Active Atheism Meetup - clearing the air

Many people have privately expressed to me concerns and outrage at the backroom decisions that have been made to the exclusion of many members of the keen activist group of Adelaide Atheists.

Consequently, there will be a meeting at the originally booked Astor Hotel, upstairs in The Astoria Room where a full, frank and civil discussion will take place to air the grievances that so many people have expressed to me privately.

Join or login to comment.

  • Peter T.

    It was suggested that a forum would be a good idea. So I set one up.

    http://adelaideatheists.freefor...­

    have a look, start topics, add comments.

    February 12, 2013

    • Peter T.

      Ok activation is now via an email. Click register link in email and done. This applies for new people, everyone who has signed up as of this post has been registered already by the Admin. :)

      February 12, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      Thanks:-)

      February 12, 2013

  • Janette M.

    Looking forward to moving on now, focussing on our goals and objectives and starting to get things done in a friendly, positive and democratic environment.

    1 · February 12, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    Awful! For an outfit that is said to offer at least ONE of nine magic rings to each council member, upon arrival, I found I would have to eat at least one other potential council member in order to gain my place. And upon gaining a ring, I found out, AFTER THE FACT, that there existed the one ring to rule them all! I will be riding my newly aquired winged demonic bird to the nearest post office, to send out letters to other would be council members, and inform them of the much better deal upon entering Ye Olde Alehouse, of the two for one Mordor Slave offer. Had I known there would be an eternal service to You Know Who, I would have chosen a different house in first year at Hogwarts, and taken the two for one Mordor Slave offer at the first available monthly meetup.

    February 12, 2013

  • ian b.

    brilliant scintillating & very entertaining.. & exactly how atheism ought to be, too

    February 12, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    At 4.02pm on the 28th of January, a post was put up on the website by the organizer of the then active atheist (Ian McCulloch), stating that the Astor was closed and the meeting had been cancelled until the next one coming up on Monday night the 11th of February. I turned off the computer at that time and went to a movies instead. I saw upon my return home, that there was some frantic discussion of a number of venues being suggested to conduct the meeting after it had been cancelled earlier in the day. Apparently there was a meeting and some things added to what was the understanding of the constitution and changes made that were not approved by Keiren. Keiren has a lawyers back ground and knows how to draft a constitution and was to be in charge of such a draft. Apparently it was claimed that he had approved changes when he (Keiren) had not in fact done so. An emergency meeting was conducted and a constitution endorsed and voted on to correct this unapproved action by a quorum.

    February 10, 2013

    • Janette M.

      Could you please clarify the above statement Geoff?

      1 · February 11, 2013

    • Janette M.

      Ie what "unapproved action" and what "quorum" are you referring to. I await your explanation.

      1 · February 11, 2013

  • Justin M.

    As it stands Atheism in SA is now in enormous peril from a media that would like nothing better than to stick it to the arrogant atheists. Of the 270 on this site not all are actually atheists and I have no doubt that the street preachers are hiding in the background waiting exactly this kind of opportunity.

    Further to that the attempt to kick the horse along has broken it's back legs. But the split is not even. It seems Ian's support base is dwindling back to his original friends at the rate of knots creating what will no doubt become an oxygen starved environment.

    February 11, 2013

    • Justin M.

      I will be at the Brunswick tonight asking Ian (and only Ian) to drop everything and head to the Astor. The ONLY way his org will survive the actions of his group is for him to face up to the damage he has caused (and the reasons he did it), ask forgiveness of the group (honestly) and give up unilateral control of the big hat.

      Even if he were to lose the Presidency this way (and that remains to be seen), he would almost certainly find little changed from his perspective and would no doubt pick it up at a later date. At least we would then be moving forward together.

      If Ian wishes to only discuss websites, logos and press releases at his meeting the alternative is likely to be that in 6 months time, yet ANOTHER society will be formed with the objectives previously decided upon with wider community support and with 6 months of time lost.

      1 · February 11, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    So let me see if I understand this?

    A subset of our group (well, formally a group) has elected itself as the standing committee and submitted our partially completed (and still under discussion) constitution.

    Can that really be true? For the likes of Kieren and Endurance Swimmer, I think the word "hijack" is completely appropriate. Neither of you were present at the last meeting (Gilbert St, 2 weeks ago). At that meeting there was a clear resolution that our constitution was a work in progress and and not ready for submission, and there was no election of a standing committee.

    We all desire "progress" but I feel you have been misled on some important details here. Progress WAS being made. This current move by the Brunswick group is divisive and does not progress our movement.

    Perhaps I am not in full possession of the facts - so I await further detail. However, the actions of Ian , Brian and co are not looking good.

    2 · February 11, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      Clearly there are different views and were already different views prior to Kieren and myself joining. I can only speak for myself but with 2 groups now in existence i have simply aligned myself with the one that i believe i am most suited to. Just to reiterate again there is no desire from any of us to do anything other than move forward.

      1 · February 11, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    see you at the ASTOR :-)

    February 11, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    I'm confused. Are we going to have half of us at one pub and the other half at another? Can we have the protagonists sort it out in the next 24 hours and confirm the meeting place that all will attend, or pick a 3rd pub, or cancel the meeting for tomorrow night and then sort it out over the next week? We can't have two camps meeting in two different venues tomorrow night, that would be a disaster.

    February 10, 2013

    • Justin M.

      Unusual, I remember a team of Myself, Janette, Scott & Kieren being elected to perform the task of drafting the Constitution. We had one meeting in which all attended. Kieren didn't make the 2nd meeting although a time had been agreed on. Scott & myself soldiered on regardless and made only changes that we had agreed upon in the first meeting.

      Before the 3rd meeting the Constitution was brought before the general group as a draft for comment.

      I was as surprised as anyone when I heard a fully re-written constitution had been submitted.

      1 · February 10, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      We got so close. I thought we would be voting tonight on the Constitution.

      February 11, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    What happened at the last meeting? (Australia Day). I was in Sydney and did not attend. Was a Committee and Office Bearers voted in at that meeting?

    February 10, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      No

      February 10, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      David, see you at the Astor?

      1 · February 11, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    So those of us going to the Astor tonight, business as usual...we only need to think of a new name, since the one we liked is now taken.

    February 11, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    If the Brunswick boys are serious about getting this thing off the ground and being inclusive of all who have put effort in so far, then they will come to the astor tonight and explain themselves.

    February 11, 2013

  • Scott S

    I was not intending to comment again after my public telling of the events that was emailed out to all members last night. However, there have since been further allegations made against me in this forum with people seeking clarification n some issues.

    Kieren: I never once suggested at the meeting on the 28th of January that the entire constitution had been written with your input. I made it very clear that the 2nd drafting meeting did not have you in attendance and that I did not know why that was and that I had received no contact from you. I presented a draft constitution to those present for discussion and comment with the only comments being raised, possible legal protections which I felt were covered in The Act but would look into with the drafting group and the possibility of term limits which would be discussed by the entire group at our next meeting (which was scheduled for tomorrow night).

    February 11, 2013

    • Scott S

      I was prepared to attend the new meeting tonight to explain all of this initially. However, the number of complaints, concerns and expressions of outrage at the unilateral decision of Ian to go and lodge papers for incorporation without a decision and consent from the entire working group forced me to do what I have always done. That is provide what the members of this Meetup request of me. An open and democratic forum for these issues to be discussed in because they do not feel like they would receive such if they attended the Brunswick.

      February 11, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      It probably should be pointed out very clearly that Ian did not act alone and has the complete support of a number of us and from informal conversations many others. From my perspective, albeit admittedly as a relative newcomer i get the impression that Ian and others that support the stance of establishing this group as soon as possible and getting on with the job of promoting critical thinking actively, have the best interests of South Australia Atheists at heart. It is unlikely that a resolution will be reached to everyone's satisfaction by messages in the manner of the last couple of days. Indeed i think most people will probably agree that some things have been misinterpreted on both sides which can happen from time to time and we are all guilty of it. What is needed now is to move on from here. The newly formed active group will be meeting tonight at the Brunswick. As stipulated by Ian all are welcome and no doubt further clarifications will be possible for those who attend.

      2 · February 11, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    He said I had a big nose!

    February 10, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    SPLITTER!!

    February 10, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      A lot!

      1 · February 10, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      Welease Woger!

      2 · February 10, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    If you wanted to join the PFJ, you'd have to really hate the Romans...

    February 10, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      I do!

      1 · February 10, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    Ahh! So that's what happened to the Popular People's Front of Judea!

    February 10, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    Still debating whether or not to join the Judean People's Front

    February 10, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    Will be attending at the Brunswick.

    1 · February 10, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    Who is on the committee? I mean to say who are all the members of the committee?

    February 10, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    Won't somebody think of the children?

    February 10, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    Anyone else see this going somewhere?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...­

    February 10, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    No. We don't live in a vacuum. I think skepticism has an important link with atheism, the same with rationality. Morality is important to atheism because it is so often used by theists in their criticism of atheism. An understanding of morality and where it comes from is important in the dialogue and debate with theists. Religion does not have ownership over morality, in fact religions can be very immoral in a number of ways. As far as I am concerned, if members are interested in other aspects of humanity such as science, law, history, morality, ethics, skepticism, rationality etc. then there are no 'bounds' to step over.

    1 · January 31, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      Mykeru's video is not 'cherry picking', this action by the feminist men and women in the video is 'normal operating procedure', not fringe stuff but 'mainstream'. These atheist feminists are so blinded by the unquestionable dogma that they believe in that they probably do feel that their right to free speech has come under attack because this man putting the posters up was trying to stop them from pulling his posters down. We can see that this 'hit squad' is involved in censorship. This is not mis-representing the approach of the current atheist feminists at A+ and FtB. They are continually censoring what is heard and debated on their blogs and forums. "It's their space so they can do what they want, make their own rules" I hear you say. And you are right. But censorship does not resolve any issues and only broadens the divide. They should take a lesson from Hitchens in this case.

      February 10, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      David, I was just thinking as I was loading the dishwasher, I can't see a connection between shelters for battered women and feminism, so I find it odd that you threw that one in.

      February 10, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    Apologies, but clashes with another meeting

    February 10, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    I just wonder if we (I say we, even though i'm still very new) are over stepping the bounds of the -ism that is atheism. As far as I'm aware, not believing in god is not the basis of a philosophy, nor does it make you have better ethics or morals. I think its perfectly fine to be a charitable atheist, and as an organisation it might reap many rewards, but an atheist doesn't have to be charitable to call themselves an atheist. Its only widespread theism that makes me want to belong to atheism, and as a new member looking to join your group, I would think that a members time and effort be more concentrated (dare i say confined) to matters of religion only?

    January 31, 2013

10 went

People in this
Meetup are also in:

You don't have to be an expert to start your own Meetup Group

Get started Learn more
Katie

I'm surprised by the level of growth I've seen since becoming an organizer, it's given me more confidence in my abilities.

Katie, started NYC ICO

Start your Meetup today

Act now and get 50% off.
Until February 1.

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy