Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by EJN on March 8, 2013 at 6:05pm

American Secular Party? Hmm... that is WAY better than the atheist party. I actually remember chilling with John Porgal (great guy) at the Reason Rally. We were talking with people who were advocating for the atheist party and we were basically sharing our criticisms with them. Nice to know someone has been listening. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grinning Cat on March 8, 2013 at 7:42pm

Niccccccccccccce graphic!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jedi Wanderer on March 8, 2013 at 8:44pm

I love it! I just wonder whether associating ourselves with snakes is the best way to allay the fears the often ignorant masses have towards atheists in particular and unfamiliar ideas in general. Can't wait for a secular party to become relevant in American politics! But not holding my breath.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on March 10, 2013 at 2:20am

I personally don't care for the apple and snake ... it seems at first glance to be an adv. for religion. What would represent an avatar for none?: 

Agnostic, Atheist, Brights, Freethinkers, Humanists, Nones Skeptics, ... 

brainstorm: learning, science, expriment, books, tests, scholars, investigators, self-oriented, non- believers, nones. etc.

Cyrenaicus, Democritus, Diagoras, Hobbes, Socrates, Spinoza, etc. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Crawford on March 10, 2013 at 11:14am

I agree that "secular" is preferable to "atheist". I wonder if "non-sectarian" has the right connotation. To me, it implies a rejection of the tribalism intrinsic to religious belief. However, I suspect that many people interpret it to mean "religious, but not a member of an established religion".

This raises an interesting question: in strictly political terms, would it be more effective to make common cause with unaffiliated religious believers? More specifically, do the evil influences of religion arise exclusively from organized religion? Is society endangered by the unaffiliated believers? I'm sure that there are plenty of unaffiliated crazies out there, but, by and large, my impression is that the unaffiliated believers are pretty easygoing. I don't trust my personal experience here, because it's pretty limited. Still, my impression is that religious believers only become dangerous when they swim in schools.

Moreover, there's a strong philosophical basis for such an approach arising from Enlightenment thinking. The whole idea behind the religious protections of the First Amendment was that religious establishments were only dangerous when they had political power. The thinking was that a "divide and no rule" system would insure everybody's safety. A political organization dedicated to extending this concept to the social sphere makes perfect sense.

In other words, the goal should not be "let's obliterate religion"; instead, it should be "let's oppose organized religion while respecting individual religious beliefs". 

This is simultaneously a more achievable goal and less satisfying one for those atheists who are still consumed with anger at the injustices wrought by religious institutions. But a more precisely targeted approach seems to me more likely to be productive.

This idea just popped into my head, so I'm not willing to hang my hat on it yet. I'd like to subject it to the fires of dissent that I'm sure it will kindle here.

• ▶ Reply