Yes, he wrote and extremely long letter of resignation. I had no idea that the rift was this big. It is rather sad that Paul Kurtz felt the need to resign.
To be clear, this blog post came out before the news item that was mentioned in the OP. I don’t know the facts, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the editorial precipitated the resignation.
I don’t have any personal insight into the politics of the whole thing (which frankly I find disappointingly typical irrational human behavior, if that makes any sense). But I have to say that I found Lindsay’s blog and follow-up comments far more personalized and hostile than Kurtz’s editorial, and I don’t think they were helpful at all. Of course, I tend to agree with what Kurtz said, regardless of his real motives for making the criticism, but even so as an outside the “new leadership” is not succeeding at conveying the impression that they are taking the high road and he the low.
I don’t have any personal insight into the politics of the whole thing (which frankly I find disappointingly typical irrational human behavior, if that makes any sense). But I have to say that I found Lindsay’s blog and follow-up comments far more personalized and hostile than Kurtz’s editorial, and I don’t think they were helpful at all. Of course, I tend to agree with what Kurtz said, regardless of his real motives for making the criticism, but even so as an outside the “new leadership” is not succeeding at conveying the impression that they are taking the high road and he the low.
There were other things involved. This is not as simple as one blog post.
I’m sure that’s true. What I am trying to do is explain how the whole thing looks to those of us on the outside. Regardless of internal politics, the leadership needs to know that they are coming off badly here and that Dr. Linday’s post, comments, and debate with DJ do not cast him or his position in a favorable light for those unfamiliar with the subtext, which is probable most members and donors. As a simple PR point, a different strategy appears to be needed, that’s all I’m saying.
If we want to talk PR, how does it look to have a long-time leader criticize his successor in public? It’s a fact that Paul Kurtz had been going on and on wherever he could for over a year now about how he was ousted in a “palace coup” and “fundamentalist atheists” taking over CFI and his so-called “new direction”. If you want to talk about things that “look bad to the outside”, that’s a big one right there. Despite this, management let Paul have his say many months ago, wouldn’t you agree?
What would you have Ron do?
And this is not just me saying this, but actual CFI employees on the record, both on the blog and on the latest issue of Free Inquiry.
I hear the frustration in your response just as I did in Dr. Lindsay’s. For all I know, it is perfectly justified. All I’m trying to do is give feedback on how things appear to some of us. I’m not defending a position, and you are free to ignore that feedback.
I hear the frustration in your response just as I did in Dr. Lindsay’s. For all I know, it is perfectly justified. All I’m trying to do is give feedback on how things appear to some of us. I’m not defending a position, and you are free to ignore that feedback.
