Ten Commandments Activism

[Alonzo Fyfe]

I am wondering, with all of the concern over public opinion on the 10 commandments, what any of the people here have done to change that public opinion?

Swaying polls does no good. Let's say that the poll turned out to be 90% in favor of keeping the commandments, and 10% opposed. Would that change any minds here? I doubt it. The 10% will simply say that the 90% are idiots.

The slogan that "the 10 commandments are the foundation of our laws" is one of those slogans that, if repeated long enough without being challenged, will grow to be believed. With 60% to 70% of the people believing it, it will not matter what the Constitution says. The Constitution will simply be reinterpreted in a way that people are comfortable with.

If 60% to 70% of the people believe this, they will elect the politicians who will appoint the judges who believe this also.

That is all it takes.

So, the thing to do is to take action to actually change peoples' minds.

How about the age-old task of writing up some fliers and distributing them about town?

How about organizing a town meeting (or at least a street meeting) to discuss and debate the principles being proposed with neighbors and friends?

How about collecting some money and putting an ad in the newspaper -- or on the radio -- or on the television -- even if it is just an inexpensive ad that points them to a web site containing 'more information'?

[rfwu]

the very same thing happened with segregation and anti-segregation!

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Oh, and what I think are the two biggest mistakes in attempting to change peoples minds?

(1) Getting into quote wars -- it does not matter what the founding fathers said. What matters is which of the many things they said were things that ought to have been said.

(2) Arguing that it is unconstitutional. If you argue that something unpopular violates the constitution, then this will only serve to make those parts of the constitution themselves unpopular. The issue is not that the Constitution says X, but that it is right and good that it does so.

[StrictSeparationist]

You're absolutely right, Alonzo. Even if this just takes the shape of informal meetings or impromptu conversations, the separationist side is armed with some nigh-unanswerable arguments when you actually get to talking about it, rather than setting up strawmen like "taking God out of public life" or "hostility toward religion" and then kicking the hell out of them. I am honestly quite surprised that so many people would really feel comfortable with such a large granite monstrosity sitting in the courthouse- the sheer size of this thing really emphasizes its outrageousness. But education is out top priority- you're quite right that even the most shoddy justifications will win out if regurgitated unopposed by demagogues on talk shows and televangelism marathons for year after year.

Edit: Getting into quote wars -- it does not matter what the founding fathers said. What matters is which of the many things they said were things that ought to have been said.

Couldn't agree more. This is always the crux of my argument against so-called "originalism" or "textualism"- that and its inherent subjectivity.

[Postcard73]

About the only thing I've been doing is running my big mouth constantly. My parents and most of my co-workers favor(ed) leaving the commandments in public places even though few of them are fundies. They have bought into the lie that the commandments are the foundation of the American legal system. I have repeatedly pointed out that it is the Bill of Rights - not the Ten Commandments - that forms the basis of our legal system, and I have had a generally positive response. I know I have changed several minds by pointing this out. In particular, my parents now agree that Judge Moore should be removed from the bench...

As an argument based on logic and simple facts that any eigth grader should be familiar with, this would no doubt be dismissed as satanic by fundies. However, I realize I can't change a fundy's mind. I am far more concerned with making non-fundies aware of the reality of the situation and letting them reach their own conclusions...

[Jewel]

Good job, Postcard73! Educating people should be a priority. You're right, fundy's are going to think this is a christain nation no matter what we say and no matter how much proof we can show them. However the majority of Americans are not fundy -- and these are the people we need target. A little bit of education can go a long way.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

A standard role of political activism is: Do not waste your resources on people whose minds have been made up. Your target should always be those who are either on the fence (who can be talked into climbing down on your side, or people just beyond the fence (who can be talked into climbing up onto the fence.)

And, of course, do not forget the people who are just barely on your side of the fence, because your opponents will be constantly trying to get them to climb on.

[faust]

This is easily one of the most insightful threads i've read in a long long time. You summed up several thoughts i had rolling around in my head in a very understandable way.

I'm a bit at a loss on what exactly I could do. It's difficult to speak out to co-workers where I am, and my friends all either agree with me or are sick of hearing about "religion stuff".
Shouldn't I try to find people who haven't heard what we are saying? But how? where?

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by faust
I'm a bit at a loss on what exactly I could do.

Here's an option.

"Friends, family, co-workers galore. I'm curious about the different positions on this 10 Commandments case, and I was thinking I would be interested in hearing different views. So, this Saturday evening, I want to have a barbeque at my place, and then we will set up a bit of an informal discussion on the topic."

At the party. "Here are the rules. We will draw cards to see who goes first. Everybody gets 3 uninterrupted minutes to present their views. We'll go around the room twice. Then we eat, drink, and be merry."

Identify those who agree with your position. Invite them to a second party, where you can toss back and forth different potential answers to questions like, "What can we do next?"

[Majestyk]

Great OP, Alonzo.

There was an earlier thread calling for a "grass roots" campaign. I doubted whether one could be organized or would be effective, considering the small independant nature of atheists.

However, focusing on one issue at a time and promoting those actions that can be acomplished by individuals or small groups, makes the prospect seem much more achievable.

Has anyone written a thesis on the origin of modern law, specifically challenging the 10C's as the source? It would make a nice addition to the Secular Web as well as a flyer.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Here is a political law in a winner-take-all democracy.

If you are going to win, you MUst become a member of a 50% + 1 majority. So, one of the first steps is to decide who you want to have in your 50% + 1 majority.

Here's another law: At least 75% of the people in your 50% + 1 coallition will be Christian. So, if this is presented as an anti-Christian campaign, the only effect will be to promote the causes of the pro-Christian opposition.

Instead, the objectives must be presented in such a way that a liberal Christian can support it.

An effective form of campaign, for example, may be to do research on the English Civil War or the 30 Years War, and make people aware of the historical background for the Separation of Church and State. Tell the liberal Christians, "This is what happened to your people in the past. Do you think this is right and good and proper for governments to do? If not, then support Church/State Separation."

[southernhybrid]

We already have three fine organizations in the US that need our support. We often just think these organizations will be there for us but they are supported by contributions and volunteers. If it weren't for these groups, noone would have stood up to Judge Moore and his sick agenda. It's fine to educate people, speak out etc. but that will never replace the organized efforts of the:

ACLU (http://www.aclu.org),
Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org) , and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (http://www.au.org)

Check out their sites and support them in any way that you can. They all take donations online and there are volunteer opportunities as well.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by southernhybrid
[B]We already have three fine organizations in the US that need our support.. . .

Yes, they do. But I think that these organizations have a significant blind spot which, if it is not covered, will result in them doing more harm than good.

The ACLU in particular seeks to enforce the Constitution through the Courts. This is a good thing in itself. However, each court victory is a popular defeat. Each court victory is another chance for those opposed to church/state separation to step forth and promote public hatred for the principles written into the Constitution. Sooner or later the public will is going to win out, and the people are simply not going cease to enforce the rules that they have been taught to hate.

As I wrote above, you do not need to amend the Constitution in order to change it. You simply need to elect the politicians who will appoint the judges who will offer a new interpretation. And that is the campaign that is under way.

The campaign that must be waged, that all three of these organizations are failing to wage, is a campaign to teach the people to cherish these principles. The campaign that must be waged is not one that says to the people, "a separation of church and state does exist" -- because this can easily be answered by those who say, 'not for long'. The campaign that must be waged is one that says to the people "a separation of church and state OUGHT TO exist."

Politicians should not be deciding against putting religious plaques in public buildings and starting public meetings with public prayers because they are afraid of what the ACLU or some other group will do to them.

They should be refusing to do these things because they realize that it is wrong to do so.

And not wrong in the illegal sense -- because wrong in the illegal sense can be changed. But wrong in the moral sense -- wrong in the sense that the law OUGHT NOT TO BE CHANGED (or ignored).

[southernhybrid]

I don't totally agree with you Alonzo regarding the ACLU, AU, and SPLC. I think that like all organizations, they have their limitations, and weaknesses but they do serve a vital and important purpose in helping maintain our civil liberties. We are a nation of laws and it often takes legal action to see that these laws are carried out by public officials.

I do think that most people would support the separation of church and state if they clearly understood what it means to them but most people seem to be suffering from apathy these days. Education is a wonderful thing and I support anyone who is trying to enlighten the average person. It's a big challenge when we have the propaganda machines out there with opposing views. Do you have any good ideas as to just how to educate the masses? The masses seem to be listening to the propaganda that fox news is spewing out. How exactly do we get their attention?

Yes, we do need to elect officials that will have the courage uphold the values that our country was founded on. That's a big order. Do you have any ideas about getting the message across? I don't think the majority of our elected officials are like Judge Moore, btw. He's an extremist even for Alabama. While I agree that not every little godism is worth fighting through the courts, Moore's use of religious dogma made him less than an impartial judge. That's why this was worth fighting legally, imo. This was a big victory for all people, even if all people are not enlightened enough to fully understand that.

I'm thankful for the organizations that are available to do what needs to be done and I will continue to support them. Imo, they do more good than harm. If it were not for them, many more of our civil liberties would be eroded even further. Ironically, many on the right will ask the ACLU for help when they think their rights have been violated.

While I do have my concerns, I am cautiously optimistic that our country will eventually swing back from the social conservative right as this is usually what happens when one ideological view gets too far from the middle. Most people tend to be centrists and we will probably gravitate back that way in time.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by southernhybrid
I don't totally agree with you Alonzo regarding the ACLU, AU, and SPLC. I think that like all organizations, they have their limitations, and weaknesses but they do serve a vital and important purpose in helping maintain our civil liberties. We are a nation of laws and it often takes legal action to see that these laws are carried out by public officials.

I would not deny this.


Originally posted by southernhybrid
Do you have any good ideas as to just how to educate the masses?

Here's an idea: Do what you can do.

Yes, it would be better to reach more people. Given a choice between reaching 100 and reaching 10, go for the 100. Given a choice between reaching 10 and reaching 0, go for the 10. Do not go for the 0 simply because you can't think of a way to get to the 100.


Originally posted by southernhybrid
Yes, we do need to elect officials that will have the courage uphold the values that our country was founded on.

This has always struck me as puzzling, to say the least.

Of what use is a politician with the 'courage' to get himself voted out of office? The "values that our country was founded on" cannot be defended by politicians who adopt programs that result in their seats being lost to those who don't care about those values.

What we need are elected officials with the intelligence to build and hold together a coallition of the best 51% of the voters in this country -- and exclude the worst 49%.

AND

This has to be backed up by a plan to get the best 51% of the voters in this country to uphold the values that our country was founded on. (Well, to some extent. Those values did include a great deal of sexism, racism, and the like.)

This is the part that's missing -- the 'plan' of trying to push good politicians into supporting policies that will get them voted out of office, when the 'plan' should be to create an electorate that will keep these politicians in office.

If you can convince the people, you don't need to convince the politicians or the judges, they will follow along soon enough. If you convince the politicians and the judges, without convincing the people, then the people will simply replace the policitians and the judges you have convinced.

You have to focus primarily on the people. Your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers.


Originally posted by southernhybrid
I don't think the majority of our elected officials are like Judge Moore, btw.

The poll results, which inspired the original post, show that they very much are in support of Judge Moore. Which means, even if Judge Moore loses this fight, the people will simply replace the politicians and judges who oppose him with those who would allow the statue to stand.

That's the danger. The ACLU and others are rightfully proud of the fact that they won this battle. But the long-term result is that their next battle will be before judges and politicians who were voted into office specifically because they have promised to defeat the ACLU next time.

Unless these laws are made popular, they will not stand.

Originally posted by southernhybrid
I am cautiously optimistic that our country will eventually swing back from the social conservative right as this is usually what happens when one ideological view gets too far from the middle.

Ah, but what happens when 'the middle' itself shifts to the social conservative right.

That's the problem. That is why the debate has to be taken out of the courts and out of the halls of the legislature and onto the street. Because our opposition knows that one controls the laws and their interpretation by controlling 'the middle'. They reach 'the middle' through the internet, through television, through mass mailings, from the church pulpit. They realize that by shifting 'the middle', the politicians and the judges will follow.

While we ignore 'the middle' and hope that the politicians and the judges can somehow continue to resist them.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

If I may: Here is a story that should be brought to the attention to 'the middle' as much as possible.

It is said that we need God to be a part of government in order to promote a more moral citizenry -- because a society 'under God' is better than one that is not.

But what are those people who want to put God back in government, to mix church and state, really like?

Take a look:

The weekend after [Melinda Maddox's] name appeared in the newspaper [as Plaintiff in the Alabama case], somebody shot BB pellets through the windows of her house. Then her black Ford Expedition was keyed on both sides while it was in the parking lot outside her office. “I was the local outcast,” she says.

When the case went to trial in October 2001, Maddox came home to 72 messages on her answering machine. “They were about how I should be run out of town and didn’t deserve to live with decent, God-fearing people,” she says. “There were calls to my mom and dad about how they should be ashamed for raising a heathen.”

From
Roy's Rock (http://www.msnbc.com/news/956098.asp?0cl=c1)

Yes, we can all see how mixing religion and government brings out the best in people.

Do you want to be active? Here's a way. Point as many people as you can reach to this article and have them read it. When you have 72 people making phone calls in a weekend, this is not the random, lone, nutcase. This affection for violence, threats, and intimidation has to be written into the culture for these people to generate so many of them -- a culture that embraces intimidation, violence, and death as a means of advancing a religious cause.

Spend less time talking to judges and legislators, and more time talking to 'the middle'. Let 'the middle' know what these pro-Commandment people are really like, and the pro-Commandment people will not win.

They will not win, of course, unless they are the only ones doing the talking.

[Majestyk]

Originally posted by southernhybrid
I do think that most people would support the separation of church and state if they clearly understood what it means to them but most people seem to be suffering from apathy these days. Education is a wonderful thing and I support anyone who is trying to enlighten the average person. It's a big challenge when we have the propaganda machines out there with opposing views. Do you have any good ideas as to just how to educate the masses? The masses seem to be listening to the propaganda that fox news is spewing out. How exactly do we get their attention? Guerilla tactics. Or maybe more appropriately, Apostle tactics. Even better, Evangelist tactics. The idea is not to attempt to educate the masses. The idea is to educate a few individuals. They in turn educate a few more individuals. And so on.

Alonzo’s point, as I see it, is that we may presently achieve some legal victories but over time, we will lose as the majority finds ways to change the law, including the constitution itself. So, although it is necessary to support those institutions that are fighting the legal battles today, we must also de-convert the population.

We don’t have the numbers for a frontal assault on the societal paradigm. Any mass media campaign will result in the faithful mustering their opposition in overwhelming numbers. The opposition will drown out the rational, skeptical, concepts we hope to instill in others with same superstitious dogma that they have been feeding on since birth.

That leaves us with individuals and small groups interacting within our personal spheres of influence. Putting our efforts into affecting other’s concepts on the issues we wish to change on an individual level. It is in person-to-person interaction that we can at least, be heard over the din of the media. Educate the individuals and eventually you will have educated the masses.

Hopefully, we’ve been doing that to a certain extent already. Letting others know our views on the supernatural when, the topic comes up. Of course, considering the minority position we hold in society, it is understandable that most often we just keep it to ourselves, which would be acceptable if, the believers of the supernatural would stop trying to put their beliefs into the laws that govern us.

I’ll be back with more.

[gilly54]

For what its's worth I wrote a letter to my senators telling them that it is time to "clean house "(and senate) of the incursions of religion that have been permitted to enter our secular government.

I also wrote to CNN and MSNBC that I thought they presented an unbalanced view, favouring the pro-"rock" forces, by giving them all the microphone time. I may have blinked, but I didn't see any anti-rock person given air time.

[Buffman]

I believe this to be an extremely important discussion. It surfaces and tackles the key issues concerning the prolonged welfare of C-SS in America.

Alonzo asks: I am wondering, with all of the concern over public opinion on the 10 commandments, what any of the people here have done to change that public opinion? Then he provides a course of action that anyone can follow who is seriously concerned about what is happening , why it is, and what they can do to change the misconceptions. One of his examples concerns the propaganda slogan that "the 10 commandments are the foundation of our laws" and how it is imperative that this statement be challenged. I could not agree with him more. These "sound bite" slogans of the radical right are extremely effective as propaganda tools.

Alonzo continues his insightful thoughts with: So, the thing to do is to take action to actually change peoples' minds and he offers a number of excellent participatory techniques that can be employed. Again I could not agree more. But then he adds the following thoughts which he has characterized as "two of the biggest mistakes":

(1) Getting into quote wars -- it does not matter what the founding fathers said. What matters is which of the many things they said were things that ought to have been said.

(2) Arguing that it is unconstitutional. If you argue that something unpopular violates the constitution, then this will only serve to make those parts of the constitution themselves unpopular. The issue is not that the Constitution says X, but that it is right and good that it does so.

Suddenly I found myself a little perplexed. How can it be a mistake to challenge a misquote or an unconstitutional activity? Isn't that exactly what he just recommended that we do concerning the 10 commandments? I understand that it isn't "who" said what that is as important as "what" they said that "ought to have been said." Unfortunately, many people have said many things that "ought to have been said" who never received the appropriate exposure. That is where the David Bartons of the radical right have been able to successfully manipulate the opinions of the masses. They have used the names and reputations of revered founding/framing fathers to influence public opinion to support anti C-SS. That is exactly the area in which I have attempted to assist in the accuracy of what was or was not said by those who provided us with a constitution unique in human history. I have also attempted to place those statements in the context of the times in which they were formulated. I went to bed wondering if Alonzo was correct and that I had just been wasting my time attempting to provide the readers of these forums with the most accurate information I could find that exposed the propaganda of the radical right. How could accurate knowledge be a mistake? (Alonzo: I know that's not what you meant by "quote wars." I am merely using your thoughts as a vehicle for my own.)

During the night my mind continued to mull over all the wonderful remarks I have been reading here. When I awoke, I had a question about one of those glib, radical right, slogans that seemed to have a great deal to do with the 10 Commandments issue. How often do we hear, " C-SS means that the government must remain out of religion, not that religion should remain out of government?" VOILA! Perhaps we should challenge the 10 Commandments issue by framing it in a different light by asking the question, "Which moral laws are the correct/right/good/unbiased/constitutional laws?" Would not that question bring to the fore a more introspective look at those 10 biblical statements....and a realization that they aren't all universally accepted as governing laws...nor should they be in a pluralistic democracy?

Whether that is the best way to frame the issue, I really don't know. What I am seeking is a way that causes an individual to change their opinion from within because they become aware of what "ought to be understood and accepted" by everyone who believes in the freedom to express their individual conscience without government interference as long as no harm befalls others. My goal would be to educate the listener to the fact that a specific religious faith belief does not have the sole possession of what is or isn't moral...and that the unique wisdom found in our constitution is in recognizing that one fact. Our government was founded and codified on secular, rather than sectarian. morality. The 10 Commandments are the moral imperatives of just one group of religious believers. They are not the laws upon which our government was founded...though some of their underlying socializing factors do constitute a number of nearly universally accepted ethical values/laws.

About the only comment I can add to all the fine thoughts here is, "Get the most accurate facts you can before attempting to challenge the slogans of the radical right; and then repeat them as often as possible to as many people as possible."

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Buffman:

The type of argument that I consider a "mistake" is the argument that says, "If the founding fathers favored putting religious slogans in government buildings, then we may put religious slogans in government buildings."

Which is a bit like saying "If the founding fathers favored slavery, the sugjugation of women, and the near extermination of the Native Americans, then we should have slavery, subjugate women, and seek to exterminate the Native Americans."

The founding fathers were hardly consistent in their views that "all men are created equal" and were incorrect in limiting equality only to men.

We can expect a certain amount of inconsistency with respect to the separation of church and state. The argument we cannot allow is, "because they were inconsistent, we should not be concerned with separation of church and state," (again, this is just as erroneious as, "because the founding fathers were inconsistent, we should not be concerned with equality before the law.")

The concern should not focus solely on what the founding fathers said, but why they were right to say it.

There's nothing wrong with using a quote to illustrate a point about the injustice of forcing somebody to be pay to support a church he does not belong to. But, when the opponent comes back with a quote endorsing such a payment, make sure that the POINT is not to determine what the founding fathers believed. The POINT is to demonstrate its injustice. The correct answer to this counter-quote is not yet another counter-counter quote, but "what you have there is a quote from a founding father who still embraced some injustice in terms of religion -- just as they embraced injustice against blacks, women, and native Americans."

[Buffman]

Yes! I understand. That is why I noted,"Alonzo: I know that's not what you meant by "quote wars." I am merely using your thoughts as a vehicle for my own."

I was suggesting that the approach to the 10 or the 100, in your activism post, could also include posing the kind of question that might cause them to understand the differences between sectarian moral codes and secular legal laws. It is by examining each of the codes(Commandments) separately that the entire 'ten" are placed in the appropriate category. Just writing this response has caused me to see where my previous question can be improved.

Which moral "codes" are the ones that "civilized" societies have determined are in the best public good and therefore turned into enforceable "laws?"

The point is to help those who support the belief that the 10 Commandments are the basis of American law to come to the realization, on their own, that the first four of those ten commandments are pure religious faith belief and unconstitutional if turned into the laws of our country.

[gravitybow]

Originally posted by Majestyk
Has anyone written a thesis on the origin of modern law, specifically challenging the 10C's as the source? It would make a nice addition to the Secular Web as well as a flyer.

Thomas Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10, 1814 (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html) is all about the impossibility of Christianity's being part of English common law. The letter is fairly long and has some obscure references, but the point is understood:

...For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it...

...If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law...

There is much more to the letter, including the Old and New Testaments and the Ten Commandments. I'm only presenting some examples of what Jefferson argues. Keep in mind that early American law is derived from English common law.

[Majestyk]

Well, quotations may be weak as a primary form of argument but, in refuting the proposition that our laws are derived from the 10C's, that is one very potent quote.

[Buffman]

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm

And many. many, other pertinent pages. (Use Jim's search page on the 10 Commandments.)

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/searchform.htm

[cheetah]

I think this thread is very valuable. However, I still feel that changing public perception is an overwhelming feat. Most people (at least people I know) don't even like to talk about this stuff. This is the only place I ever talk about this stuff, because no one in my real life will let me! I think only my mom would talk about this, but she already agrees with it all, though she's more of an agnostic or deist.

So, my problem is not so much convincing others or arguing against their indoctrination, it's being able to talk to anyone and still be left with friends and acquaintances afterwards! Anyone else see this as an obstacle? I think the fundies have the advantage here, because they have a gathering place where this kind of discussion can naturally occur: church. My gatherings (volunteer groups, socials, hobbies) are not necessarily composed of people who are interested, much less open to discussion, and sometimes, it is downright inappropriate!

Any ideas?

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by cheetah
I think this thread is very valuable. However, I still feel that changing public perception is an overwhelming feat.


Well, don't think of it as your job to "change public perception." Just change the perception of a few people and "public perception" will take care of itself.

There is actually a great amount of power to be had simply in letting one's opinion known. Many people go with the crowd. Just letting them know that there is somebody in the area who disagrees allows them to give themselves permission to disagree as well.

This doesn't take much in the way of effort. Just say, "I disagree, but I don't want to argue about it." Or just shake your head "no" when others are talking about it -- but refuse to be drawn into a discussion.


Another way to present an idea without getting into a fight is to present somebody else's opinion. "I have a friend who said . . ."


The "open discussions" that I mentioned earlier is something that has worked well here. It is simply inviting over a few people for a "discussion night" -- and keeping the discussion structured and simple to minimize a sense that people are being threatened. 3 minutes of uninterrupted discussion to give one's reasons -- two rounds of discussion, then go play some vollyball.

Another method that I have used is writing science-fiction short shorties that I hand around for my friends to read and 'critique' for me. (I have been thinking about posting some of them here for entertainment value.)


I can well understand the wisdom of not getting into violent political/religious disagreements with co-workers and others that you must get along with.


Anybody else have other suggestions?

[BioBeing]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
Anybody else have other suggestions?
I have posted some of my concerns on another board (http://www.icalledit.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=743) I frequent, but they kind of know me as a God-hating scientist over there, and its kinda a small board. Hasn't drawn much attention, but maybe some will read it and think???