Being Forced Out Of
The Local Atheist Group
Timothy Gorski
From: "Timothy Gorski MD"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: Question
Date: Friday, December 24, 1999 11:27 AM
Hi Cliff,
Cliff had written in a dispatch:
Being forced out of the local atheist group was very hard on me, as the group had become my only social outlet.
I don't remember hearing about this, much less ay details. What happened?
Best regards,
Tim
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Timothy Gorski MD"
Subject: Re: Question
Date: Friday, December 24, 1999 4:47 PM
I posted the full dialogue (which I was not allowed to print) at:
[URL removed because it was the wrong one.]
Although the leaders pretended (while people were watching) that I was still welcome, I can assure you that that was not the case. If I wanted to, I could have simply stayed there, to the chagrin of the leaders, but I will not support an organization whose leaders act this way.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
From: "Timothy Gorski MD"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: Question
Date: Sunday, December 26, 1999 2:16 PM
Hi Cliff,
I posted the full dialogue (which I was not allowed to print) at:
[URL removed because it was the wrong one.]
This link has nothing to do with your being expelled from your local atheist group.
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Timothy Gorski MD"
Subject: Re: Unwanted(?) remarks
Date: Sunday, January 02, 2000 11:59 AM
This link has nothing to do with your being expelled from your local atheist group.
Oops! Error in pasting!
"Fallout Over Cliff's September, 1998, Column"
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9954.htm
Expelled? No. Hounded out? Most definitely! I can make a case that I was forced out because they knew me well enough to know that I would respond to their move by leaving.
And the main "friendships" I lost were those of the very people who committed the evil deed. (How could they!?) I can handle the loss, it's the sense of betrayal that makes it hard to form new friendships elsewhere.
Similar things are going on at the bar where I used to sing. The new staff is cussing me out for no reason and accusing me of these awful things (they are doing this to a lot of the patrons who show up frequently and spend less, favoring those who go out once or twice a week and spend lots). I have retained a few close friendships from there, and have found three other bars, two of which have resulted in some close friendships and the third of which has muttered something about a possible job opening.
Life is looking up, and about the only thing that is really holding me back is the pain from the upper back injury. I had given up hope on it until two months ago, when I ended up in the ER from being unable to move at all. They carefully talked me into taking a narcotic (which, until then, had been out of the question in my mind). I now realize what kind of social life I can have when the pain is adequately reduced. However, the regular doctor has freaked -- to the point where he is even approaching the ER docs as to why they gave me the stuff. I'll tell you why: it's my body; I know what I'm doing when it comes to that class of drugs (I can live with the mild side effects and am not affected by the most unpleasant side-effects); the other drugs have severe side-effects such as wrenching stomach pain on one and migraine and hallucination on the other; I have endured this pain for eleven years, worn it on my face, and now it's time for me to have a crack at living some semblance of a normal life.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
From: "Timothy Gorski"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: Unwanted(?) remarks
Date: Monday, December 27, 1999 1:14 PM
Hi Cliff,
"Fallout Over Cliff's September, 1998, Column":
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9954.htm
OK, I've looked it over. I hope you won't mind some unsolicited comment on this but I feel compelled to offer it because it goes to some issues that I have seen over and over again in my observations of and dealings with people and groups in our "movement."
I don't like protest marches, picketing, etc. I never have and I doubt I ever will. I can think of lots of reasons why they're not good. But, having said that, I acknowledge the fact that these kinds of things are just not what I feel comfortable with. If others are comfortable with these things and want to do them, then I don't have any objections so long as they're peaceful about it. As for the how the press reports on such goings-on, that's out of all of our hands. Traditionally, the media hasn't been particularly kind to any such activities, even labor union strikes. But there have also been times when these actions have wound up having a beneficial effect in the end. Just look at the Vietnam War protests in which people who trashed their schools and other places are now portrayed as heroes. Even the 1960's race riots didn't really hurt the cause of civil rights and maybe even strengthened the hand of some zealots.
I think it needs to be remembered that there is no one right approach to standing up for atheism and rationalism. In this war that's been declared against us, there is something to be said for all kinds of different ways of meeting the threats against freedom. In a way, even the extremist atheists (who, after all, are teddy bears compared to Christian fundamentalist extremists) are useful to those of us who prefer a milder approach, because they make us appear less of a fringe. That's the nature of fringes after all-they define the center!
I urge you to take a page from the book of other large causes. When "animal rights" wackos "liberate" lab rats and destroy valuable research, the PETA people neither condemn it nor applaud it. They just use the opportunity to make their case. Likewise, when antiabortion fanatics bomb clinics and kill people, the Catholic bishops and RTL'ers may decry the violence, but they also try to "explain" it by talking about the alleged "horrors" of abortion as "murder."
People like us (and I hope I'm not presuming too much here) need to do something similar. Let the Billingses and Swerdlows have their fun. You don't have to join them in it. And there is nothing to be gained from criticizing it either. But you can still suggest additional (as opposed to alternative) ways of doing things that you are comfortable with and you can do this without saying or implying that what you're not comfortable with is a bad idea. After all, you're not going to succeed in getting others to do something your way until and unless you do it yourself your way and show how it's done.
This is the whole essence of the NTCOF approach. We don't do the "get in their face" stuff but it's just because that's not our thing. Let others do it. It doesn't work for one person and/or one group to do it all anyway. You need all the different approaches.
My final suggestion, which you probably won't like, but is clearly "doable" by your description: don't drop out of your local group but, instead, attend the meetings and do what you did before, but with the attitude that you're neither going to participate in anything you find questionable/objectionable nor criticize others for doing such things. Considering all there is to be done, these limitations ought not to weigh too heavily on you.
Best regards,
Tim
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Timothy Gorski"
Subject: Re: Unwanted(?) remarks
Date: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 1:12 PM
I certainly concur with much of your opinion about protests, although I have joined forces with various protest actions (notably: anti-Vietnam War; anti-Apartheid; legalize marijuana; anti-homelessnes; anti-Gulf War; anti-George Bush). I don't like doing it, but one part of me thinks that there are times and places when doing it is appropriate. I played a role in the final anti-Apartheid actions at UCLA which preceded their decision to divest several billion. Once this happened, governments and universities began divesting left and right, and actions were unnecessary.
But you are right. The UC action would have been ineffective without our having spent months and months on that campus, and without our having been right in the middle of the plaza during the graduation ceremonies talking to anybody who would listen and encouraging all to at least lend their name to the effort (we had a huge petition which ended up being several hundred feet long). The UC actions also would have faltered if we had allowed ourselves to focus anywhere except upon our stated anti-Apartheid message. (This was the mistake that the protesters in Seattle made recently: I still have no idea what they wanted.) Finally, it is conceivable that UC would have divested when they did even if we hadn't disrupted that Regents meeting in June of 1986. Maybe not. Long-time Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley (then candidate for Governor) spoke at that UCLA protest, as did Senator Alan Cranston, and I think their endorsement of the cause was the biggest factor in its success.
As for my break with USA, it's all about deceit and theft, and has nothing to do with the protest action.
I had thought my role there was to raise questions (as a careful reading of the September 1998 column will show). It turns out that their concept of my role there was to stump for the organization -- right or wrong. This I cannot do for anybody, any group, or any issue.
Another thing I cannot do is to appear to condone the deceit and the theft. If I could think of a way even to step into that building without appearing to condone what they did (and some other despicable things some of their leadership has done), I would probably be in that building at this very moment. At present, I cannot think of a way to be even casually involved in that group without appearing to endorse their style of atheistic activism (which I find very objectionable). More importantly, though, I cannot think of how to do it without appearing to endorse their style of running an organization (which I have discovered to be patently immoral). The atheism that I advocate is, in one sense, the essence of morality and the beginning of morality, because in atheism we discover the true source of morality: humanity.
The acts of any leadership are, ultimately, the responsibility of the membership because we all have three choices: do nothing; work for change; leave. The first is not my style, not within my current framework of abilities. The second is what I attempted, to no avail. The last reflects my current position with USA.
I think I'm getting more done doing what I do. I think that my integrity shows both in my work (writing, etc.) and in my actions (e.g., my refusal to appear to find Billings's deeds acceptable). While people may disagree with my views, very few have accused me of deliberately lying.
Meanwhile, my mailing list is now larger than theirs ever was while I was there (and I was there from the inception). Also, everybody on my mailing list has requested to be on it; I send nothing out unrequested, set an expire date for everyone, and review any account about to expire. My page has had over 20,000 hits since mid-August. We have over 40 paid subscriptions. Our e-mail list has grown to almost 500 this year. All this has happened with absolutely no active promotion on my part: I have restricted my activities to simply doing the work and have done nothing to promote the site since I sent out a one-time sample and offer to USA's list. I know more people (cyber-friends) than I ever have before.
The only thing I really lack is flesh-and-blood fellowship, and not simply with other atheists. I currently seek fellowship in bars, which is tough because I don't get loaded at all, and chronic pain keeps me from doing this as often as I want. I have been discussing with Conrad Goeringer of American Atheists the role that atheist groups play in one's social life, and he seems to agree with me that much of what we do socially has very little to do with our atheism.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
From: "Timothy Gorski MD"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: Unwanted(?) remarks
Date: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 7:53 PM
Hi Cliff,
Another thing I cannot do is to appear to condone the deceit and the theft. If I could think of a way even to step into that building without appearing to condone what they did
Criminal activity is something else again. You're not specific
about this so I cannot judge.
At present, I cannot think of a way to be even casually involved in that group without appearing to endorse both their style of atheistic activism (which I find very objectionable). More importantly, though, I cannot think of how to do it without appearing to endorse their style of running an organization
So which is it, a style or wrongdoing? Not to be argumentative, but if someone like you feels they have to quit an organization it makes me suspect that something is very radically wrong, which I don't put in the category of style. The only other alternative is that you're over-reacting (even if with good intentions) to things that appear objectionable/foolish to you but are not necessarily wrong in principle. That's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm glad that you're having so much success on your own but if you wind up having to look for compaionship in bars I wouldn't exactly call that success.
Best regards,
Tim
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Timothy Gorski MD"
Subject: Re: Unwanted(?) remarks
Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 1:49 PM
Criminal activity is something else again. You're not specific about this so I cannot judge.
United States Atheists' president, Lanny Swerdlow, gave me the go-ahead
to publish the October 1998 issue, but United States Atheists' treasurer,
Jerry Billings, publicly refused to reimburse my girlfriend and myself
for the expenses for October and for other expenses incurred earlier. He
never even paid the amount that he publicly agreed that United States Atheists
owed me (the earlier expenses). Two individuals privately compensated Bobbi
and myself the full amount due in exchange for me agreeing not to bring
it up again in a United States Atheists meeting.
So which is it, a style or wrongdoing? ...
First, wrongdoing is wrongdoing, and I don't think of this as a style.
Secondly, one style with which I disagree is how United States Atheists is administered (privately; secretly; authoritatively; undemocratically).
Thirdly, another style with which I disagree is United States Atheists' basic approach to the defense of atheism: indiscriminately attacking anyone who is a theist, without acknowledging that people are entitled to their opinions.
First and foremost, though, is that United States Atheists' style
of administration has no built-in protection against wrongdoing and no
avenue for the redress of grievance. The style appears to have led to the
wrongdoing.
I'm glad that you're having so much success on your own but if you wind up having to look for companionship in bars I wouldn't exactly call that success.
I have spent most of the past year or so at home, in a great deal of pain and also acutely depressed from having severed several friendships which, it turns out, were based entirely upon our mutual loyalty to United States Atheists. Only recently have I been given a reprieve from the pain in the form of medication from an ER doc (which lasted six weeks: now I'm back where I started because of many doctors' fears arising from America's War on Some Drugs: I could buy this stuff over the counter in most nations). I took advantage of this reprieve by going out every night and establishing three solid bases for social interaction. Since I do not work, I do not have the workplace available to me for pursuing friendships. Since I am not religious, I cannot use church loyalty as an opener for meeting new friends. Many people are taken aback by my inability to "dumb down" when I talk, and others read into my (depressed) facial expression more than is there. I have never been a social butterfly. All these things make meeting people more difficult than it probably is for most.
In American and European culture, public houses are a legitimate venue for seeking companionship and for pursuing long-term friendships. It is my experience that a significant fraction of people who go to a bar do so because of the bar's featured activity (music; singing; pool; darts) do not drink. I'd say 20 to 30 percent at the bars where I hang don't drink. Perhaps 10 to 20 percent gets too drunk, depending on how strict the bar is (I prefer the strict places). This leaves me with 20-30 percent completely sober, plus 50 to 70 percent drinking asymptomatically (i.e., mildly stimulated but under full control and capable of healthy social interaction).
I love music and I love to sing, so karaoke joints and bars that feature open-mic bandstands are a natch for me.
Most of all, for one who once had an alcohol problem to be able to feel comfortable in bars (and to stay sober) is, to me, the epitome of success. I spent years struggling within the Twelve Step programs, trying to meet stable people who were willing to be my friends -- all the while being told to avoid bars. Very few of my NA friends are even alive today. You are not going to find stable people remaining within the Twelve Step programs for very long. Only those most in need of the programs' "help" will stick around, and many of them never learn the knack for remaining clean and sober (as the programs don't teach this skill, focusing, instead, on group loyalty). I do not find nearly the level of "dysfunctionality" in bars that I did in the program: those who joined the program are usually those who were unable to function in the bar scene.
Also, for me to disprove the notion that atheists ought to seek companionship among atheists (that we cannot overcome our own bigotry or work around the bigotry of others) is also a form of success. In regular society, whenever someone tells me about their god (most often a concept that lies somewhere between Jefferson's god and Spinoza's god), I say, "Hey, I know what you mean! I've thought that myself." If someone has a look of shock upon finding that I am an atheist, I say, "You know, most people don't understand the word atheist. To me, atheism means that I have yet to hear a religious claim that makes sense or holds water." Very few (usually the fundamentalists) have a problem with these responses, and one fundamentalist woman is still very friendly with me despite these differences. We have agreed to disagree and to continue socializing when we're both at the same bar.
My January, 2000, column will describe an encounter that took place at a bar -- which, according to both of us, was a delightful success. Unfortunately, the individual in question lives in California. But if nothing else, I have that learning experience under my belt as well as the fond memories of lovely evening, in the company of a sweet, extremely intelligent woman and her father. (I even got along with the father who is a strict Pentecostalist.)
As for fellowship specifically with atheists, I think I can (and should) learn to do this without coming to depend upon a specific group or a local group. True, advantages can be had from joining a group -- if such a group exists, and if such a group meets one's needs and standards. (Religious people have every variety of choices, and don't necessarily encounter this problem -- although I never got along in any churches, even when I was religious: methinks the problem was me, not the groups.)
However, if a group is not available, or if involvement in the group is problematic (as was my involvement with United States Atheists), then the obvious choice is to go it on your own. Such is the fact of life for some. Despite my previous experiences, severing my ties with United States Atheists spun me into deep depression for almost a year. Thankfully, Bobbi has stuck with me through the entire thing, having had to watch me from a distance which she finds uncomfortable and unsatisfying. I also realized that for her to be my only friend, the only person who can name any of my cats (much less all of them) is unhealthy.
So, shortly before the back pain made a turn for the worse, I decided to focus much of my meager energy on meeting more friends. I have some friends, now. My contribution revolves around my enthusiasm for karaoke and my generously loaning out my collection of rare karaoke songs to anybody who wants to sing from them. I am doing remarkably well despite the fact that two weeks ago I stopped going to a bar where I have gone for three years. My situation is much better than it was even two months ago. Nothing's perfect, and some have it better than others.
Perhaps I need more, but this is what I have now, and it is with this that I must make the most of things. Perhaps next year I can move back to California to be with my sister, who recently returned from a 15-year stay in London.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
From: "Timothy Gorski MD"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: Unwanted(?) remarks
Date: Sunday, January 02, 2000 7:32 AM
Thanks for the long explanatory reply, Cliff.
It's your call, obviously. But these kinds of problems seem to crop up repeatedly in atheist (and, likely, other groups, from what I can tell) organizations, esp the complaints about democracy. I can tell you that NTCOF isn't democratic in the sense that we open it up to a vote as to what it's going to stand for. Our model is more that of other churches (and businesses!), most of which try to do their best to keep their core constituency happy as well as accommodate others but know that they can't satisfy everyone. But we haven't reneged on any promises to pay people back for stuff either.
So -- while I might overlook various things about a restaurant or other business that I wasn't really pleased with, it would depend on what other benefits I was getting in deciding whether I'd continue to patronize the place. If I had a really bad experience of some kind such as being overcharged and/or insulted by someone connected with the establishment, I'd have to think even harder about the matter. I think your situation is much the same.
On the one hand you're quite displeased and even disillusioned about the leadership of your local atheist organization. On the other hand, you admit to having a lot of social contacts there and you obviously found people to pay you back even though the USA leadership wouldn't. (Compare this with being ripped off by a business owner but having one of the employees making it right out of their own pocket because they valued your patronage and satisfaction!)
At any rate, you shouldn't tell people that your were "expelled" from USA since, from what you have said, that's clearly not the case (though it may feel that way to you).
Best regards and have a great year 2000,
Tim
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.