You have clearly tagged yorself as atheist, so no, not by me:
I was referring to previous instances of self-acclaimed theists that have behaved in a (by now) well-known pattern, if that was your confusion.
The problem, as I perceive it, is that you seem to come across as somewhat dogmatic, and appear to place demands and restrictions on what the collective “we” should or must do, collectively, in an organised and synchronised fashion. This is not received well in a collection of highly individualistic individuals whose only common references are that we 1. do not believe in a god and 2. happen to frequent this particular discussion forum, and 3. enjoy a good argument discussion. Hence the comments about this being like herding cats.
I am also not a native speaker of English.
Edit: language edits; still have not fully woken up, even after multiple shots of espresso.
No. Just someone professing to be an atheist who does not seem to understand atheism, and who approaches atheism with the same sort of faith and belief a theist would approach God. “Inane assertions and globally non-specific solutions to amorphously vague issues, which you assert are real and substantial in a general soap-box presentation that is fairly off-putting.”
Yes, and that is what I meant when I said we also move away from the organization of religion. I don’t think a synchronization at the level you may be thinking of may not be required. If you look at conventional politics, it is largely dictated by rhetoric of particular commentators and in case of most demos them falling for it. We have a lot of (I’m sure not all) incredibly admirable commentators who have shown to be honest and a deeply skeptical audience (I guess that’s what they ought to be called). I don’t think there is much chance of anyone being misled as the skepticism is expected.
However, what I am seeing is what appears to being a complete aversion to being “labelled” more than anything else. I might be wrong but I think this should not be the case. I had to fight for that label, any document I had to fill out, any social interaction and any political discussion I was expected to keep my apostacy to myself. I get that in autocratic nations it’s not worth it, but in democratic societies? This is not exactly activism either. Declaring and commentating on the way atheists vote through AAA advocacy groups would be a great start. Hell if you don’t want to be too public about it, use networks that exist for AAAs to do it instead of popular social media ones. It requires a few people. I am not asking someone else to do it but rather why is there an allergy like reaction to this kind of thought. If AAA are so unique that each individual will vote in such a way that there is no overall pattern at all then it will be self-evident and I am confident there will generally be a pattern. There will be a general consensus on most issues, candidates or policies and there will be issues where there is general consensus on issues among AAAs and not among other demographics that we are conflated with and those issues have to be treated as AAA issues and not others’.
Things that work on other demographics may not work for AAAs either so it all has to start by having these discussions. We have had our ideological and philosophical discussions, I’m just saying we need to narrow the discussions down further and talk about ways to win politically.
And I think I get that you have seen this pattern of discussion from self-acclaimed theists and perhaps that is why a lot of people here are responding to things that were never mentioned, criticizing ideas that were never introduced and having a conversation from memory. Nobody is asking you to stage a coup. I may not have new ideas, but you have to actually hear them first, and I actually might be here to ask if anyone has any. From my experience, conflicting ideas generally bring forth new unexpected ones. You can’t just start making things happen but everything has to start somewhere.
Yes, and that is what I meant when I said we want to the organization of religion. However, I don’t a synchronization at the level you may be thinking of will be required. If you look at conventional politics, it is largely dictated by rhetoric of particular commentators and in case of most demos them falling for it. We have a lot of (not all) incredibly admirable commentators who have shown to be honest and a deeply skeptical audience I guess. I don’t think there is a lot of chance for anyone to be misled and the skepticism is expected.
However, what I am seeing is to what appears to being a complete aversion to being “labelled” more than anything else. I might be wrong but I think this should not be the case. I had to fight for that label, any document I had to fill out, any social interaction and any political discussion I was expected to keep my apostacy to myself. I get that in autocratic nations it’s not worth it, but in democratic societies? This is not exactly activism either. Starting with declaring the way atheists vote through AAA advocacy groups would be a great start. It requires a few people. I am not asking someone else to do it but rather why is there an allergy like reaction to this kind of thought. If AAA are so unique that each individual will vote in a way that there is no overall pattern at all then it will be self-evident and I am confident it won’t be. There will be a general consensus on most issues, candidates or policies and there will be issues where there is general consensus on issues among AAAs and not among other demographics that we are conflated with and those issues have to be treated as AAA issues and not others’.
Here in lies your problem. What you are seeing is a conclusion you have eroniously arrived at using a black swan fallacy from your own perspective. Rather than bounding onto the site and making all sorts of inane assertions about atheists, atheist movements and such (MOST OF WHICH YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT) why not ask a question. “Do you guys call yourselves atheist in public?” “What causes do the people on this site support.” “I was just wondering.” You just might try opening your frigging eyes a bit wider and see what in the hell is going on in the world. Just my opinion.
And when someone gives you links that directly contradict your inane assertions, you might want to actually read and consider them. Not did in your heels and push harder. It makes you look silly.
Are you nuts? There are very real consequences for coming out as atheist in this “So called” democratic society. I might remind you that the USA is a “Representative Republic” and not a democracy.
The Framers knew that in its pure form democracy could be dangerous. The writings of the founding era are replete with warnings of this fact:
“Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments,” Alexander Hamilton wrote. “If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship.”
Thomas Jefferson lamented that “a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”
James Madison argued that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
John Adams concluded that democracy “never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Despite what many of today’s activists would have us believe, the anti-democratic institutions of the American Republic are just as vital now as they were over 200 years ago.
For example, the Electoral College ensures that individuals elected to the presidency don’t only have the support of the population-heavy coasts, but broad support throughout the entire country. The function of the Electoral College is to respect and represent the states as sovereign entities within our federal system.
Depending on where you are and who you are, as well as who your family is and who you work for, coming out as an atheist can ruin your life in the USA. (Have you been watching the news?) Lucky for us, we have atheist organizations that do take some cases for free. We have some recourse. Not much but some.
In many places, we too are expected to keep atheism to ourselves. We do it to get along in society. We do it for family harmony. We do it to keep jobs. We do it to get along in the world we live in. I don’t go to a friend’s home and start talking atheist bullshit when I know they are religious. It would be every bit as disrespectful as them coming into my home and preaching. Or, as you have done, come onto a website and start preaching. Telling everyone what they should be doing and that they aren’t doing enough. Bla bla bla…
Go back and read your posts. Every time you use the word “SHOULD” that is exactly what you are doing.
And now you are backing off your original position. Did you finally realize your error?
I am frustrated, angry, and even scared by the rise of the far right political spectrum in the US. As the population as a whole becomes less radical in their religious beliefs, those with more extremist beliefs are coming into power. It seems so backwards of what should be happening. They didn’t get the “red wave” they expected in the last elections because they really don’t represent the majority. One problem is that the electoral college used to elect the president doesn’t always represent the majority of votes. The right has also managed to get control of the congress. These are people who were fine with, and made every attempt to overthrow the last presidential election. I just hope it’s not too late for more secular views to prevail.
I use leftover eggnog from the Christmas party, fermented for six weeks of course, mixed in with the fertilizer. Most people don’t survive a banana rush. We keep this very low key and only available at the top secret atheist meet up… oh shit… never mind.
Yes, you were asking others here to engage in activities you deemed important. The allergy-like reaction you have encountered, at least by me, is because I value and protect my individuality. A lot of folks here came from the depressive hive mentality of religious indoctrination. Why would they run to another they perceive to be similar? Individuality is highly regarded here. It may not be so elsewhere. So, it might be far easier to promote your hegemony elsewhere. As I said before, you are welcome to participate in or start other threads but it seems, at least to me, that this one is a dead horse.
The left in many ways is just as harmful. As ex-muslims like Sarah Haider have pointed out the left would rather not work with the AAA community since it would result in the immediate loss of the Muslim and the Evangelical Christian votes. I want a liberal government but not an appeasing one, the right are not the only ones to blame. Why didn’t the democrats codify Roe v/s Wade? Why are they taking just as much superpac donations as the right. If they are so concerned with climate change how can two corrupt democrats completely block bills that would combat it? We have to break out of this narrative and forge one of our own. Do you agree with everything being done by the democrats and the direction they are going in? You cannot influence them with just rationality, you need to threaten their power and they have to understand they cannot cast aside AAA voters and expect to come to power. This is the only way to consolidate democratic power and get what we want. We don’t have to vote for the right, but we don’t have to vote for the left either if they don’t hear our concerns. in the meantime, you could vote independent and make it clear that these votes are there to be had if the concern of these voters, the AAA are heard. The AAA outlets like AR could make these points and be the voice for the voters.
I should also make it clear that Trump should have been made an example of and thrown into jail for treason after that incident. You cannot undermine democracy and get away with it.
IMO there is no “left” in the context to which you refer. In my lifetime all of American politics has lurched so far to the right that the Democratic Party is barely recognizable.
Because they played along with the old school Republicans who never really had any intention of overturning R.v W., but rather used it over and over again to appeal to their more “fringe” supporters, believing they could continue using the issue indefinitely. The golden goose they slaughtered may eventually come back to haunt them.
Under Bill Clinton the Democratic Party establishment was corporatized to the point of unrecognizability, and is now nearly as beholden to corporate money as is the Republican machine.
The Democratic Party demonstrated it’s power to control elections by selecting an inferior candidate over the overwhelming choice of the people…not once, but twice. Sadly, the two party rigidity currently negates the likelihood of a successful independent solution.
I think it might behoove you to study a bit of American politics as has unfolded in the last fifty years. Have you ever heard of Ralph Nader?
Why do you think Bernie Sanders ran as a Democrat?
You seem to be either uninformed or deliberately ignoring the realities of the power of the capitalist system to destroy anything good that stands in opposition to the acquisitions of power and wealth.
Question: Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that a third party got a chance at gaining real influence in U.S. politics. And assume further that this party was located politically on the “real” left, i.e. left in the European sense. Would the D and R parties then suddenly become indistinguishable in their far rightness?
Imo, there would be indistinguishable aspects, such as the corruptibility by monied interests and such, but I think there will likely remain mostly social issues which will continue to indicate a contrast. If there was a genuine alternative with a clear trajectory for success, the arguably more progressive positions of the Democrats might be viewed as pandering lip service more than actual positions ( i.e. I feel your pain ). I see as evidence the failures of the party to use their “super
majorities” they have enjoyed in the past, to secure independence from corporate influences in elections and inappropriate access by lobbyists, etc., or to secure individual rights and equality (ERA), etc…This evidence would appear more starkly if contrasted with a real alternative.
I am reluctant to admit that the Democrats are anywhere near as hostile to democratic ideals as clearly are the Republicans, but given the behavior of the leadership of the Democratic Party in recent years, I may be nurturing a pipe dream.
There is only slight comparison between the Democratic Party of today with the one that nominated George McGovern (First presidential election I voted in).
There is however, a clear consistency between the party that elected and re-elected the war criminal Richard Nixon and the one that elected the criminal Jackass, although their level of corruption has increased exponentially.
I admit, since I am not an American citizen, I am not as informed as politically informed citizens of the country just as they are not informed about Bangladeshi politics. I do see some congruencies, both are two party states, both are represented by parties in which one caters to the far right and the other to center vote bases, and the left voters vote for the center parties despite not getting what they want because who would vote for the right? Both the parties are represented almost exclusively by elite corporate corrupt panderers who forget their promises the moment they are elected and are only beholden to groups that can fund their campaigns and lifestyles or the ones that can help them stay in power.
Since we are talking about Sanders, I had only been interested in American politics because of Bernie Sanders and I am not a socialist. What I learned from the two elections involving Bernie was that a lot of people don’t vote, just like in Bangladesh, and I have a feeling AAAs are no exception. I don’t know what percentage of AAAs don’t vote, but that base is the key. I am not suggesting people who agree with the Democrats or simply want the Republicans to lose or vice versa should vote independent (although that would be a big statement) but the ones that don’t vote, I feel should vote, and vote independent. This way, the outcome of the general or local elections shouldn’t be affected (unless they are rank-choice) but there is clear indication that there is votes to be had for the ones who can cater to the specific needs of these voters. Hilary was frothing at the mouth when 2 percent of people voted for an independent candidate, imagine that number goes to 10 or 12. You think that would go unnoticed? I don’t know if AAAs who don’t vote make up such a large number but if they did, do you think it won’t have any effect in the political institutions?
Bernie ran democrat and didn’t go independent after being cheated of the candidacy so Trump wouldn’t win, that was a mistake because he was still blamed by the democrats for losing Hilary her election (these people have no self-accountability). Do you think the blame would be any less intense if Bernie had gone independent and gotten 5+ percent votes, hell I’d wager he’d get double digit votes. Then the democrats would have to take him far more seriously in the next election. In the next election because Bernie endorsed Biden, he was given a lot more symbolic responsibility and a little more influence and support regarding workers’ rights(which in my opinion hasn’t had much impact as Bernie would have found a way to do what he’s doing even without a cabinet and most union work is getting done because Bernie reached people in the grassroots and helped them realize the power they have during a changing work culture due to the pandemic) but if he had challenged Biden and put the democrats to the sword to either give him more influence or lose to Trump, do you think the bills he wanted passed wouldn’t be? I think that there was a lot that could have been done if Bernie was more callous and selfish, but that’s why I love him (along with most of his supporters), he is not a dick but look at how the left media treat him because of this. These independent media outlets who owe their success and at times very existence to Bernie’s campaigns now call him a hypocrite for having the same nuance he always had in the Israel-Hamas conflict, they call him a traitor for not endorsing West and Williamson, for not running against Biden.
They are ungrateful but, in their ungratefulness, lies a truth about politics, being right doesn’t give you what you want. Think about Rabin, he served his entire life for Israel, but he was shot for trying to do the right thing and not only that, the man who incited this violence now sits as the PM. You can be right all day and still be thrown in jail, that is the reality I’ve been living in and the reality AAAs living in western democracies is that they are probably the biggest believers of democracy and are the group who have the most skin in the game to safeguard democratic values, but you won’t get shit just because you’re right. An example much more close to home was that of A.K. Fazlul Huq who was a secularist member of the All India Muslim League. He proposed the Lahore Resolution in 1940 which actually demanded for two states based on Muslim majority demographics, one in Bengal and one in Pakistan. When he realized Jinnah wanted a Caliphate revival state (check Khilafah Movement) with Shariah law, he moved away from the Muslim league rather than fight within it. This allowed Jinnah to not only get a Shariah law-based state but a single Pakistan instead of two states of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Huq was right to not challenge the Muslim league in the sense he didn’t want to split and weaken it, and because he knew it would cause incredible amounts of bloodshed in order to get separate states. There was still incredible bloodshed caused by butchers like Jinnah and Suhrawardy, Bengal couldn’t be united, Bangladesh wasn’t independent in 1947 so what did Huq really achieve by trying to keep the peace? Unfortunately there is a game in the way that needs to be played, and I get why we refuse to play it, I really do, we want to be peaceful and left to ourselves, but you sit in comfortably and refuse to consolidate your electoral identity and abortion rights get taken away, freedom of expression is threatened, freedom from religion is threatened, you’re being gouged for medical insurance and services and South Park episodes are taken off their platform(this is all this whole thing is about really).
I want you to think about what you would want if one of these parties was specifically catering to what you want because they want your vote. Then someone else makes that list and maybe enough people start making that list and a general consensus over some of the things these people want is made clear. That is all this is, we should have demands and the means to get them. The court of law is only one pillar of a democratic society, we need to start looking at the other. We are independent individualist thinkers and yet we are piled together (and we absolutely are) with the left and their movements and their methods and their electoral policies. I can’t stand this, and I don’t think that I am the only one. Ask anyone you know, who is not AAA for which party they think a AAA would vote. Ask any Democrat or Republican party member, volunteer or analyst who they think/know the AAA vote for. We are so individualistic and free thinking that we have no electoral individuality, we are just the left in all ways that matter. Also, we are not the only ones who value our individuality, every demographic in a democratic society values their individuality, we are not special.
Fun fact: Nixon and Kissinger sent the 7th naval fleet to the Indian ocean to defeat the Indian Navy stationed at the Bay of Bengal so Pakistan could more comfortably slaughter, or rape and slaughter Bangladeshis. Three million is such an awkward number, a more rounded number like five, ten, twenty or fifty would have had such a better ring to it. The fleet had to be intercepted by the Russians, those damn commies, ruining a perfectly good genocide.
The reason I bring this up is because the Awami League led by Mujibur Rahman had won the biggest democratic majority in the history of Pakistan to this day and the United States sided with the dictatorship of Yahya Khan because they wanted a bottom-bitch in the region to control it. Weren’t we right? Didn’t we do what was needed to be done by western democratic standards to form a government? Why did the defenders of democracy not take the side of democracy? Right means shit if you cannot assert it. If the USSR hadn’t helped us, if India hadn’t quite literally saved us but most importantly if Colonel M.A.G Osmani hadn’t convinced all the Lieutenant Colonels and ranked officers of the Bengal Regiment (East Pakistan Regiment then) there wouldn’t be a resistance, there wouldn’t be communication with the Indian Military, Indira Gandhi couldn’t have supported us, and there wouldn’t be a Bangladesh. We would have had our organs harvested, our women sold to slavery, our impressionable young men turned into terrorists by the Pakistani military just like in Baluchistan today. Mujib’s peaceful democratic win was not enough to give him control, he had to threaten Pakistan with calls for an independent Bangladesh to gain it and if the military had not responded to that call, I indeed would have been a Pakistani. The situation in western democracies is nowhere near this dire and I don’t think even Trump was even close to as evil as Nixon (Bush, and the Clintons come closer). I am trying to point out how there is need to go a step further from a comfortable position and to threaten the status quo, if need be, let the right win when we could have swayed the election, let them win to threaten the left into line. There are no handouts in life, except for the rich elite that run governments and if you want that to stop you have to start by withholding the power you give them. Maybe help is needed in the legal side of things to make sure a third party and its candidate is allowed to represent the US democracy and that is the strength of organizations like AR; work is needed and the reward for the successful execution of that work would be politics that aligns more to what you want the policies to be. What I don’t like to see is complete denial of that fact or complete dismissal of it based on assumptions of its success. I am making assumptions too but don’t tell me your assumption is much more valid than mine because this is unprecedented. You have just as much information as I do (to be clear I am not talking to you in particular). I hope you get some context into the way I see politics.
Sorry for jumping in, I know this question is not directed at me.
The most important demographic in most elections are the swing voters. Some bases are concrete and if you look at trends over time, there is very little that changes among them. The firm right has been a consistent vote bank in any democracy, and it is usually the swing voters that give or take away power from them. I think a third viable party that is firmly left candidate may actually give the right more power as it would split the democrats. However, right now or in the near future a new party is needed that acts like a king maker. A party that is not afraid to align with either and I say for now because I think the demographics are split in a way that about 15+ percent voters may actually align with a non-aligned party and that is only enough to leverage a winner-maker position but even this is a vast improvement to how things are. Again, not the opinion of an US citizen.
