Is secularism important? Absolutely. Should there be non-religious support networks and services available for people who could use them? For sure.
But I can't understand what some of those listed seem to think they're forwarding when they speak about it in terms of activism discrete from religious grounds.
'What are our shared values? What do we stand for? And how can we make a positive difference in the world? I’d like to see us taking action as a community for the greater good. I’d like to see us building structures (consistent with those shared values) that will take care of those in our community who are in need. And I’d like to see us become global leaders of philanthropic efforts – developing charitable giving into the fully secular endeavor that it should be.' -Noelle Gorge
Wonderful--but what does this have to do with atheism? People have been speaking on these terms for however long humans have been a species; why does atheism give a new ground for world-building (and charitable) actions? Why segregate from theistic philanthropic efforts atheistic ones? I guess I don't understand where a rejection of Gods becomes a foundation to these things. Should we not be doing them indiscriminate to our belief systems? Is that not what most atheists purport to be a very important idea?
Aside from that, I was just either being contrarian or criticizing the 'movement' as a whole without the article directly in mind.
Wonderful--but what does this have to do with atheism? People have been speaking on these terms for however long humans have been a species; why does atheism give a new ground for world-building (and charitable) actions? Why segregate from theistic philanthropic efforts atheistic ones? I guess I don't understand where a rejection of Gods becomes a foundation to these things. Should we not be doing these things indiscriminate to our belief systems? Is that not what most atheists purport to be a very important idea?
You're right, but I don't think you appreciate just how much religion often gets in the way. The much-lauded Salvation Army will turn away homosexuals from their doors. White charities will turn away black or hispanic families in need. How many churches do you know of that do charity don't mention that they're a church organization? In a world where the most charity from churches comes from Methodists at not quite 30% of their income but all of their income is considered charitable? That's when we need atheists to step forward and pick up the slack.
Aside from that, I was just either being contrarian or criticizing the 'movement' as a whole without the article directly in mind.
In a perfect world we wouldn't need atheists to band together in movements. In a perfect world I wouldn't need to call myself an atheist because no one would care. But we don't live in a perfect world, so we do need to band together and the label of atheist means more to believers than it does to me.
I'm transgender and am being accommodated, clothed and fed by Covenant House. Fighting bigotry such like that you're attributing to Salvation Army and churches does not need to be done under the cover of atheism. It's unfair to far too many religious groups and individuals. Most of them think in exactly the way you're thinking in regards to private entities refusing services to certain people.
It would be far more effective to attack these issues as simply issues--not as issues that are by nature religious. It confuses the playing field and fogs the main problem.
And again, I don't think you realize how rare that kind of charity offered to you can be. The opposite happens far too much, and someone needs to speak up about it, to raise awareness of the problem. If not us, then who?
'Us' working in accordance with like-minded people who happen to be churchgoers.
Neither one of us seems to have statistics ready, but I'm willing to bet that far, far more religious people think homosexuals should be serviced than those who think otherwise. And I have a really hard time believing that the Salvation Army has, all things considered, been a historically bad or malevolent organization. Although certainly there can be room for improvement in their operations (assuming what you've said is correct).
Why does any attack on those treatments need to come from aggregated atheists? In the end it makes the problem more religious than it has to be. Better efforts would go toward attacking the practice of service denial without bringing theistic connotations up any more than they need to be. And there is no reason that these efforts need to be taken on just by atheists; theists, as well, I'm sure will largely agree in attacking the practice.
Because I see too many believers staying quiet about it rather than speaking up against their fundamentalist counterparts. I don't see a lot of moderate or liberal Christians telling their conservative brothers to sit down and shut up, especially not the way the conservatives are scolding the moderates and liberals.
This doesn't mean that I'm not willing to make common cause with the moderates and liberals. It means I'm willing to do it without them.
I don't attack religious beliefs because I hate the religious. I don't challenge religious claims out of malice or revenge. I call attention to their bad behavior because they're being bad and we need as many people stepping forward to challenge them as possible. I see more atheists willing to stand up than I do believers. I will keep doing it until my participation is no longer necessary.
I'm glad you're having a better experience, but I don't think it's safe to say that your experience is representative.
I never denied that they're leaders.
Is secularism important? Absolutely. Should there be non-religious support networks and services available for people who could use them? For sure.
But I can't understand what some of those listed seem to think they're forwarding when they speak about it in terms of activism discrete from religious grounds.
'What are our shared values? What do we stand for? And how can we make a positive difference in the world? I’d like to see us taking action as a community for the greater good. I’d like to see us building structures (consistent with those shared values) that will take care of those in our community who are in need. And I’d like to see us become global leaders of philanthropic efforts – developing charitable giving into the fully secular endeavor that it should be.' -Noelle Gorge
Wonderful--but what does this have to do with atheism? People have been speaking on these terms for however long humans have been a species; why does atheism give a new ground for world-building (and charitable) actions? Why segregate from theistic philanthropic efforts atheistic ones? I guess I don't understand where a rejection of Gods becomes a foundation to these things. Should we not be doing them indiscriminate to our belief systems? Is that not what most atheists purport to be a very important idea?
Aside from that, I was just either being contrarian or criticizing the 'movement' as a whole without the article directly in mind.
You're right, but I don't think you appreciate just how much religion often gets in the way. The much-lauded Salvation Army will turn away homosexuals from their doors. White charities will turn away black or hispanic families in need. How many churches do you know of that do charity don't mention that they're a church organization? In a world where the most charity from churches comes from Methodists at not quite 30% of their income but all of their income is considered charitable? That's when we need atheists to step forward and pick up the slack.
In a perfect world we wouldn't need atheists to band together in movements. In a perfect world I wouldn't need to call myself an atheist because no one would care. But we don't live in a perfect world, so we do need to band together and the label of atheist means more to believers than it does to me.
I'm transgender and am being accommodated, clothed and fed by Covenant House. Fighting bigotry such like that you're attributing to Salvation Army and churches does not need to be done under the cover of atheism. It's unfair to far too many religious groups and individuals. Most of them think in exactly the way you're thinking in regards to private entities refusing services to certain people.
It would be far more effective to attack these issues as simply issues--not as issues that are by nature religious. It confuses the playing field and fogs the main problem.
And again, I don't think you realize how rare that kind of charity offered to you can be. The opposite happens far too much, and someone needs to speak up about it, to raise awareness of the problem. If not us, then who?
'If not us, then who?'
'Us' working in accordance with like-minded people who happen to be churchgoers.
Neither one of us seems to have statistics ready, but I'm willing to bet that far, far more religious people think homosexuals should be serviced than those who think otherwise. And I have a really hard time believing that the Salvation Army has, all things considered, been a historically bad or malevolent organization. Although certainly there can be room for improvement in their operations (assuming what you've said is correct).
Why does any attack on those treatments need to come from aggregated atheists? In the end it makes the problem more religious than it has to be. Better efforts would go toward attacking the practice of service denial without bringing theistic connotations up any more than they need to be. And there is no reason that these efforts need to be taken on just by atheists; theists, as well, I'm sure will largely agree in attacking the practice.
Because I see too many believers staying quiet about it rather than speaking up against their fundamentalist counterparts. I don't see a lot of moderate or liberal Christians telling their conservative brothers to sit down and shut up, especially not the way the conservatives are scolding the moderates and liberals.
This doesn't mean that I'm not willing to make common cause with the moderates and liberals. It means I'm willing to do it without them.
I don't attack religious beliefs because I hate the religious. I don't challenge religious claims out of malice or revenge. I call attention to their bad behavior because they're being bad and we need as many people stepping forward to challenge them as possible. I see more atheists willing to stand up than I do believers. I will keep doing it until my participation is no longer necessary.
I'm glad you're having a better experience, but I don't think it's safe to say that your experience is representative.