![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naruki_oniIt seems that we can never quite agree on proper tactics or direction, and the group just kind of stalls in its plans. How depressing.
Tonight we discussed the same thing we talked about every week for the last, I don't know, 12 weeks? I'll have to check the minutes. Anyway, how to handle the removal of biblical references from government sponsored or supported businesses, including schools and court houses.
Naturally this particular topic of discussion was sparked by the not too long ago case of the California man (not one of ours, but recruitment efforts are underway) who used his daughter as a means of getting the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Damn, that was a clever ploy, but politics and influence intervened.
Who could have reckoned on Bush's Holy Warriors circumventing our plans by rigging the elections? That, as much as I hate to admit it, was a brilliant move on their part. They played the press so well that we never had a chance.
Sure, a secure electronic voting system wouldn't do us any more good than it would them, but when they control the results we aren't doing ourselves any favors by trying to maintain secrecy. We should have gone straight to the media.
Instead, the more cautious members of AFWD overruled our suggestion. Bastards are as cowardly as Bush, if you ask me. Ah, well. World domination isn't something you just flick a switch and get.
So we talked about putting pressure on local school boards (another idea championed by our wimpier sectors), but we've all seen how poorly that works. Sure, one or two schools make waves and might even garner some nationwide attention on a slow news day, but that's just filler.
What we need to do is begin overtly attempting to scare people. Hey, if it works for our enemy, it should work for us. I, for one, am not about to ignore a proven method of success just because it's the favored tool of the opponent. We just don't have the luxury of waiting for people to catch our hints!
So we'll begin by spamming people with vague threats that Bush wants to make Christianity the official national religion. That alone is a compromise plan, dammit. Many of us know that the majority population is Christian of one sect or another, so that won't really be as scary as saying he wants to make Southern Baptist the official religion. But at least it's a start.
Also, hints that inter-racial couples will soon be taxed should help the cause. Though being part of an inter-racial couple has absolutely nothing to do with whether you believe in God or not, we were successful in subtly linking that type of relationship to religious bigotry.
And to think that less than 70 years ago the Christians actually didn't care about one's race. That's the time when our organization was really united with a clear vision. In such a short time we've managed to create hate groups like the KKK (and link them to religious dogma), polarize the two main political parties, and even revise the history books so that these things seem to have been going on far longer than they really have.
But now we've slowed down tremendously. In fact, some say we're even losing ground. Attempts to devalue human life are slowly being overturned. Soon, only murderers will be executed instead of unborn babies. The threats of global warming we used to terrorize the population are now being gradually exposed as the falsehoods they are. Likewise our attempts to blame the earth's natural pollution levels on big business.
This is the time when Atheists need to regroup and form a united front, never eschewing any tactic that might cede us the victory. Instead, our years of brainwashing the public to respect each other as equals seems to be backfiring. Too many of our organization are showing compassion for those damn Christians. Too many refuse to resort to whatever means are necessary to achieve victory.
Come on, what the hell does "Atheists For World Domination" mean, people?!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Heh.
Date: 2004-11-21 06:28 pm (UTC)BTW, I notice you got pwned today at UF. :-P
Re: Heh.
Date: 2004-11-21 06:30 pm (UTC)You never responded...
Date: 2004-11-21 06:37 pm (UTC)A couple of good ones, there.
Re: You never responded...
Date: 2004-11-21 06:40 pm (UTC)Give 'em hell!
Date: 2004-11-21 06:44 pm (UTC)Re: Give 'em hell!
Date: 2004-11-21 06:46 pm (UTC)It's an expression.
Date: 2004-11-21 06:51 pm (UTC)And they were very much right. ;-)
Re: It's an expression.
Date: 2004-11-21 06:52 pm (UTC)I'm too lazy for that :P
That's a valid viewpoint, but...
Date: 2004-11-21 07:06 pm (UTC)First, he was asking why he should "give them hell". I interpreted that to mean he didn't think he should "attack" them, and I was trying to clarify that it didn't need to be an attack so much as a valid (and spirited) defense of one's position.
Since he didn't show any intention of apologizing (which is the usual course of action if you've just offered insult to someone), I figured he must disagree with their viewpoint. Thus, he should defend his position rather than just ignore them.
The second part was in response to his statement that they were only partially right. I find him to be in error with that assessment, and I was stating such.
I'm usually a lot more direct and simpleminded
Date: 2004-11-21 07:24 pm (UTC)Enjoy your lunch!
Well...
Date: 2004-11-21 07:51 pm (UTC)Explained it below...
Date: 2004-11-21 07:28 pm (UTC)You should respond one way or another. You have offered insult (even if you did so unknowingly), and you either don't realize it or you can somehow show that you didn't.
Either case merits a response by you, but which response depends on your assessment. You appear to think they are mistaken, so I said to give 'em hell.
Despite the fact that they are right, IMO. :-)
Er... above, I guess.
Date: 2004-11-21 07:29 pm (UTC)Re: Explained it below...
Date: 2004-11-21 07:37 pm (UTC)Ha ha!
Date: 2004-11-21 07:40 pm (UTC)Re: Ha ha!
Date: 2004-11-21 07:42 pm (UTC)A wise decision.
Date: 2004-11-21 07:52 pm (UTC)Re: A wise decision.
Date: 2004-11-21 07:53 pm (UTC)Gah!
Date: 2004-11-21 07:58 pm (UTC)Re: Gah!
Date: 2004-11-21 08:01 pm (UTC)