How Not to Win Support For Your Cause …. December 9, 2013

What were they thinking? How can you win support for your cause from some group, thumb in eyedoesn’t matter which, by insulting or trying to shame them? Sure, for a small few without any kind of backbone simple shaming will cause submission, but insults? Insults bring backlashes. A thumb in the eye does not earn support.

Take Barbara G. Walker’s assertion that anyone who claims to be a feminist must by definition support women being in total control of government and society. She lambasts all men for the failure of some and then seems to desire men to support her chauvinistic cause. Nope. I don’t think so. I support equality. I do not support a patriarchy, why would I support a matriarchy?

Let’s look at the remarks some female atheist writers bewail. In a recent article on Alternet: “Another thing one notices with the atheist movement is the fact it is predominantly upwardly middle-class, white and male. If mainstream free-thought microphoneand humanism continue to reflect the narrow cultural interests of white elites who have disposable income to go to conferences then the secular movement is destined to remain marginal and insular.” Why is this an issue? I have never seen any evidence that the atheist movement represented only one segment. I have always seen women and other segments of society being encouraged to speak out. In my opinion it is not the fault of the “white-male elite” (a very derogatory as well as inflammatory phrase) that the other segments of the atheist movement are hesitant to step up to the microphone.

The article on Alternet goes on to exclaim that there is fear-mongering going on where Islamic terrorism is concerned. They have labeled this Islamaphobia. If one examines the history and content of Islam there can be no such thing as Islamaphobia Islamic terroristas all the “fear-mongering” issues have a very real and solid basis in fact. I have nothing good to say about Islam not because I am Islamaphobic but because there is nothing good to say about Islam. This “fine” article goes on to insult all of the “New Atheists”, like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. I am sure this will go far in garnering the support of people who admire both these men, not!

Another section makes it clear that the writer is also quite biased against the prosperity of the United States and wishes to redistribute wealth worldwide. While I have similar perspectives mine are only nation-wide.

The only real and correct thing proclaimed in the article is the fact that atheists cannot belong to the Republican party. The Republican party is owned not only by Religous GOP 2the business sector but by the religious right as well. These two segments of society work together. The corporations exploit the worker class and the religious right makes the worker class submissive enough for exploitation. Not only does it not make sense for an atheist to belong to the Republican party, it doesn’t make sense for anyone who works for a living to belong to the Republican party.

This entry was posted in Religion and Reason and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to How Not to Win Support For Your Cause …. December 9, 2013

  1. john zande says:

    As an outsider looking in, I have to say you American’s do have a terrible habit of complicating things. Definitions, sub-definitions, groups, affiliations… pro or con… Political. Far too much naval gazing. Humanism is Humanism: a rational movement for the betterment of society free from all superstitious Oogity Boogity.

  2. drenn1077 says:

    Even humanism has its share of factions trying to drag it this way and that. I call myself atheist first, humanist second. I do not support factions, I support equality.

  3. john zande says:

    You and me alike.

  4. Every human endeavor necesarily has factions. It is not in the nature of humans to cooperate on a large scale without motivation, often time nefarious motivation. What motivates one group toward a goal will not work for other groups and the same goal. This is the side effects of thinking.

    Thinking allows self interest and several political frameworks have been tried in various societies to remove this ‘thinking’ problem. Their failures are famous. Like hers of wild beasts, it is some times felt best to cull the herd but natural laws have a wonderful built in culling – survival. When survival motivates your self interest cooperation is easy to muster. Those that don’t follow the best method die off. This happens at the social level too. Groups of socially circumspect individuals will follow a given path, some will fracture away and die off. At a larger level, it might seem that the entire effort was fruitless but it will have imprinted on the minds of many only to be reborn with new vigor or new function… this is evolution of an idea at work.

    Feminism has suffered from this evolutionary culling for decades. It, as an idea, has not yet found a successful direction.. There are many reasons for this and many want to discuss them. I think the main reason is that their direction was wrong from the start…

    Equality for all does not have a gender, color, creed, or doctrine… any group that declares these as part of their equality movement is going to die off in the social winter they will undoubtedly face. In spring there will be hybrids and hybrids of hybrids and new species but the original will have died off. This fact or law or whatever is seldom ever considered by such groups as they are mainly driven by self interest…. there is a term used by evolutionary biologists for this kind of situation but i can’t remember it. My grandpa would say that the squeaky wheel gets the oil unless that wheel is attached to a wagon that has already gone over the cliff and will not be recovered.

  5. drenn1077 says:

    When you have one faction claiming victimization and demanding immediate redress at the expense of others the problem arises as to when equality is reached, if ever, and the situation of claimed victimhood may extend beyond equalization into favoritism.

  6. Absolutely. When the aim is to make one group equal to another but not make all groups equal, the struggle for equilibrium is quite difficult and full of missteps.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s