions you listed? Are all of them in the spirit of uplifting atheists without doing so at the expense of those who do not share that belief?
Or are you of the opinion that overall the convention will be trying to maximize support without being disparaging?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the Threat of Religous Right and Snappy Answers to Religious Questions ones seem to be rather anti-religion. The others seem to be positive though.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Snappy Answers to Religious Questions: How to Combat Common Questions Posed to Atheists in Formal and Informal Settings
This one sounds designed to further understanding.
maybe you've never had to deal with being an atheist and being assaulted by religious folk about how outrageous it is for you to not believe in God or that everything in the bible happened. I don't think it's wrong to help people hone their debating skills.
I really think you people are forgetting that this isn't a preexisting group getting together to talk about issues. This is a group in the process of being formed. I don't know that it's that easy to just jump into a convention and do everything perfectly. Also, I'm only one atheist and all I can tell you is the things I'm interested in. Everyone else may not be there for the same reason, and that's only something I can find out after the fact.
Blackbade, I don't think any of those workshops listed are particularly disparaging to religion or religious groups. Though it does seem that there is more focus on "atheism against religion", rather than "ok, atheism...now what?"
lucky for me, i can go to the workshops i'm interested in lieu of ones that i'm not interested in.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a pretty fine line, but fair enough. I'm also pretty sure your tongue was ever so slightly in your cheek.
I was more responding to the general tone I've been seeing in this thread. You just gave me the word I wanted to use.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would guess that a great many of the anti-religion portions of the convention is backlash against religious attacks...real or perceived.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I would guess that a great many of the anti-religion portions of the convention is backlash against religious attacks...real or perceived.
Which are a reaction to attacks against religion...real or perceived (or invented and magnified)...
It is a swinging pendulum. Change has to happen, but people are threatened by it. Fear leads to exploitation. This is why I think you are aiding the religious extremes rather than fighting them.
It would have been nice to see a convention that was interested in moving forward. This one seems like it is just swinging the pendulum further.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
