The following is in response to comments from two ACSJ members (public postings on the ACSJ meetup.com website) concerning not "splintering" the atheist community because of disagreements over whether or not ACSJ was endorsing the women's movement.
Technically, there was no official endorsement. However, I think almost anybody from the women's movement would interpret the postings and commentary (see: https://www.meetup.com/Atheist-Community-of-San-Jose/events/236999896/?comment_table_id=250353695&comment_table_name=reply ) as an endorsement from ACSJ. Similarly, I think almost anybody who opposed any part of the women's movement would see it as an endorsement of those parts they opposed as well as those parts they agreed with. Perhaps I am wrong in my assessment. I tried to explain my assessment in a private email to the two aforementioned members. Except for replacing some names with letters, here is my email:
=======================================================
Thank you both for being considerate and respectful.
My sense is that, despite its mission statement, ACSJ already has been operating as a de facto "progressive" atheist society.
First, X comments: [note Head of the group. ]
"However, as individuals, we know that atheists often care about progressive movements, so members will often post them (or ask that we post them) for other members to potentially join." Note that he could have simply said "other movements" rather than "progressive movements."
Second, Y comments that the reason for not carrying the ACSJ banner is that it is awkward in the wind, not a concern about a blanket ACSJ endorsement of the women's movement.
Third, there were no comments sympathetic to the idea that ACSJ should be acting consistent with its mission statement and not giving blanket endorsements.
To be fair, people were quite clear that not attending was OK. But, for me it has much of the same character and feel as opening city council meetings by asking people to stand and pray because most people at the meeting are religious. Nobody is going to force an atheist to stand, but having the prayer at all shows government endorsement of religion, which would seem to be at odds with the government's own stated principles in the Constitution.
Tom
===========================================================
I received a private email response from one of the two aforementioned members. The first paragraph of the person's (Z) response was a restatement that there was no "blanket endorsement." We disagree, no problem to me. Maybe Z is even right in a very technical sense. That was part of the reason I tried to explain my publicly posted comments.
The second paragraph conveys two things. First, it is more or less an attack on me. (Indeed in the third paragraph Z indicates that it may "sound offensive.") Second, Z seems to have appointed Z to speak for the membership of ACSJ and Z indicates that there is "us" and "you." Inasmuch as I wasn't part of "us," Z seems to take umbrage that I had the temerity to express a different opinion than "us."
Z's email certainly added additional evidence to me that ACSJ was a de facto "progressive" atheist organization and, at least Z, had little tolerance for atheists who were not "progressive."
I suggest that Z give me permission to make Z's email public and Z make it public as well. Presumably, as a speaker for the correct thinking "us," Z should have no objection.
Perhaps the thing that most disturbs me is not Z's intolerance of my assessment, not Z's self-appointment as a speaker for "us", but rather the fact that Z may, in fact, speak for the ACSJ membership.
Inasmuch as "you" is not part of "us," it makes little sense to belong to ACSJ for much longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment