Stop the Religious Right. Four Steps You Can Take, author Sean Faircloth.

19

Learn four steps to stop the Religious Right from Sean Faircloth, author of Attack of the Theocrats, How the Religious Right Harms Us All & What We Can Do About It. 


Available now at the RDFRS online store and includes a free DVD

Faircloth is Dir. of Strategy & Policy for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, US. Faircloth delivered these remarks at the Michigan Theater, Ann Arbor on Oct. 23, 2012. This was his third tour as opening speaker for Prof. Richard Dawkins. This event was part of a series of lectures hosted by the U. of Michigan.

Sean can be contacted at sean.faircloth@richarddawkins.net and also at

ministermoney@richarddawkins.net and organize@richarddawkins.net

Written By: Sean Faircloth
continue to source article at youtube.com

19 COMMENTS

  1. I commend Sean Faircloth for his rousing speech and call to arms and RDF for its unwavering work of spreading reason in the world.  They are right – we the freethinkers should take any opportunity to answer that call even if it is just by not being afraid to oppose unreason and religiosity in ordinary everyday encounters if  that’s all we are able to accomplish.  

  2. Indeed a rousing speech – especially the part from 13:55 to 14:34…

    I still find it incredible (and depressing) that the majority of people on this planet do not seem to agree with the sentiments expressed in those few seconds…

  3. So how does one organize to make a difference? Especially someone like myself in some small town community? I am not any big name, just a regular Joe, but I agree with the video. I haven’t heard of any secular atheist groups in my town and if there are they certainly aren’t holding anything.

    But I am tired of letting the religious win by default – because they think they cannot be challenged. They think they corner the marketplace as far as morality goes. But a rousing call to arms is one thing – getting the rubber to meet the road is another. So tell me and I’ll do it – this regular Joe with nothing to gain but to win the cause of freethinking.

    Southwestern Ontario/Canada

  4.  @rdfrs-4b85ae49a5a1ccd24722d8a6af3beb12:disqus:

    You can start by checking out Saul Alinskys’ “Rules For Radicals”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R

    The book may help in getting some unconventional ideas on getting noticed. Get the word out in your sphere of influence. Make sure everyone in your universe at least hears your ideas. Start some social gatherings and form a “think tank”. Use social media websites for promotion. Start a local food drive and help feed the hungry in your surrounding community. Make sure you get yourself a logo or catch phrase or something and have some shirts, hats, buttons etc… made up and wear them constantly. After you decide your catch phrase or name, go to a domain name website like go daddy and purchase a domain name for your website. Then, obviously, create a website. Make sure the website is on all apparel. Just a start. Good luck! 

  5. One action Sean requests is to find your local megachurch parsonage,photograph and send the pic to him.  I would love to do this – there are several megachurches in my area (Northern VA).  But…. how do I get the address for the parsonage?  I assume it has to be publically available, but where?  A quick perusal of the church websites and a search for the pastor’s address went nowhere.  Suggestions or instructions?

  6. CdnMacAtheist and grayth,
    some thoughts …
     I don’t know about the Toronto CFI meeting place which I’ve been to only once for Hitchens v Blair video feed, but there is very little happening on the CFI Canada website. Secular people in Canada seem not to want to “join” any kind of organizaton.
    Maybe the best way to work towards secularism is to try informally, in ordinary social interactions, to persuade just a few friends or family at a time to think in an enlightened way (at the risk of alienating them!). They, in turn, may do the same. It’s a long, slow, rather dull process but it may be the only effective way in the long run.
    I can’t see Sean’s phone tree doing a lot of good. There are just too many strangers and paid fundraisers phoning on behalf of parties, charities, NGO’s etc.. They are a pain in the arse, even the ones I already contribute to.
    Do we have anyone like Sean Faircloth in Canada? I’ve been on the RDF “trail” for over 3 years and in all that time I have not seen/heard any Canadian atheist make his kind of impassioned public speech.
    Is Canada already so secular that we don’t need anyone like Sean? And if Canada is already secular, how did we end up with the Red Rose Tea Party-ish Harper government with its anti-democratic, regressive drift, especially in this past year?

  7. Lovely speech. Probably he had to be so keen spokesman because very small number of americans are willing to act upon subject of how to fight against church ideology. Of course that key is in numbering, in masses, even animals and our ancestors hunted in herds. :)  Only I am very sad that he has mentioned Francis Bacon in a positive context. Because of him we have private property which divide us, and  unequal social rights, wars over “mine” and “yours”, industrialism which created social castes and unequal division of the means of production, that person was an evil of his own. Anyway I wish a big success to a anti-religious movement in america and in the world.

  8. The interesting this,what he is saying will happen. Governments will turn on all religions. This will be a world wide  event. But it won’t end like they expect it would.
    The other thing is  welfare of the weak ones that suffer, is not based on ‘evolution’,it is the exact opposite.  ‘Evolution’ and a non creation origin of life, is about yourself first , not helping the weak but stepping over them. The reason we want to help ones comes from a built in morality.
    Because many claim to be following a God does not mean they are.
    Many think this is the information age. I think it is more the misinformation age. It doesn’t mean the answers are not out there, but it does mean, there is more ways to  be mislead. 

  9. MrD

    I find your rather illiterate and oblique posting requires but one rejoinder. We have people on this site all the time who criticize evolution without a whit of understanding about it. Usually they are Christians. The next time you want to write about something about which you obviously know nothing, check your swing, lest you strike out as you did here.

  10. Hi JJust because someone does not agree with ‘evolution’ does not mean they do not understand it. If you understood what they mean by it, you could not support it.The scientific evidence, that the scientists themselves have dug up, is going to bury them.
       Now this topic was on stopping religions, I mentioned this is going to be a concerted effort by the governments of the world.So to the speaker in this video,might like to be careful of what you wish for!
    Though there is no doubt that religions have not represented God very well at all. That goes for Christians ones also, or maybe more so.So where do the scientists get their rational from? Why do they think they can do better? Do they have confidence in their understanding of life? For example human nature has nothing in common with the idea that life just happened.( spontaneously generating). The scientist have, proved that spontaneously generating life does  not happen. So then why do they still put their trust in it. ( is that rational) Also the scientists have given man the ability to ruin the earth. ( is that rational)
    So how could you trust their ‘rational’ if they dominate in the future?

  11. “Hi JJust because someone does not agree with ‘evolution’ does not mean they do not understand it.”
    And you do?

    I suppose you belong to a religion, or have religious beliefs that do represent god well? Others not so much?

    What a pile of stupidity. You know nothing about science and prove it with every sentence. (You also know nothing about English grammar.)

    And BTW, we know all about the “end times” to which you allude. Everyone’s waiting for the rapture. (Yawn)

  12. Yes, I think I do understand what they are saying.
    This time period, is called by some the information age. But I think it is more like the misinformation age. What that means that there is so  much information swirling about that some can get distracted, and tired of the situation. It’s the example of crying wolf. You do that too many times, and people forget that one time it will be true. 
    You assume I don’t know anything, is that like assuming that you do? You see, it is better to find out first. I’m assuming you do know some science.
    But the speaker in this video , was alluding that things would be better with a science based or reason based backing. Yet I question the science they understand and the reason they use. For example they assume life just started, they don’t know that nor do they have any evidence of that.In the end they have to say creation is possible. Because they do not have evidence that life could start without that. With ‘evolution’ there is no evidence that actually shows one kind of life becoming another over time. What life shows is that there are limits.
    If you base a your belief on a foundation,that you don’t know is true or not, how can you condemn another group that maybe correct?
    If you take that,  like this speaker is saying to education and governments, are you not setting yourself as a group where the foundation will crumble under you and everyone else?  
    How is that any better than you claim religions have done?
    Don’t you think scientists should prove what they say before they force it on others?  Shouldn’t they find out if they are correct?
    Human nature, does not fit what ‘evolution’ is supposed to be all about.
    How is what this speaker is talking about, any different than the Clergy did in the dark ages to many scientists and others?  Only now the scientists are doing it to religions and ordinary poeple. It’s the same thing.
    History repeating itself.

  13. @rdfrs-7b15662e736abe440fb51df4f0c6c5cd:disqus
     

    Yet I question the science they understand and the reason they use.  For example they assume life just started, they don’t know that nor do they have any evidence of that. 

    Actually they do not “assume”, but have evidence of abiogenesis, but there is no evidence of “creation” around the time life started on Earth.

     

    In the end they have to say creation is possible. Because they do not have evidence that life could start without that.

    You clearly have no idea about abiogenesis, the history of the Earth or genetics. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T

    With ‘evolution’ there is no evidence that actually shows one kind of life becoming another over time. What life shows is that there are limits. 

    Err no!  You should study biology

    Education is only a mouse click away. 
    ALL present day life on Earth is evolved from a common ancestor. –
    Last universal ancestor – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L

     

    Don’t you think scientists should prove what they say before they force it on others?  Shouldn’t they find out if they are correct? 

    YES! .. and they have done so for over 150 years.  It’s just that the uneducated don’t read the scientific papers or books.

    Just because someone does not agree with ‘evolution’ does not mean they do not understand it.

    Usually it does mean just that, and you have just shown you don’t understand even the basics with a list of misinformed assertions.  (It’s just like “Flat Earthists” who do not understand astronomy.)

    If you understood what they mean by it, you could not support it. 

    I’m a biologist!  I have understood it for decades.  Modern genetics, the breeding of plants and animals for   food supplies, and modern medicine,  are all based on understanding it – whether the ignorant recognise this or not.

  14. A reminder that our Terms of Use require comments to be on the topic of the OP – which, in this case, is neither evolution, abiogenesis nor creation.

    Further off-topic comments will be removed.

    Thank you.

    The mods

  15. He keeps using the term “religious RIGHT”. The main difficulty that I see with organising around secularism/atheism, is that neither implies that one has to reject right wing policies.
    As a left wing atheist I have more in common with many religious people that I do with right wing atheists of the Ayn Rand type.

Leave a Reply