In 2001 Libertarians started a movement called the " Free State Project " . The projects purpose is to convince 20,000 libertarians to sign a pledge to move to New Hampshire within 5 years after the necessary signatures were obtained. Once relocated in New Hampshire they would more effectively influence local politics. They have attained that goal and the migration is occurring now.
The purpose of this thread is not to debate the virtues or evils of libertarianism but to offer the same modus operandi to atheists and other secularists. Do you think we could convince 20,000 free thinkers to move to one geographical region and influence culture and politics more effectively? At least 20,000 attended the first Reason Rally in D.C. For those that are not USAmericans would a plan like this work in your nation?
If you think this is a good idea where would you choose to relocate to? Join forces with the Libs in New Hampshire? How about Vermont with it's more Progressive environment ? Care to move to Georgia or Louisiana and battle the forces of irrationality head on ?
Imagine your car with an image of Charles Darwin on the license plate. Imagine a state motto : The State of Reason !
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I am not a fan of libertarians. In my view they are nothing more than conservative lite. In my dealings with libertarians I have found that their main goal is just getting out of taxes.The reality is they want everything privatized (an extremely bad idea), they don't care about the environment, nor do they actually believe in equal opportunity. I don't find libertarian idealism reasonable or practical. Granted they don't push religiosity on anyone, but that is the only thing they I have found to be reasonable among their ranks. When push comes to shove they always vote republican even if that person is as crazy as Sarah Palin.
Regardless of your opinions on libertarianism , what do you think about this model for building a more effective community of free thinkers?
i don't think it be wise.
It reminds me of Hitler.
The good German people that did not agree with Hitler on the banning of all Jews from the county decided to "move to one geographical region and influence culture and politics more effectively" on boats covering the entire river as a protest.
What did Hitler do?
He was informed by his supporters that this might be a problem since they do look a more cohesive voice now.
Hitler smiled and said:
We have to thank them for being so nice and gather all the guys who disagree with us in 1 place.
Then he ordered to fire on them all.
The church did the same thing in history to other Christians it disagreed with.
Division is not the wisest of options, it just makes it easier for your enemy to accuse you of something to excuse his aggressive actions.
Hitler labelled them traitors to excuse him killing them all.
We already know how much label we atheists get, so definitely no, our services are better rendered in influencing the public in general in our own areas rather then going all in 1 place.
I must say that it is a drastic idea. Asking people to move ( as if people can actually do so) is a great deal to ask. The republicans usurped the idea of moving people and just gerrymandered the districts. Your way is legal but it is essentially the same thing. Even if you get "like minded" people to move they won't agree on everything and eventually you'll have splits and defections. So I'd say that it may initially work in the long run it will eventually go back to the way it was before the move.
This idea has been pondered many times. Take the Puritans. They also had an idea of taking like minded people to create a community of utopia in their eyes. Several groups have tried it. Jamestown is an example.
One unintended consequence may be the attraction to evangelists such a community may hold. 20,000 atheists may attract 100,000 street preachers. What a nightmare.
It's not always a failure or dangerous for like-minded people to gather and live in one place. The Amish come to mind as an example.
I think that the Amish are a complete failure.
They probably don't.
If Atheists had coherent views on politics, I think atheists would have done a lot more as a coherent group historically.
Wouldn't it be better to define a particular political orientation, with an atheist or even anti-theistic approach, with focus on separation of church and state, education, etc?
They would have been easier to purge as any other minority that disagreed with the church.
Sure, that certainly is a possibility.
I actually managed to reverse the point I was trying to make to chimp3: Atheism has no coherent political agenda.
Therefore, there is little point in trying to get atheists to group together.
It would be much better to have a defined political view on some points, like for example secularism, social justice, human rights, etc. If those who join in are atheists or not doesn't matter as long as they have the same view on the specified points.
"It would be much better to have a defined political view on some points"
Unfortunately, being atheist or not, if you disagreed with the church you got purged anyway.
Remember what they did the the Gnostic Christians?
(they thought that being 6/10 of all Christians gave them security, so they had their own communities separated from the Literalists)
This made it easier for the Church to purge them from the history books to the point that today we barely know the Gnostic Christian philosophy even though it was the most popular at its time.
So its best to stay mixed in the general public and slowly let the truth eventually win.
"its best to stay mixed in the general public and slowly let the truth eventually win."
My concern is that it will take way too much time.
With crackpots like Ted Cruz actually having a chance of becoming president of the U.S, we will soon be having Christian jihad, Christian sharia law. With the Ayatollah of Appalachia (Ken Ham) as the head spiritual leader.
That, together with Islamic fundamentalism makes me want to apply for the "Mars One" program, if it wasn't a problem to bring my kids along...
Truth may be outlawed and scientists executed, before religious fundamentalism dies out.
"My concern is that it will take way too much time."
So?
You really think that this generation has a chance?
It always takes a new generation to get past the brainwashing and mature more intellectually.
Every new generation is smarter then the previous to get past the indoctrination and bias sooner.
You just have to wait.
I estimate in around a 100 years religion would be in the minority. (3 generations or so)
The truth eventually will be seen for what it is, self evident.
A loving god that so much loves a child that he watches a priest raping him and does nothing is contradictory.
Self evident.
Free will excuse, is also contradictory since god is like a father that is so loving to abandon a child in the wild(where he can get harmed and raped) just to give him free will.(which makes god incompetent and evil)
Self evident.
Original Sin??
What loving father punishes the son for the mistakes/sins of the father?
Self evident.
It's just about indoctrination and how smart are the new generations to get out of this guilt virus.
Looking at stats related to the new generation it looks very promising.
Don't get discouraged because the majority right now are not the new generation, they will die out and will be remembered as the crazies in history.
Self Evident.
"Truth may be outlawed and scientists executed, before religious fundamentalism dies out."
It happened before, but the truth always got back.
Have Faith :P
I agree for the most part.
But, I don't think we can afford to just shrug our shoulders and go "So?". If it's possible to find a catalyst to the process, it's worth working towards it.
With technology like biological and chemical weapons, religious fanaticism is way more scary than it has been before. To me, truth has no value if we are wiped out.
I am not saying to not fight for the truth, I am just saying that exposing ourselves and become an easy target is not a wise idea.
There are better and more effective ways then creating division to achieve that goal.
We could push towards unification, equal rights to everyone, etc...
Even though theists would not admit it, but we atheists are more preferred then other believers who they disagree with to the point of killing each other.
Hitchens asked many Christians if they preferred if Hitchens was a Muslim rather then an atheist, the answer was always, better an atheist.
So somewhere deep inside them, they know that the atheists are more civilized then most Muslims that dress their woman like photo boots.
The slow process of intellectual growth has been going on for some 100 years now(after WW1) and we can already see the death of religious majority coming and you want to change things by putting all the sane people in 1 spot so they are easy to get rid of?
I am starting to think you must be a spy :P
Again, I agree for the most part.
I was just trying (rather clumsily) to point out that "secular", "humanist', etc is much better than "atheism" to reach the correct crowd. But, I'm actually a bit hesitant at the idea trying to produce a "secular state".
What I'm opposing in your comments is only the part about waiting, since I don't think that the time is on our side. Way too many religious people think that the end times are upon us. If a nutcase like that gains control over the wrong tech, that could be it...
It's already scary close in the U.S. as we speak.
"I am starting to think you must be a spy :P"
I guess it's rather obvious, huh? :P
"secular", "humanist' are subjects that seem to be the most beneficial to humanity.
Instead of removing those people to put them in 1 place, we should let them influence all the public, like they are doing in their everyday life.
The reason why humanist will eventually grow and dominate is because they are closer to what is right and just then most other positions.
The concept i explain earlier shows how slowly but surly the concept which is self evident will eventually dominate even against all odds.
When Christianity destroyed the history books, killed everyone that had knowledge and banned reading and writing in the dark ages, the self evident eventually came back to light anyway.
"If a nutcase like that gains control over the wrong tech, that could be it..."
possibly, that is why we have to fight for that not to happen, you cannot do that by isolating the bright people so the nutcase has a place to test that tech on.
As I said, there are better ways to fight that and one of them is influencing the public as a whole, with anti-theistic methods.
Ridicule, spreading of reliable information, promotion of doubt and questioning to the general public, etc...
Unity is the key, not division.
Through generations change the people to learn to see the self evident, not go far away from them.
That can only result in more prejudice and "us vs them" mentality.
The more they interact with us the better it is for us, that is why some churches try to isolate, because they are smart and do not want their sheep to stop being like sheep and start thinking for a change.
The Pragmatic : "It would be much better to have a defined political view on some points, like for example secularism, social justice, human rights, etc. If those who join in are atheists or not doesn't matter as long as they have the same view on the specified points."
I did mention "other secularists" in my original post. Free thinkers also. Do you think libertarian atheists and democratic socialist atheists might have enough in common - separation of church and state , increasing civil liberties , marriage rights - that they might form an effective voting bloc?
"I did mention "other secularists" in my original post. Free thinkers also."
Yes, so you did. My bad. :)
Regarding libertarian atheists and democratic socialist atheist in the U.S. I don't think I have nearly enough knowledge to even speculate on that (I live in Sweden). Are there actually democratic socialist atheists in the U.S?
Yes , many of my friends are atheist democratic socialists.
Or create a secular community in the deep south and start suing everywhere you go! haha
Apart from the jokes.
I consider myself a good strategist, I have studied the achievements of most great generals like Alexander The Great, Julius Caesar and even Napoleon,
I also play a lot of military strategy games and diplomatic ones.
The tactic which always works is to let the enemy weaken themselves while underestimating your strength.
Basically as a basic you should always appear weaker then you actually are.
Right now the stupid religious people are busy fighting among themselves while considering us a minority.
Which is perfect for us.
We should not make a state and expose ourselves as a competing rival, else they would have where to point their fingers for any perceived mistakes like they do to each other.
Any mistake the new state does(or unjustly accused of) will reflect the actions of atheists then.
Just like the Romans did to the senate, they punished the senate for the deeds of some of the senators.
We should let them fight among themselves and keep growing like we are doing now, without trying to appear strong.
This way by the time they realize we are in the majority it be too late to take action.
That is the best strategy to use in my opinion and it has been working well for a 100 years for us.
I see no reason to change it or hinder it by giving the enemy someone to point their fingers at.
JVL - Good strategy ! Especially for a small force engaging with a much more powerful enemy. I live in rural bible belt Kentucky. I am like a lion in a flock of sheep but the sheep have guns.
"sheep have guns."
lol
yep its best to follow the saying:
From the 2 fighting rivals, the third one wins.
Get your lion hide well hidden in the bushes and let the sheep finish their bullets first :P
Atheist democratic socialists, in Kentucky?! Holy cow in a slaughterhouse!
Actually , all my atheist social democrat friends live in the southwest and Oregon.