The SCA’s controversial new Executive Director is doing an AMA on Reddit. I know a lot of you had questions about her, so now you have a chance to ask her directly.
If you need inspiration for a question, check out this “interesting” interview Greta conducted with Edwina. “Interesting” meaning “frustrating as hell.”
27 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
'Tis Himself
May 8, 2012 at 1:15 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Actually Edwina Rogers is not the person I have questions for. I’d like to ask the SCA board why they considered her the best candidate for the job.
Kazim
May 8, 2012 at 1:44 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yeah, where’s their AMA?
ash
May 8, 2012 at 1:46 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Me too. That’s the more interesting and important question
godlesspanther
May 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I read that AMA — I can say that we have had it with watching ER being oily.
The SCA board members should supply some answers.
I’d like some real ones, please.
R. Johnston
May 8, 2012 at 2:20 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The SCA board members should supply some resignations. It’s far too late for answers.
Gregory in Seattle
May 8, 2012 at 2:28 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I read the AMA… wow. Very interesting, the questions she never answered.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
May 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m pretty certain she has an advanced degree in Evasion. It’d be a shame not to put it to use.
Desert Son, OM
May 8, 2012 at 3:03 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“How soon can you clear out your desk at the SCA?”
Still learning,
Robert
Zengaze
May 8, 2012 at 4:05 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I get your sentiment, but we have to be better than that. I think that’s the sentiment of the board, use her……..and I think that betrays everything we should stand for. Edwina may very well have secular sympathies, but she is not cut out to represent us, the board through any standard of vetting should have realised this. They must assume responsibility for their choices, and ultimately resign, or they can be the faceless cowards without principle and hope this all goes away so they can hold onto their VIP pass.
astrosmash
May 8, 2012 at 4:37 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Begin count down for when they need to admit they fucked up…3..2..1
astrosmash
May 8, 2012 at 4:46 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Maybe this is a study in how buracracies liquefy themselves…
how organizational prowess thins effectiveness. The power of OWS was in it’s unidentifiable source leadership…If it gets too big, someone will claim to be the one head that is easily severed
astrosmash
May 8, 2012 at 5:04 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
We still need to know…Who made this fucking decision and why! That’s all. There is no going forward until this is answered. Answer this or resign. Nothing else is of interest in this conversation until the SCA tells us why they made this decision. We can all continue to counter her points, but the blame rests squarely on the SCA. Rogers didn’t just show up and declare leadership. someone or someones gave her this job. Who the fuck are you goddammit. Pony up or face mass exodus.
Eric RoM
May 8, 2012 at 5:15 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
JFC, if you outlawed “well” and “you know”, neither of them could speak.
Epistaxis
May 8, 2012 at 9:08 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
tl;dr
Edwina: “You can’t stereotype everyone who supports a certain party.”
Atheists: “Yes we can!”
eigenperson
May 8, 2012 at 9:26 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Her answers to the AMA are not THAT bad in general, although they are pretty bad when it comes to her refusal to see the fact that Republican politicians are universally opposed to secularism, as reflected in their votes. Other than that she’s saying most of the right things
However, all the answers ring hollow when viewed in the following context:
1. She DONATED MONEY to Rick Perry’s campaign. What the fuck. That basically proves she is the furthest thing imaginable from a committed secularist.
2. She has worked for Republicans for years without uttering a peep on any of these issues that she is supposedly committed to, or influencing their policy for the better in any apparent way.
3. She is clearly ignorant or lying on the matter of Republicans’ opinions on many issues, most notably gay marriage and abortion.
So basically I think she is slimy and is lying through her teeth.
kendermouse
May 8, 2012 at 9:31 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
What? After reading the interview, I cannot even begin to understand how this woman was appointed. She believes republicans are in favor of separation of church and state? She’s either lying through her teeth, or is the most ignorant person regarding american politics, ever.
TooManyJens
May 8, 2012 at 10:14 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
More like:
Rogers: I know some pro-gay Republicans, so you can’t say that just because polling shows that most Republicans are anti-gay rights and they have opposition to gay rights in their platform and they introduce anti-gay legislation, the Republican Party is an anti-gay party.
Atheists: Actually, yes. Yes we can.
The Secular One
May 9, 2012 at 4:25 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yeah, that question and answer session was one of the most disappointing I’ve ever seen. That is not the type of person we, as atheists and agnostics, want representing us to any party. She’s seemingly ignorant of the stances her own party takes on issues, and was apparently unable to effect any useful change within the Republican Party while there.
I’m okay with her being more of the diplomat type, but I’d like to see someone with more of a history in the movement and in government. Simply donating to Planned Parenthood isn’t a huge deal. Additionally, if you are going to do a question and answer thing…how about you actually answer the questions???
We are atheists, used to having theists dodge the questions that are uncomfortable to them. We can see it a mile away. You try that crap with us, and we know you are full of it. It will not do to lie or dodge around difficult issues with atheists and agnostics.
Bastet
May 9, 2012 at 6:03 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Maybe with Edwina at the helm of SCA, we will start seeing more and more of Sean Faircloth speaking out on the issues that do concern atheists, humanists, and secularists. So glad he landed at the Richard Dawkins Foundation after SCA gave him the boot. Guess he was not Republican enough for them.
Sean we need you!!!
McSkeptic
May 9, 2012 at 8:00 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Western Conservation is firmly rooted in Christianity, the US movement conservatives especially so. The Republican Party is the party of movement conservatives; Rogers is a member of the Republican Party. Her political views and/or her stated personal beliefs (or lack of) are mutually exclusive and, in my opinion, simply expediencies for her personal gain.
McSkeptic
May 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
oops… meant Western Conservatism not Western Conservation.
Eliott
May 10, 2012 at 12:37 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
She is in the job and nothing to be done about that now but I really don’t think it matters. The SCA has been mostly irrelevant for some period of time. Turnover and executive time in positions, is a huge indicator of the operation of an organization in general. When people continuously leave as happened here for whtever reason it shows a dysfunction at the highest level, in this case I would site the board. And when there is some member fallout, that also is an indicator. Regardless, if the member organizations that Edwina now represents are comfortable with her, then that speaks to their acceptance of her as someone they believe can do the job and are comfortable with. If not, they should speak out or quit or realign the coalition. After all, we are stuck with Edwina but that doesn’t mean there can’t be a shift in the coalition paradigm.
moralnihilist
May 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Hey guys, I’ve just been appointed as the Executive Director of AIPAC. I’m a proud, life-long member of the National Socialist German Workers (NAZI) Party. Now, I know what some of you may be thinking. ‘Why is a Nazi working for Jews?’ You see, most Nazi’s actually LOVE Jews! According to these statistics I think I saw 18 years ago, over 70% of Nazis have NO PROBLEM WITH JEWS whatsoever! So, because not every single Nazi in the world has a problem with Jews, it is wrong to stereotype all Nazis as anti-semites based on the actions of the leaders, such as rounding up all Jews and shipping them off to gas chambers. That was just the actions of a few! You needn’t worry about me! How dare you assume I’m that way just because I donated $1,000 to Adolf Hitler’s political campaign!”
Epistaxis
May 10, 2012 at 1:18 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Godwin!
pramod
May 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Looks like you all are out to get her. She’s not going to succeed if this keeps up.
'Tis Himself
May 10, 2012 at 3:22 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Some of us have some serious doubts about her suitability for the job.
Lurker
May 15, 2012 at 5:33 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The Society for Creative Anachronism would like its acronym back please.