You Don’t Speak For Me

speakforyourself

I thought I might continue today on the topic of atheist organizations, and how they are agenda driven.  After my recent post on the subject, I saw someone had posted a video on the same subject. I thought I should give it a view to see if it was indeed in the same vein as my post. I wasn’t disappointed.

Yes, I know I’ve said I don’t like to watch videos, and I rarely do mainly because the person producing the video takes too much time getting to the point they’re trying to make and I’m sorry, videographers, but I can’t take an hour of babbling before you get to the point of your babble.

It was the title of this video that intrigued me: FFRF is Ideologically Compromised that caught my eye and I thought it wouldn’t hurt to take a few minutes to see what this was all about. The video is a little over 30 minutes in length and I think the reason I ended up watching it all the way through is that it started with a thesis, as the title showed, and then went on to demonstrate that thesis.

The author, MrDragonbeard started by saying that, specifically, the FFRF was dishonest in its objection to the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and showed where he asked them (actually a spokesman for FFRF) to cite his allegations against the confirmation. As expected, none was received so he then went through what is basically a fundraising video by the same person and deconstructed every statement of “fact”.

What it came down to, and was stated initially in the video, is that these organizations, specifically FFRF in this case, do not speak for all atheists.  Their agenda is very left leaning and as I said in the post linked above, if the nominee were from a democrat in the White House even if it were the same person, no one would object.

None of these organizations speak for me, and no one should allow them to even imply they represent atheism. They do not. They represent their own interests and it’s a reason why they are failing.

I will allow that there is some good work done in the matter of separation of church and state but that’s where it ends with me. When they accuse Kavanaugh of tearing down that wall if he’s confirmed  (as the spokesperson did in the video), without evidence (Kavanaugh has 307 written opinions anyone can view) then all they’re doing is advocating a political position.

In my opinion, the thesis was well demonstrated that yes, these are vile and manipulative people. We atheists need to be aware of that whenever any of these that claim to represent us attempt use the tactics shown in the video, we should do our own research before we blindly accept their proposition.

When we discover that they are just creating drama where none exists, we should let them know that they in fact, do not speak for all of us and should demand they stop pretending to represent atheism. They don’t.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “You Don’t Speak For Me

  1. Thanks for watching my video! I have discovered more and more excluded or disenfranchised atheists since I began dissenting from the leftist tenets now controlling most secular organizations. I enjoy connecting with them and having free and open discussions. I think change is coming (and payback is a bitch 😉

    I’ll be following your blog!

    • In the U.S., there are a little over 10 million people that readily identify as “atheist”. Of those, 90% say that their poltical views either lean left or are in fact far left. This is the audience that organizations like FFRF are attempting to appeal. But then, not all those “on the left” walk in step with one another. These are the people, IMO that are not persuaded by emotional, non-evidential appeals from anyone. I don’t have the evidence but I suspect that there are fewer that are manipulated by those appeals than FFRF or any other atheist organization know, or will admit.

  2. I’m not sure these organizations, or at least the FFRF, would claim to speak for all atheists. They might claim to represent their members, but even that seems like a bit of a stretch. When I was a member of the FFRF, I contacted them repeatedly seeking guidance about a fairly serious church-state violation. No response.

Leave a Reply