On Bulldozed Fences And Persecution

[R. S. Martin]

Here is another thread that grows out of Gene's post in the debate thread in the Arena. The following comments were originally posted in the Peanut Gallery that goes with the Kat and Antlerman debate.

 

(Taphophilia @ Dec 6 2007, 11:39 AM)

(Legion Regalis @ Dec 5 2007, 02:37 PM) Post #14, Gene’s Intrusion

 

You just gotta love it when some plebe steps into circumscribed territory and shoots his mouth off. The best thing about it is that it brings out the best in Kevin… his ire.

 

Just an example of how Christian's are disrespectful of other's boundries. They consider themselves entitled and above others rules. When you object to the bulldozed fences, they cry persecution.

 

This is precisely the attitude of my own family toward me. I'm sure most of you know the story but for the new-comers who don't (and just so I get to rant one more time)...well, they have never treated me like an equal. And when I finally took charge of my own life they really got mad at me. Then when I deconverted--well, the way I realized I had actually deconverted was when they started treating me like an evil monster.

 

Okay, long story short. In a family letter in the fall of 2006 there was an on-going discussion about religion. I wasn't sure why they were having this interesting discussion, but I was over-joyed that for once they were talking about something that interested me. Most of the time they just talked about boring stuff like their gardens and housekeeping tasks.

 

My mother asked what unbelievers think happens when they die. I had been on these forums for several weeks by then so I answered that they think death is the end, and that when people believe this they take more responsibility for their actions, etc. In other words, I joined the discussion and made a few more candid comments but I think I kept my voice much less strident than some of the others. My little brother was so rigid in his beliefs I was really seriously concerned but wasn't sure how to address the issue. I did discuss it with another family member, who shared my concern.

 

Exactly how did this kid brother of ours change into this hard-core fundy? We couldn't quite get our head around it, except that he had married and had a kid and was working with some pretty rowdy folk from whom he may have learned very rigid beliefs but we had no way of knowing. Sure, we had been raised with uncompromising rules but we felt he was taking things one step beyond what we had been taught. God was also a God of love, grace, and compassion. The people he was working with had a reputation for being so secretive about their beliefs that we didn't really know what they believed. Were they more open with their co-workers?

 

Later I got a letter from another family member, a sister who is a lot closer to him in age. She had a very different attitude. She did not discuss him at all. She accused me of having majorly offended THEM. Exactly what I had done was not something she would tell me but she treated me as though I knew what I had done and that this was not something that I should need to be told.

 

Explanation may be in order. Possibly not everyone here knows what that kind of language means. In our family it means that "If I need to tell you what you did wrong, there is something extremely wrong with YOU! YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID WRONG. NOW YOU GET YOUR HEAD IN GEAR AND COOPERATE WITH ME. IF YOU DON'T..." It could possibly be described as an extreme power and control tactic in that if the victim honestly has no idea what the offense is, he/she is totally defenseless. I did not know what I was being accused of. It took me several days to figure it out.

 

I still don't know if I'm right. But it finally occurred to me that they took my statements about what unbelievers think about death, etc. as attempts at evangelization for atheism. That, of course, was ridiculous because I did not even consider myself an atheist at that point. Given that she refused to tell me what I had done wrong it had not been possible for me to explain my position at all. However, the accusation of persecution was pretty obvious.

 

Our mother was not well at the time. Her condition declined and she passed away in March. Family issues came to the fore over the funeral like never before. I think all the texts on family studies verify that this is how things work. Well, things got patched up enough the night before the funeral that I could attend. But early the next morning (day after the funeral) I got a call from a brother that made me uneasy that perhaps things were not as good as I had thought. In the following weeks there were more telephone conversations and letters with siblings. I get the impression that in exchange for a few favours of religious leniency on their part they did expect me to reconvert.

 

The scripture passage on which they (and their church) based the rigid rules they wanted to enforce do not even apply to me. I have analyzed it in detail and it doesn't. My professor brought it up yesterday when I was in to see him about my thesis and he told me without me asking that Paul had written that passage (1 Cor 5) for a very specific situation and that it was not meant to be extrapolated from in this way.

 

Back to the topic of this post. Years ago I informed my family that I wanted no more critical letters and phone calls. They respected this so long as I remained a Christian of sorts. When I deconverted they threw respect to the wind (bulldozed the fences) and when I answered their questions about unbelievers they accused me of persecution. Since I am a human being capable of taking only so much emotional abuse, I have basically cut ties with them. I can only imagine what they are now saying of me but surely they are saying some pretty evil stuff.

 

Briefly stated, in the view of the Christian, the so-called unbeliever does not deserve to live. The mindset of Medieval Europe is alive and well. At times one gets the impression that it is only a matter of time till the monster returns again with all its ugly gore. All the more reason why secularists MUST UNITE while yet there is time.

 

EDIT Dec. 8, 2007 5:30 pm ET

 

AMMENDMENT Apparently, based on a number of responses I got in this thread, this is stated rather strongly and an ammendment may be in order. I do not mean to enlist anyone for anything. I'm a writer at heart and wanted a neat closing sentence. That one worked. In addition, I do think fundamentalist religion needs to be undermined by any means possible. However, I think the basic means for a united secularist front are in place so that when/if the need arises it will happen swiftly and efficiently (see Post 25). I repeat, I AM NOT OUT TO ENLIST ANYONE.

[woodsmoke]

All the more reason why secularists MUST UNITE while yet there is time.

 

I sure hope you folks can manage that. I can't imagine cat herders are in any greater supply today than they were just before the Dark Ages in Europe. Nor that the cats are in any more of a mood to be herded--myself especially.

[The-Captain]

Briefly stated, in the view of the Christian, the so-called unbeliever does not deserve to live. The mindset of Medieval Europe is alive and well. At times one gets the impression that it is only a matter of time till the monster returns again with all its ugly gore. All the more reason why secularists MUST UNITE while yet there is time.

 

One thing I remember hearing alot from churchy people was how xianity was under constant attack from the forces of secularism and if they didnt act quickly alot of people would stop believing for good. To them all our logical arguments and facts boil down to clever manipulations of satan directed at their faith.

 

Its an awfully paranoid and arrogant belief that everything (science,other religions,law) is just part of a massive war effort on them adn we are just unwitting pawns of demonic forces. And the ones that really buy into this, under the right circumstances, may feel a need to strike back.

 

In my opinion its a naturual fear brought on by the fact that the church is less important now than ever before. They have no precedent, to them, xianity has either always been growing or on top of the world. In the face of decline alot of people come up with ideas like the ones I mentioned to preserve the belief that they are the center of the universe.

 

Personally I dont think that xianity has enough hold over the hearts and minds of people to allow for a return to Medieval ways (though plenty would love to).

 

Fundamentalism will likely burn out on its own, most radical movements do when their epic plans and dire predictions dont happen.

 

I hope..

[woodsmoke]

"The brightest flame burns the fastest." I can agree with that.

 

An organism is always the most reckless and aggressive when backed into a corner, just before the one(s) doing the cornering move in for the kill. I'm beginning to honestly believe this is exactly the behavior we're witnessing from the more violent siblings of the Abrahamic religions.

[upstarter]

You know one really bad part of reading the forums here, is that I now need to keep a bible handy to catch all the references people throw around. Happily, my brain has expunged much of this crap.

 

1Cor 5... BLAH... that's a horrible passage. It's horrible that anyone would use that as a weapon.

 

Heather

[R. S. Martin]

Woody, if you and I decide on doing a project together I don't think we need anyone herding us. You must have missed the post where I described how things worked on the farm with two dozen barn cats. Nobody herded those cats. No herding was needed to convince them to gang up on us at milking time and petition for a meal of warm milk.

 

The instant we got up from a cow with a bucket of milk, if we dared NOT pour some fresh milk in their bowl, we would have a batch of cat's claws at our skirts. Not a pleasant experience.

Battle with the Cats

Now here's a hypothetical situation. Actually, something like this did happen, though perhaps not exactly like this:

 

Players:

• two dozen cats at milking time convinced that they had a right to a meal of fresh milk.
  
• three milk maids convinced that every drop of milk from this milking is needed for human consumption. A man from the city has ordered all the milk they could get from the evening milking.
  

Events:

 

Person 1 gets up from cow with bucket of milk and puts it away for human consumption. Cats attack back of skirt. Human kicks them off, gets another bucket and settles down at next cow.

 

Person 2 gets up from cow with bucket of milk and puts it away for human consumption. Cats attack back of skirt with slightly more viciousness. Human kicks them off with somewhat more effort, gets another bucket and settles down at next cow.

 

Person 3 does same. By now the cats are furious. A few of the younger toms even cling onto her skirt in an effort to bring the milk maid down. With lots of effort she manages to shake them off but the milk maids realize that this is getting to be serious. They discuss strategies of dealing with the situation.

 

They realize that as they finish off their second cows they will deal with very real battles with the cats. They decide that rather than getting up as they each finish up, they will each wait beside their cow until all of them are done, then they will get up together, grab all the milk buckets, and flee the stable.

 

As they are talking, they notice that some of the cats have figured out how to scale the stainless steel buckets and drink out of the buckets themselves. Absolutely NOT! SHOOO!!!!!! The girls jump up from their cows and yell at the cats. The cats flee. The maids get back to their cows. The cats return.

 

"Okay!" one of the girls yells, "We'll take the milk to the milk house and shut the door so the cats can't get it." They jump up together and shoo the cats away and grap the buckets and shut them into the milkhouse, then return to finish off the milking. By now the cows are jittery from all the commotion and hold their milk. The girls get a bit more but not what they expected. There won't be as much milk for the customer as he had ordered.

 

The cats are nowhere to be seen, except for a few old tabbies who are sitting near the bowl sadly mewing for a few drops of milk. Just to be safe, the girls wait to leave the safety of the cows until all three are satisfied that they got all the milk they can get from their cows. Then they get up together.

 

No feline attacks. Not a lot of milk, either. It was one of those battles in which no side really won.

 

Point of this story, Woody, cats can and do unite for a common interest and no one had to herd them. ExChristians can and do unite and nobody has to herd them. If you don't believe me, look at what happens when one fundyvangelist shows up in the Lion's Den. Also, I am not perfectly satisfied with the ending of that post and may yet change it. However, this post stands.

 

PS. I see others have quoted and responded to that ending while I was writing. I guess I'll leave it.

[R. S. Martin]

You know one really bad part of reading the forums here, is that I now need to keep a bible handy to catch all the references people throw around. Happily, my brain has expunged much of this crap.

 

1Cor 5... BLAH... that's a horrible passage. It's horrible that anyone would use that as a weapon.

 

Heather

 

I am of the impression that it has been part of Anabaptist religion since 1525. Mennonites and Amish are descendents of the Anabaptists. It's called church discipline or excommunication. I have not studied Catholicism but my guess is that the RCC uses it, too. I don't know about the other traditional churches that came out of the Reformation. My prof who told me that it should not be used that way is Lutheran. Lutheranism comes out of the Reformation. Possibly these churches use it for the specific items Paul lists but I don't know. I have not studied Lutheran doctrine in this level of detail.

[R. S. Martin]

"The brightest flame burns the fastest." I can agree with that.

 

An organism is always the most reckless and aggressive when backed into a corner, just before the one(s) doing the cornering move in for the kill. I'm beginning to honestly believe this is exactly the behavior we're witnessing from the more violent siblings of the Abrahamic religions.

 

That is the most optimistic view I can muster of a very seriously dark situation. So long as I thought it's just the Mennonites and Amish who have such militant views of "the world," I wasn't worried. They're pacifists when it comes to physical harm. But when I got onto forums (this wasn't my first) and saw that Baptists held the same views, I got truly scared because I knew Baptists would not hesitate to take up arms. At that time I had not yet drawn the connection between the present war and fundamentalist religion in the US.

[Taphophilia]

I still don't know if I'm right. But it finally occurred to me that they took my statements about what unbelievers think about death, etc. as attempts at evangelization for atheism. That, of course, was ridiculous because I did not even consider myself an atheist at that point. Given that she refused to tell me what I had done wrong it had not been possible for me to explain my position at all. However, the accusation of persecution was pretty obvious.

 

For one thing, I thihk it's a stupid family tradition for them to expect you to be a mind reader and then get pissed because you can't.

 

Second, what you said obviously had some impact upon them (or someone present) or they would never have given it much thought. Perhaps, one of them pondered the ideas later when you were not there.

[woodsmoke]

You make a good point (if via a technically flawed analogy), but I'm afraid you missed mine.

 

I'm not interested in joining the milk chorus even if it may be to my benefit. Sure, those cats involved stand a (possibly good) chance of getting some milk, but they're also pretty well guaranteed a kick in the head--probably several. In my mind, the milk isn't worth it. Nor is the prospect of the other cats benefiting from my being kicked in the head enough to change my opinion. It's great they got some milk, but still as unrewarding for me.

 

The truth is I simply lack the self-sacrificial personality necessary to participate in such figurative or literal struggles. Even if it means I have to suffer some small injustices or the wider community of which I'm a part is the worse for it, I'd rather fly under the radar and live quietly in the way that will allow me the most freedom and the least notice.

[R. S. Martin]

I still don't know if I'm right. But it finally occurred to me that they took my statements about what unbelievers think about death, etc. as attempts at evangelization for atheism. That, of course, was ridiculous because I did not even consider myself an atheist at that point. Given that she refused to tell me what I had done wrong it had not been possible for me to explain my position at all. However, the accusation of persecution was pretty obvious.

 

For one thing, I thihk it's a stupid family tradition for them to expect you to be a mind reader and then get pissed because you can't.

 

Second, what you said obviously had some impact upon them (or someone present) or they would never have given it much thought. Perhaps, one of them pondered the ideas later when you were not there.

 

I have wished for some evidence that Christians are hearing the message that nonreligious people do not fear death and hell the way Christianity preaches we do. Are you suggesting they may have heard it and that this may be what stimulated the reaction--it was not okay to inject such a message into the Christian mindset??? It rocked their boat so badly it nearly got swamped??? They almost had to face some hard questions themselves and that was NOT okay???

 

Wow! If THAT is what happened--and I know some of these people project their own unwanted feelings onto their enemies (nothing else makes sense so I suppose that is what they do), then Christian teachings about atheists (or nonreligious people in general) begin to make some sense. They absolutely cannot accept their own feelings so they think it is the nonreligious people who have these feelings.

 

So if I am bold enough to take the accusations brought against myself, and apply them to her and confederates, I understand what was going on. The discussion about religion was started for one purpose only: To get me back into the fold. But NOBODY would come out and say so--OH DEAR NO! For heaven's sake NO! They loved me too much for that! They would never want to offend me by doing that! They would just be subtle about it. So they just talked about things they believed, or rather, about reality such as hell and asked questions about what unbelievers think happens when they die to get me to face the reality of hell, etc.

 

Then I had the guts not to even confess hell but to say to their faces with the confidence of one who actually BELIEVED IT that death was the end??? I guess that could perhaps have been offensive in the extreme. I have to remove all credibility of respect from humans to come to such a conclusion but they leave me little room for doubt. Something really disrespectful was going on. As you said, they bulldoze the fences and then cry persecution. It's about the most horrendously despictable human behaviour I can think of. Okay, there are others equally despictable but probably none surpass it.

[R. S. Martin]

You make a good point (if via a technically flawed analogy), but I'm afraid you missed mine.

 

I'm not interested in joining the milk chorus even if it may be to my benefit. Sure, those cats involved stand a (possibly good) chance of getting some milk, but they're also pretty well guaranteed a kick in the head--probably several. In my mind, the milk isn't worth it. Nor is the prospect of the other cats benefiting from my being kicked in the head enough to change my opinion. It's great they got some milk, but still as unrewarding for me.

 

The truth is I simply lack the self-sacrificial personality necessary to participate in such figurative or literal struggles. Even if it means I have to suffer some small injustices or the wider community of which I'm a part is the worse for it, I'd rather fly under the radar and live quietly in the way that will allow me the most freedom and the least notice.

 

Woody, here is something you may not be aware of or see. From a sociological perspective, ExChristian.net is part of a larger informal movement to directly counteract fundamentalist religion. On my website I list a few others that are part of this movement. I don't have to put out the call to unite (that was just a more or less poetic closing statement for the post subconsciously modeled on the Communist Manifesto); people ARE uniting and you are part of this movement whether you will or whether you won't. Terms are being coined to desribe this movement. "New atheists" is one such term. Headlines are being made. Sam Harris. Richard Dawkins. Etc. There is in-fighting among the atheists, i.e. there is much contention as to whether Dawkins is taking the appropriate approach. We've got all the characteristics of a full-blown movement. And it's international. It spans continents and oceans. I guess that makes it global. And you're part of it.

 

We may not yet have scholarly journal articles. Or books. Just give it a bit more time.

[woodsmoke]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. I resent the implication I'm somehow a part of your and others' efforts by default simply because I hold similar views. That's no more true than claiming European colonists who liked the idea of political independence from Britain but weren't willing to pick up a gun and actually fight in the war were patriotic Americans.

 

I may well agree with the goals of the secular movement and (morally) support your efforts, but if/when push comes to shove I'm not going to be there at your back, and I doubt any amount of momentum therein will change that. As I said above, the reward simply doesn't outweigh the risk for me. It's selfish and not at all endearing to most of my fellow non-believers, but it's the truth.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Quoth woodie:

 

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. I resent the implication I'm somehow a part of your and others' efforts by default simply because I hold similar views.

 

 

+2

 

kFL

[R. S. Martin]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. I resent the implication I'm somehow a part of your and others' efforts by default simply because I hold similar views. That's no more true than claiming European colonists who liked the idea of political independence from Britain but weren't willing to pick up a gun and actually fight in the war were patriotic Americans.

 

I may well agree with the goals of the secular movement and (morally) support your efforts, but if/when push comes to shove I'm not going to be there at your back, and I doubt any amount of momentum therein will change that. As I said above, the reward simply doesn't outweigh the risk for me. It's selfish and not at all endearing to most of my fellow non-believers, but it's the truth.

 

Can you explain what you mean by "part of your and others' efforts"?

 

Your analogy with the American War of Independence gives me the idea you think I'm trying to enlist people to fight something and I'm not.

 

In case you are referring to my signature, I set up a website and forums so that I can collect information and post ideas and so that others can look at it and also share ideas if they like. I have been asked to take more active roles in stuff than I can at the moment. ExC is definitely part of the fight against fundamentalist religion simply by supporting people who deconvert and by refuting the fundies who come here to reconvert us. Also by posting arguments against fundamentalist religion. Since you are an active member of exC how can you deny that you are part of the fight against fundamentalist religion?

 

The focus of my site is not to care for the wounded like exC because exC does such an excellent job on that. I think the biggest service of my site at the moment may be to help people find sources for deconversion, or to find secular groups in their area to replace church. I really don't know but those are the two main reasons I have been referring people there that I can think of (there may be others but I can't think of them at the moment). Information is offered for interested parties. No one is enlisted for efforts that are not being exerted. There are enough people chomping at the bit asking what can I do. I am not enlisting anyone, Woody, in case that is what you are thinking.

 

If this does not address your concern, please inform me what it is that you feel I am asking of you because I truly don't know.

 

Skip, I am not sure how to read your post--whether you are saying the same thing Woodsmoke is saying. Whatever, if anyone still has concerns about my project that are unclear, feel free to ask.

 

I did not start this thread with the intention to talk about it but I guess I can if people want to or if there is a need.

[Grandpa Harley]

In any group with common values there are those who rise to engage an enemy, and those who tend to keep their head down, their mouth shut, their bowels open, and hope that the the Powers That Be round up someone else if the shit hits the fan... I can sympathise with both views... I've tilted at my fair share of windmills...

[The-Captain]

Fight and movement carry rather militant connotations, I think thats why what your saying is being misunderstood. I had a sorta knee-jerk reaction of "shun" when I read your post about being in the "movement by default". What exactly do you mean by fight? (still a bit unclear on that)

 

If you mean aggressively getting out there and challenging xian belief, then I would say hell no, and most other folks would too. Whether that would be the expedient way to subdue religion or not, it just smacks too much of the way xianity and religion at large operates.

 

Meh maybe I just think that way b/c I'm largely burnt out on crusades and fights right now, had enough of that in xianity...

 

However given your usual attitudes Im sure crusading against xianity is the last thing your advocating, Im just saying you may want to clarify even further or people will read it wrong.

[mwc]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. I resent the implication I'm somehow a part of your and others' efforts by default simply because I hold similar views. That's no more true than claiming European colonists who liked the idea of political independence from Britain but weren't willing to pick up a gun and actually fight in the war were patriotic Americans.

 

I may well agree with the goals of the secular movement and (morally) support your efforts, but if/when push comes to shove I'm not going to be there at your back, and I doubt any amount of momentum therein will change that. As I said above, the reward simply doesn't outweigh the risk for me. It's selfish and not at all endearing to most of my fellow non-believers, but it's the truth.

I think you've misunderstood the gist of what was being said...or I have and this post is going to be wrong.

 

But, as I see it, you are involved in a "movement" of sorts just by posting on this site. Just stop to think about it. People visit this site everyday in some fashion (either us regulars or the anonymous folks or whoever...but in some way people drop by). If this place was a ghost town it would convey a message to all those who bothered to come by just as the activity, yours included, sends now. You are involved in this "movement" like it or not.

 

Now, what that "movement" is undefined since you're obviously just here to participate in the ex-c site and that's all. You've made that clear. But if the atheists or whoever claim this site at some point then you are going to be "claimed" as part of that larger whole by your involvement here. It's really just a show of numbers. We're just one cat but when the xians look around at the net as a whole we're a whole herd of cats tripping them up.

 

I don't think anyone expects you to have their back or anything like that. I just think you being here, on this site, doing what you do without even realizing was the entire point. This community and others like it is the point. People who think like we do is the point. It just so happens that when certain situations arise like-minded people group together (self-herding cats). It's really not magic.

 

Like I said when I started...I could be wrong and this post could be way off-base.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

Fight and movement carry rather militant connotations, I think thats why what your saying is being misunderstood. I had a sorta knee-jerk reaction of "shun" when I read your post about being in the "movement by default". What exactly do you mean by fight? (still a bit unclear on that)

 

If you mean aggressively getting out there and challenging xian belief, then I would say hell no, and most other folks would too. Whether that would be the expedient way to subdue religion or not, it just smacks too much of the way xianity and religion at large operates.

 

Meh maybe I just think that way b/c I'm largely burnt out on crusades and fights right now, had enough of that in xianity...

 

However given your usual attitudes Im sure crusading against xianity is the last thing your advocating, Im just saying you may want to clarify even further or people will read it wrong.

 

The problem is, Padwan, some times to fight the devil you have to use his tools... just a thought... but then I am a man of wealth and taste...

[R. S. Martin]

I agree with mwc and Gramps. We are probably using different meanings of the word.

 

The actual purpose of the thread is a rant against Christians who do not respect our right not to believe their religion--like Gene who posted in the debate thread and my sibs who took major offense when I answered their questions about nonreligious people--and then cry persecution when we do not accept their violation of our space. We have not heard back from Gene whether he feels offended that he got ousted or not, but lots of Christians do. And THAT is what this rant is about. They bulldoze the fences on our property and when we call them on it they cry persecution.

[woodsmoke]

Can you explain what you mean by "part of your and others' efforts"?

 

I mean exactly what you go on to state about your site, this site and the purposes of each.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think it's noble as a grape the way you and Dave and others volunteer your time and effort to provide information and comfort and such to people in need of/desiring it, and as evidenced by my long-standing membership here I'll even make use of those resources of the mood strikes me, but that doesn't mean I'm signing on to anything in even the most nominal sense.

 

The fact you made reference to a thread in the debate section proves my point perfectly. Even as a single, once-off event, I don't begin to remember the last time I ventured or cared about anything that happened therein. It's easily been several years since I did so with any semblance of regularity. Anymore, my time here is spent almost exclusively in the rants, sex, science, news, off-topic and critic forums, and I rarely read any thread which looks to have some kind of specifically religious or ExC theme.

 

I'm not here to lick my wounds or to tend to those of others. I got over any problems I may have had with the Mormon cult-within-a-cult and my deconversion therefrom years ago. The only reason I still hang my hat at Dave's house is I enjoy the community--more specifically, the people of whom it's composed. I'm here solely because I value the friends I've made. If it weren't for Dave, Kevin, Vigile, Fwee, Pitchu, Libertus, Jez, Gramps, Thurisaz, Huai Dan, Dhampir, Heimdall (and Shadow (), Amethyst, Japedo, Asimov, Neil, Rameus, Reach, Biggles, Shadfox, ISDP, Rachel and the many others I've come to know and count as friends in the time I've been here, I'd have stopped coming back years ago.

 

So whether you're talking about some kind of actual social movement or just some online phenomenon, I'm still not a part of it. If pushy, arrogant theists try to figuratively bulldoze my fences online, I'll just ignore them. If they start doing it in reality, I'll pick up and move somewhere they don't have the power to do so. This world's a big place, it won't be hard to find parts of it where I can live peacefully and freely outside the influence of an oppressive idealogue.

[Grandpa Harley]

When the Native American tried that, it didn't end well...

[Guest Wild Man]

Like Woodfire, I just want to fly under the radar and be left alone. I have no desire to expend energy on some campaign of counter-religious reactionarism. I don't even want to expend the energy of building a perch of elitism for me to sit upon. I just want to attain happiness and peace while I'm yet alive. Any who would harangue me for that is just as much of a nuisance as any who would harangue me for walking away from religion.

[Grandpa Harley]

I don't think anyone is forcing anyone...

[R. S. Martin]

I don't think anyone is forcing anyone...

 

Not that I can see. Anything stated by me that was taken otherwise was a misunderstanding. When I look at organizations like Internet Infidels, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and American Atheist Alliance--to mention a few prominent ones, I get the impression that the grass-roots movements are in place and that when the people so wish or the need arises, a larger network will develop. And it could happen overnight so long as the internet is in place.