1. Comment #80920 by deviljelly on October 23, 2007 at 1:57 pm

I really enjoy hearing Eddie speak, I find him engaging and intense, clear and knowlegable.

... and practical...

...if a bit "historical"...


Other Comments by deviljelly

2. Comment #80922 by eXcommunicate on October 23, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Eddie is great. His Galapagos lecture is a very good one too.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

3. Comment #80926 by ChrisMcL on October 23, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Eddie Tabash: The flaccid vestigial tail of the "old" atheism.

In one year, a small group of atheist spokesperson newcomers has done more for the cause of athiesm in America than decades of Tabash and his compatriots.

With that kind of track record, Eddie Tabash I salute you: YAWN!

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

4. Comment #80928 by ChrisMcL on October 23, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Wait, wait!

Here's a slogan for Eddie:

Winning the small battles, one distraction at a time.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

5. Comment #80929 by 82abhilash on October 23, 2007 at 2:48 pm

We have expert in philosophy, a science, a journalist and Sam Harris on our side. A legal expert has an important role in this campaign.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

6. Comment #80931 by Diacanu on October 23, 2007 at 2:51 pm

ChrisMcL-
Um....if the religious right turning America into a theocracy is a small battle, then WTF is a big one??

And if what he proposes to fight it is "flaccid", then what would you have? Open military conflict?

Other Comments by Diacanu

7. Comment #80943 by Veronique on October 23, 2007 at 3:27 pm

ChrisMcL

Where the hell are you coming from? Tabash very clearly enunciates, for me, the immense danger that the religious right poses in the US.

Did you watch the video about the graduates from the Patrick Henry College and the cold, hard and disciplined founder of that College, Michael Farris?

Find it - it's called God's Next Army. If it doesn't chill you then you have lost the plot. Go and yawn somewhere else.

Disappointed in you
V

Edit Here's the link Chris

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7630851222567912489

V

Other Comments by Veronique

8. Comment #80945 by Vendetta on October 23, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Diacanu and Veronique are spot on, I was thinking the same thing as D.

Other Comments by Vendetta

9. Comment #80952 by Jack Rawlinson on October 23, 2007 at 4:41 pm

ChrisMcL, your obvious trolling is tiresome. Your avatar would also be better if it wasn't a cartoon.

I attended Tabash's speech and I found it compelling and disturbing.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

10. Comment #80955 by Zakie Chan on October 23, 2007 at 4:53 pm

I always have enjoyed watching Tabash in debates and lectures. Never disappointing!

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

11. Comment #80956 by USA_Limey on October 23, 2007 at 4:53 pm

I haven't seen much of Eddie but I did like his Galapagos talk and this was pretty good too I thought.

ChrisMcL I think anyone who will put their head above the parapet and step into the firing line, (what awful cliches but I won't edit because now I am just laughing at myself so you may as well too), is deserving of at least some respect.

From my limited knowledge it is my understanding that Eddie has been fighting the good fight for a lot longer than lets say a Hitchens or a Harris, so lets give credit where its due old chap.

Rock on Eddie!

Other Comments by USA_Limey

12. Comment #80960 by Summer Seale on October 23, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Wow....

As somebody who watched Eddie Tabash a few times, and as somebody who is clearly on the right on some issues, and the left on others, and who agrees with Eddie's assessment of what we have to lose, I just have this to say:

ChrisMcL, you're an asshole.

Other Comments by Summer Seale

13. Comment #80975 by discipline on October 23, 2007 at 7:10 pm

We are so fortunate to have somebody so articulate and knowledgeable on "our" side. Great stuff.

Other Comments by discipline

14. Comment #80977 by HappyPrimate on October 23, 2007 at 7:23 pm

I have not had the opportunity to hear Eddie Tabash before. His talk was fantastic. I can tell you from reading Joe Biden's book that he firmly believes in separation of religion and state and was instrumental in keeping Bork off of the Supreme Court to the point that he had to drop out of running for the presidency to make sure Bork did not get through the senate. While Biden is a catholic, he does not want any religion in government. I think most of the democrats running, if not all, hold this view also. Emails do work on senators as recently Sen. Vitter of Louisiana had to back off a funding request for a faith-based charity he wanted to put through because he was hit with so much email and other communications against it. Even here in RED Louisiana, we can make a difference. Vitter did call us histerical however but it worked and it was not funded. So don't be shy about getting the word out to your senators when the issues come up. And lastly, PLEASE VOTE!!!! It is not only a hard won privilege, it is also our civic duty. Kudos to Eddie.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

15. Comment #80984 by johnnyfatsac on October 23, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Here is Eddie Tabash's interview on Point Of Inquiry. I just listened to it today and it was very good. enjoy.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/

Other Comments by johnnyfatsac

16. Comment #80985 by Last Man In Europe on October 23, 2007 at 8:24 pm

It's an interesting history of how the separation of church and state came about.

I wonder though, shouldn't we today, with OR without what happened over 200 years ago, agree it is wrong to discriminate against someone based on their religion/lack of one?

One shouldn't have to go back into the past to know this is not acceptable.

Other Comments by Last Man In Europe

17. Comment #80989 by Diacanu on October 23, 2007 at 8:40 pm

I think the point of bringing up the history of separation of church and state is to trump the feverishly incanted lie that America "is a christian nation".

Other Comments by Diacanu

18. Comment #80992 by MIND_REBEL on October 23, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Amazing speech. I really needed that.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

19. Comment #81015 by Cthulance on October 23, 2007 at 10:44 pm

I like how he casually, confidently and repeatedly refers to himself as an atheist. There is no mealy-mouthed pseudointellectual wordplay here in an attempt to hide his stance and that's so very refreshing.

Other Comments by Cthulance

20. Comment #81053 by Theocrapcy on October 24, 2007 at 1:32 am

What is AAI 07?

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

21. Comment #81058 by Acleron on October 24, 2007 at 1:46 am

Clear, compelling and very chilling. All respect to Eddie Tabash for his denounciation of the strategies of the religious right. The world's most powerful nation run by religious nuts is not a very attractive future.

Other Comments by Acleron

22. Comment #81059 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 1:49 am

I'll go one further, and say there's NO future for mankind down that path.
Dead stop, no wiggle room, no kinda/maybe.

Other Comments by Diacanu

23. Comment #81080 by edwaltthespisactor on October 24, 2007 at 2:56 am

in the UK we have a problem with right wingers claiming Patriotism and the flag. I was inspired listening to this speech to claw back patriotism and the flag.

Americans: PLEASE TAKE UP THE STARS AND STRIPES WITH 'FIRST AMENDMENT PATRIOT' PROUDLY TATTOOED, AND REMIND THE WORLD WHY THE USA IS STILL WORTHY OF OUR ADMIRATION AS THE DEMOCRATIC PROJECT.

Other Comments by edwaltthespisactor

24. Comment #81109 by ChrisMcL on October 24, 2007 at 6:17 am

"he's a good speaker"
"is deserving of at least some respect"

That's the kind of tepid defense that I expected to see. And it's the resume of accomplishments that many of the old guard atheists have to show for themselves.

Atheism needs leaders with a record of real accomplishment. Tabash and his ilk have had decades to organize atheist Americans into a serious social, economic, and political force. They have failed. They fight to remove Christmas nativity scenes from City Hall lawns; all the while, winning their little battles but losing the war.

Hitchens and Dawkins have accomplished far more in the last 12 months to further the atheist cause. And they have a plan.

Eddie Tabash bores me. But if that's the kind of activism that you like, then you'll always be an underclass. Enjoy.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

25. Comment #81116 by Vendetta on October 24, 2007 at 6:53 am

I'm sure Tabash's atheist activism pales in comparison to yours, ChrisMcL, your highness.

Other Comments by Vendetta

26. Comment #81119 by Theocrapcy on October 24, 2007 at 7:15 am

ChrisMcL, what the frick is your problem? If you don't like Tabash don't listen to him, if you really are on our side (which I doubt anyway, you seem like a typical xian out-of-the-woodwork troll) then you'll appreciate that every activist for the cause has a different approach and every bit helps.

Now go and crawl back under your bible.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

27. Comment #81141 by ClemIsMe on October 24, 2007 at 8:43 am

As always, good council from Tabash. And I can tell you from personal experience, where the intricacies of Dawkins and Dennet, or the intellectual bluntness of Hitchens and Harris may be autoignored by a lot of faith based people, the facts presented by Tabash are generally too simple and too verifiable to ignore. I have had a lot of success using his videos and articles - relatively speaking.

Other Comments by ClemIsMe

28. Comment #81180 by JelloWasabi on October 24, 2007 at 11:02 am

This was an excellent speech that is full of well researched information. Thanks Eddie! While many atheists were still not expressing themselves Eddie was out there fighting the fight.

ChrisMcL, I can not believe that you would consider the statements and concerns presented in this video as flacid. Unbelievable.

Other Comments by JelloWasabi

29. Comment #81234 by Teratornis on October 24, 2007 at 1:11 pm

In reply to comment #81119 by Theocrapcy:

ChrisMcL, what the frick is your problem? If you don't like Tabash don't listen to him, if you really are on our side (which I doubt anyway, you seem like a typical xian out-of-the-woodwork troll) then you'll appreciate that every activist for the cause has a different approach and every bit helps.

While I don't agree with ChrisMcL's criticism, I can certainly see where he is coming from. Back in the 1970's, as I was being indoctrinated by charismatic fundy young earth creationists, the only examples of atheists I knew were Stalin, Mao, and Madalyn Murray O'Hair (and I suppose we should count Isaac Asimov as well, although he tended to mention his atheism only in passing, at least in the books of his that I read - he was an atheist, but not really about atheism).

I think we can all agree that Stalin and Mao did not exactly advance the atheist "cause" (whatever that might be), and O'Hair made her name by fighting for the separation of church and state while getting lots of media coverage which somehow failed to articulate the underlying arguments.

So the picture of atheism presented to me was that it consisted of tyrants on one hand, and hair-splitting legalistic manipulators on the other.

However, rather than malign someone like Eddie Tabash for fighting the legal fight, I'd suggest his effectiveness should be now all the greater, since The Four Horsemen/Musketeers/bulldogs or whatever we call them have done a decent job of explaining how theism is irrational. It is now getting harder for theists to mischaracterize the debate, at least to the thinking portion of the masses, inflaming them against church/state separation, as if this bedrock of the U.S. Constitution were somehow a threat to the fabric of the nation.

O'Hair may have accomplished something useful; I don't really know. She didn't give me what I needed at the time, which would have been more along the lines of polemic.

But I don't think we can blame O'Hair. We can blame the scientific community, for taking so long to produce someone like Prof. Dawkins. For centuries, science had tacitly declared something like a détente with religion, which was understandable after a few scientists got burned at the stake for denying geocentrism. While NOMA didn't have a fancy name until Gould gave it one, that was pretty much the principle most scientists lived by most of the time. Scientific skepticism typically aimed at the fringe of wacky cults, rarely taking on mainstream religion.

In any case, if ChrisMcL doesn't like someone's arguments or methods, what's wrong if he says so? He may have a substantive criticism, or he may not. We will only know after we hear his case. We can't have critical thinking without criticism.

Other Comments by Teratornis

30. Comment #81245 by ChrisMcL on October 24, 2007 at 1:25 pm

It appears that some things ARE holy. And for some atheists, it's Eddie Tabash.

Granted, my posts are provocative [dick-ish if you prefer]. But I hope that that didn't hide my fundamental reasoning. If Teratornis gets it, then probably so does eveyone else. So instead of making ad hominem attacks on me, tell me how I am wrong in my assessment of Tabash. Have his efforts as a leader among the atheist movement shown any substantive results?

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

31. Comment #81252 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 1:46 pm

ChrisMcL-

I didn't say Tabash was holy, or any such tripe.

I asked two valid questions which you didn't answer.

Other Comments by Diacanu

32. Comment #81299 by ChrisMcL on October 24, 2007 at 2:50 pm

crap. I spent a considerable time answering you, Diacanu, only to lose my post when I tried to submit it. :-<

In a nutshell:

Your questions miss the point. We are worse off now than when Tabash started. Proof that he has been ineffective in his struggle. He should try something new.

The big battle we face is inserting ourselves into the American political, social, and economic landscape in such a way as that we are taken seriously as an important interest group.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and others have achieved good results through their methods. We need more leaders who emulate and further develop their (Dawkins, etc.) successes.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

33. Comment #81373 by Veronique on October 24, 2007 at 4:24 pm

While I may be old and not an American, I am most assuredly aware of the danger that the religious right is mounting a very clear and dedicated campaign to put people in positions of legal and political power in America.

That is what Tabash is talking about. To call him a yawn is to miss entirely what he was trying to do and succeeding in getting across in his talk at AAI.

Sure, there are authors writing about the irrationality and dangers of religion and it is a topic whose time has come (yet again). RD has collated points he has been making since 1976, added some more and published a book devoted to the delusions and dangers of religion. Tabash has a good track record fighting for abortion rights, continued separation of church and state and the decriminalisation of prostitution. He's been debating Christians since 1993. He is a well-respected lawyer. America needs people like Tabash when push comes to shove. That AAI invited him to address the Convention shows that level of respect.

Deschner is German, older than I, has published a lot of material and RD was awarded the Deschner prize. Does that also make Deschner a yawn because he has not been translated into English and you and I have not read his work? Does it make Sagan a yawn because he died before the new wave of anti-religious books were published? Is Dennett a yawn because he has had decades to organize atheist Americans into a serious social, economic, and political force? And presumably failed.

Teratornis may have articulated what he sees as your position, but yours was an ad hominem against Tabash, because he bores you. What about the content of his speech? Is that a yawn as well or is it just Tabash? If it just Tabash, then your attack is of no account and irritates other posters.

If your criticism has to do with the content of Tabash's talk, then why not critique that content for the rest of us here? What is your fundamental reasoning?

And, bye the bye, what have you been doing for the decades wherein Tabash and his ilk failed? Have you elected to study law, science, politics or philosophy in order to assist your fellow atheistic Americans into forming a serious social, economic and political force?

Have you seen God's Next Army yet?

Looking forward (I hope) to your reply
V

Other Comments by Veronique

34. Comment #81435 by Teratornis on October 24, 2007 at 5:58 pm

In reply to comment #81299 by ChrisMcL:

crap. I spent a considerable time answering you, Diacanu, only to lose my post when I tried to submit it. :-<

I've gotten similarly burned a few times. I think I have noticed a pattern: if I click "Submit" without first clicking "Preview," my message is much more likely to disappear. Clicking "Preview" before my final "Submit" also allows my Firefox browser to scroll back to my last edit window if my message does disappear. Of course to be on the safe side, we should always remember to copy and paste our posts to an external editor before clicking "Submit."

By way of quasi-substantive comment, I noticed that Tabash mentioned the issue of economic competitiveness in connection with the anti-evolution and anti-stem-cell-research efforts of the religious right. While I agree that these anti-science efforts may have severe impacts on particular industries e.g. biotechnology, not to mention oil exploration if any working geologists actually believed the Young Earth nonsense, I think it's important to insure that our arguments are as accurate as we can make them, and not just hyperbole which is susceptible to easy rebuttal.

The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of jobs in science and engineering don't really hinge on a person's understanding of biological evolution. It's possible to earn a doctorate and make original contributions in many technical fields without taking even one introductory course about Darwinism. Everything I learned about evolution came from my own reading as a kind of hobby rather than coursework. I would be hard-pressed to identify any dramatic improvements in my own economic competitiveness as a result of switching from young-earth creationism to agreeing with mainstream science. It's no accident that many Young-Earth Creationists have engineering backgrounds, because in most fields of engineering, the natural history of our planet is almost entirely irrelevant.

The U.S.A. has the largest and most diverse economy of any nation today, easily capable of absorbing the loss of individual industries and even whole industrial sectors. This economy has been created with a workforce that is at least 80% theistic, and perhaps 50% anti-Darwin. Only a comprehensive, broad-based assault on science in general, and against the objectively valuable fruits of scientific research in particular, would seem capable of seriously denting U.S. economic competitiveness. At the very least, we would need to see some careful economic analysis to back up the hyperbole.

Now granted, I don't doubt that channeling a bright young mind into religion as opposed to something productive creates a loss, but the U.S.A. has been wasting millions minds this way for a long, long time, and somehow we did not turn into Afghanistan.

Only perhaps 2% of students in each generation have the innate ability to make original contributions in science, engineering, and mathematics. We can almost say it doesn't matter much what the other 98% believe - they might even believe the Earth is flat - as long as they can do what the top 2% tell them to do.

We see this sort of thing all the time, as even some very productive scientists believe all sorts of religious nonsense when they are on the clock. All that really matters, as far as scientific progress goes, is what they do when they are doing science.

As far as I can tell, the religious right isn't against all of science. They might only be against 1% of science. I don't know the exact percentage, but it would be good to find out, before tarring them as enemies of "science." Otherwise they can blunt our arguments by pointing to all the sorts of science they do support.

I think (but cannot prove) that what happens to our economic competitiveness depends most on what the top 2% of students do. How is their climate for intellectual development? Are they able to find other smart minds to learn from? Do they have access to literature, libraries, laboratories, and the Internet?

As far as I can see, the intellectual climate has never been better. I envy the kids of today, who get to grow up with Wikipedia. I would have given anything for that when I was young.

This is not to say we should not oppose the theocratic attacks on stem cell research, but we should describe the costs of such attacks as accurately as possible, instead of miscasting them as attacks on science and technology in general, which they clearly are not (yet). Of course, there may be a Slippery Slope here, but I prefer not to invoke that argument until we are actually on one.

In practice, these things tend to swing with the political pendulum. If theocrats gain power, they reliably make such a mess that voters swing the other way for a while. Really, what argument against theocracy can we make which is better than George W. Bush?

Other Comments by Teratornis

35. Comment #81821 by ChrisMcL on October 25, 2007 at 8:36 am

Veronique:

My initial and well-stated "Comment #81299" which was lost, would have precluded some of what you ask. I may agree with the content of Tabash's argument. It is primarily his methods that I disagree with. He has been largely unsuccessful in his attempts to nurture a more secular nation.

There is a tendancy here to consider the source of criticism rather than the critical ideas. If you would like to speak separately about my contribution to the atheist cause, we can do so. But it in no way adds or detracts from my criticism of Tabash. It is in fact a distraction. I make no argument from authority. If "Who the hell are YOU to say that?" is an appropriate way to find the truth, then I suppose we could ask each other that question until no one really learns anything.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

36. Comment #81824 by ChrisMcL on October 25, 2007 at 8:42 am

BTW, Tabash IS one of the most undynamic speakers- ever! His activist methods aside, he really does put me to sleep when he speaks. A local group of atheists are planning a trip to see him speak. It's a four hour drive one way. I just can't imagine...

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

37. Comment #81857 by Veronique on October 25, 2007 at 9:59 am

Chris

I have learned to compose my comments in Word so I can take my time. An added benefit is that I can alt+tab back and forth to the comment thread and ensure that I address what I want to. The other added benefit is that Word alerts me to poor grammar and spelling errors so that my comment is better constructed than it would otherwise be:-).

The only irritant is that using the html tags to italicise always defaults to an upper case 'I' so I have to change it. But that's minor. Everything else that I use works. I need to learn new html tricks though.

When I have corrected any errors and am happy with the comment, I can either login to RDF, or if I am already logged in I ctrl+5, copy and paste into the comment box and submit. As Teratornis says, sometimes even though it appears that you are still logged in, the login may have timed-out and you lose your comment. But you still have it in Word. So login again, copy and paste.

A much less frustrating way to go:-). I find it better than composing in the comment box and copying and pasting to Word the way Teratornis does.

On other matters:

You say you may agree with the content of Tabash's talk. Is that a yes or a no?

I tend to think that most attempts to mobilise atheists have been less than successful until now. I think the time has come and I don't disagree that the strong injection of the newly published anti-religious books has provided the impetus.

I commented on another thread that, although Deschner (writing since the 1950s) has not been translated into English, it is NOW possible that his works will be because the Zeitgeist is changing. There are many published atheist books that are starting to be re-published again now. This is good. I don't think there was a concerted effort by our big four to publish at the same time, after all RD said he wanted to write his book 6 years before he actually did. It is serendipitous that it all came together about 12-18 months ago.

But it doesn't deny the works/activism etc of those who came before. They are still saying what they have said before however, the climate is more conducive now.

On a personal note, I don't find Tabash boring at all. He is very measured in his talks, doesn't crack jokes and is a pretty serious fellow. That's his style. I am not bored with what he had to say because I agree with him and am pleased that he gave that particular talk.

There is a battle on a lot of different fronts; church/state separation is the one he is intensely interested in. Good on him for re-stating it again and again and using historical references to remind people how to argue for the separation in debate.

There is a tendancy (sic) here to consider the source of criticism rather than the critical ideas.

I can only assume that your critical ideas were developed in your lost comment. I see no evidence of them in your posted comments.

"Who the hell are YOU to say that?"

.
It wasn't who the hell, but what the hell can you or have you offered in the pursuance of this battle that is looming larger and larger on a global horizon. I did ask you where the hell you were coming from.

And diacanu is waiting for answers to his two questions as well. Maybe it would be salutary to address these things rather than devise epithets for Tabash.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

38. Comment #82139 by kev_s on October 25, 2007 at 6:22 pm

At any one time people try to address what they see as the problem in the best way they can. Some people may have skills that best suit them to certain approaches. Therefore to criticize someone because you think their approach failed, even if partly true, is being unkind and is really a 'benefit of hindsight' fallacy.
I would agree that the current approaches are making a big difference but I don't think anyone could say with confidence that RD, Dennett, Harris, Hitchins etc. *will* succeed where others have failed. It is going to take effort from everyone, doing everything they can in a multitude of ways if we are to stand a chance of reducing the power of religion.
Please be kinder to people on our side.

Other Comments by kev_s

39. Comment #82625 by Veronique on October 27, 2007 at 3:09 am

Where's ChrisMcL? It's been 6 or more hours since I posted.

Damn, don't tell me he's going to side step questions! This has happened on so many threads, it's becoming regular.

I'll keep checking back here, on occasion.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

40. Comment #82675 by ChrisMcL on October 27, 2007 at 7:40 am

We might do better to debate this and other issues via voice using Skype or something similar. I was so disappointed at the loss of my post that I lost the will to invest much effort into typing responses. Text forums are nice for short, say one paragraph, resposes. But for lengthy discussins, there is no beating the efficieny of speaking. When something comes up that is debate worthy, maybe a different type of forum is appropriate.

Quickly though, I too am uncomfortable with any criticism of atheists and atheist leaders. It's as if we are too weak and too far away from achieving our goals to start in-fighting that may cause some kind of loss to our cause.

But maybe this one reason is why we have not progressed very far in the last 250 years. Maybe we need to set high standards of achievement for our leaders. Maybe we need to expect timely results. If we are satisfied with the status quo, then maybe not. I have seen first hand how things like fighting to keep nativity scenes out of the public square distracts us from our goal of being a major cultural force. In this sense, for all of their successes, Tabash and others leaders/activists in the atheist community have let us down.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

41. Comment #82830 by Titchfield on October 28, 2007 at 1:15 am

edwaltthespisactor says

in the UK we have a problem with right wingers claiming Patriotism and the flag. I was inspired listening to this speech to claw back patriotism and the flag.

What does that mean? What relevance does left or right wing politics have to atheism? What are right wingers claiming about patriotism and the flag? I've looked on the major UK political parties sites and can't even find any useful statements about the separation of church and state. It's not an issue in the same way over here because we don't have any constitutional law that is comparable to the First Amendment in the US.

This sounds like an attempt to bash the right wing (whatever that means) by aligning them with religion. I'll thank you to remember that the last 2 prime ministers in the UK were left wing theists.

Other Comments by Titchfield

42. Comment #82864 by Flagellant on October 28, 2007 at 4:30 am

Tabash is doing an excellent job of consciousness-raising. His representation to the California Supreme Court about same sex marriage can be found here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1806,Brief-Regarding-the-California-Same-Sex-Marriage-Case,Eddie-Tabash. It prevailed. The importance of Church-State separation cannot be overemphasised.

It is wrong to dismiss Tabash as unimportant or misguided. The next major move in the war on secularism will be legal, so it is very important to have informed and active legal opinion on 'our' side.

Watching from the far off UK, it has seemed to me for several years that the US Supreme Court is the crucial battle area. If the Court becomes illiberal, the US would be well on the way to becoming a theocracy. It would be the devil of a job to reverse it once the complexion of the Court had changed. The Court is currently very finely balance.

I do not like single-issue politics. However, in this one respect, I would be prepared – if I were electorally involved - to subordinate all of my other opinions to vote for a Senate which would oppose any religion-driven nominee. Church-State separation is vital. Tabash makes this clear, even if he does not appeal to everybody personally. Wake up USA! (And I don't mean "Good morning!")




Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

43. Comment #83121 by Veronique on October 29, 2007 at 2:25 am

40. Comment #82675 by ChrisMcL

If you read my previous post, you will have noticed that it is fairly easy to create, compose written posts in a text editor. Indeed, Josh has suggested this at the top of the comment box.

I use Skype to contact my family, not people I don't know, so, no, I am not about to communicate with you via Skype.

I actually think that the composing of written comments aids the ability to argue carefully. The judicious use of language in written comments is an educative process.

This is salutary. So don't be disappointed about lost posts; use my method of composing posts and you should do well and never lose another post.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

44. Comment #83516 by Vendetta on October 30, 2007 at 9:48 am

"But maybe this one reason is why we have not progressed very far in the last 250 years. Maybe we need to set high standards of achievement for our leaders. Maybe we need to expect timely results. If we are satisfied with the status quo, then maybe not. I have seen first hand how things like fighting to keep nativity scenes out of the public square distracts us from our goal of being a major cultural force. In this sense, for all of their successes, Tabash and others leaders/activists in the atheist community have let us down."


Chris,

You've made it very clear that even if you agree with what Tabash says, you question his style and effectiveness to the point that you think he is a failure. I wanted to point out that if we've lost ground despite his successes, aren't we still better off than we would have been without him? In other words we should be thankful for every asset we have. Tabash doesn't work for you.. fine. But he CAN reach different types of people that care about church/state separation but would never consider aligning themselves with our heroes.

Other Comments by Vendetta

45. Comment #83772 by jetdriver on October 31, 2007 at 7:54 am

Even if some people might find Tabash's delivery a little monotonous, his message is an important one that no other speaker/writer, to my knowledge, has touched that clearly. It is about our pragmatic political responsibility to make sure we avoid theocracy. We have to play by the rules of democracy to prevent that event even if that irks some 'militants'.
I liked his take on 'forget what they say to get elected, just pick the one you know will do good' for it always has bothered me to listen to every candidate praising god no matter how contrary to religion their social views were.
The weakness of the democratic system is that it leaves an open door for the totalitarian nuts to muster enough support to destroy that same system that allowed them to thrive. It is our job to prevent that.
If democracy is a meme of the political kind, it seems to me to suffer from a selective disadvantage. Is it just a transitional political system that will succumb to competitive pressure or is it here to stay?
I can't believe I'm digressing like that. I'm not even sure if the question has sense or merit...
PS: I had to use the word 'meme' in a Dawkins forum, I just had to :-)

Other Comments by jetdriver

46. Comment #83892 by arogop on October 31, 2007 at 3:06 pm

My first post to this board…

I would like to support something that ChrisMcL has said.

"In one year, a small group of atheist spokesperson newcomers has done more for the cause of atheism in America than decades of Tabash and his compatriots."

I agree. I have been a life long closet Atheist. I have only been brought to this site, and activated, because Richard Dawkins appeared in an article of Scientific American. In there his book "The God Delusion" was mentioned. Both the magazine and book have opened my eyes as to how I really need to become an Atheist activist. Or at least stop letting religion slide by as unimportant.

This is very important because you can not win this battle unless people like me step up and say enough is enough.

I am a life long Republican activist and proud of it. (For those of you outside the USA, my party is often associated with the religious right.) I am a Republican because I am Libertarian in belief, fully support Capitalism, and I am a staunch fiscal conservative. The Libertarian branch of our party has largely ignored the religious part of the party since they help us get our people elected. So for that we often ignore the religion.

Richard Dawkins has opened my eyes and focused my attention on a threat to Science and Reason/Logic that no one else has ever done. For that he should be applauded.

And yes, Tabash is certainly doing good work, but we need numbers and people like me to start fixing things that we let get by.

My "Evolve Fish" decal went on my E85 Suburban last week.

Andrew

P.S. I typed this into MSWord first.

Other Comments by arogop

47. Comment #84165 by LeeLeeOne on November 1, 2007 at 10:50 am

While I may mostly agree with the general intent of this video, the language used to describe certain entities I find purposefully inflammatory and thus not needed. All persons struggling to get their "ideas/ideals" across should have learned by now that inflammatory labeling may not be effective. It may virtually turns the listener(s) brains to an "off-mode."

Lawyers, psychologists, historians, etc., surely understand that LANGUAGE may be the effective key to communication.

There are situations which do require "generalized labels." However, when attempting to reach a wide audience, generalizations, albeit explained or defended, descriptive labeling, i.e., the term liberally used - right wing, may reflexively cloud the subject matter, thus rendering the conversation useless.

(additional i.e., It could perhaps push a listening audience "beyond" their listening capability.)

Once again, while I understand and appreciate the subject matter discussed, is there a way to discuss such matter without labels so as not to inflame or demonize the substance of such subject matter?

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

48. Comment #195856 by prometheusathletics on June 18, 2008 at 11:24 pm

ChrisMcL - I completely disagree with you for many reasons but hear this: "If [we] have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants". Your sentiment seems to be 'let us stand ungratefully on the shoulders of giants and piss down their throats'. This thread is 8 months old, but I had to come to the defense of my friend ET. Could it be that the way was paved by pioneers such as Eddie? Seems reasonable enough, but your bitterness to the old guard seems a bit misdirected.

Other Comments by prometheusathletics