I meant for atheists each, individually, to assert their own identity, but points noted.
On Feb 7, 2010 3:24 PM, "ornamentalmind" <[email protected]> wrote: Yes Chris, clearly Ms. Jacoby has written an opinion piece. This in and of itself isn’t a big deal. She has written numerous books and, as her bio says: “Jacoby has been a contributor for more than 25 years, on topics including law, religion, medicine, aging, women's rights, political dissent in the Soviet Union, and Russian literature, to a wide range of periodicals and newspapers. Her articles and essays have appeared in The New York Times Magazine, Washington Post Book World, Los Angeles Times Book Review, Newsday, Harper's, The Nation, Vogue, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, and the AARP Magazine, among other publications. They have been reprinted in numerous anthologies of columns and magazine articles.” So, clearly she is not that limited when it comes to forums…or opinions for that matter. As to how any avowed group defines themselves and/or a perceived different and perhaps antithetical group, such exercises all too often reflect the biases and prejudices of the writer than what I’m advocating, a well thought out, documented and informative presentation. Also, what you see as a “the saving grace” of the piece, if anything (as I’ve already mentioned to Fran), I see more as a travesty. I’m all too happy to see such views and opinions printed or spoken any place at all. What I rue is her lack of clarity, awkward presentation and general hope for her readers to already believe in her while being exposed to such a large audience. It’s downright embarrassing, isn’t it? You could do better! On the other hand, you appear to directly contradict yourself when you advocate dispelling “the collective perception of there being an ‘atheist identity’ and shortly thereafter show apparent support of her wish to have atheists “create an understandable public identity, to define themselves…” etc. So, perhaps it isn’t easy to clarify what an atheist *is*. Perhaps it would be easier (as I find is true for theists) to use negative theology and merely say what an atheist is not. In either case, I don’t find her piece to be “ a step in the right direction towards clarifying the conversation” at all. If anything, I find it to be an obscuration. . . something not needed by any of us. On Feb 7, 11:14 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > You've raised some valid p... > On Feb 7, 2010 1:08 PM, "ornamentalmind" <[email protected]> wrote: > > “I disagree, Orn; I... You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To po... To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
