I have enough respect for female anatomy to know that I will regret this statement, but the author of this article is one moronic cunt.
First of all, regarding her criticism of Silverman’s statements about the Christian/Religious right attempting to christianize the USA. Has she seen the popular Republican candidates during the last few elections? How would she describe them? Nonreligious? Moderately Religious? Willing to consider upholding a secular constitution? Or the type of people that hold prayer rallies (Rick Perry), say that they would not recognize a separation between church and state (Rick Santorum), and say that the wars of their nation are divinely guided(George Bush)? I swear, if any one of them were in the Middle East, Fox news would be calling them terrorists on a regular basis.
Regarding her statement
“It seems, in fact, that the very thing that irks today’s atheists about religious people is that they have a strong, unifying vision of good society and that they are willing to live by it, well, religiously.”
I have no qualms if they, or any other group, has a unified vision of what they regard as a good society. What upsets me is what they regard as a good society. One in which
– criticism and attempts at outreach to likeminded individuals who hold ideas contrary to their position, no matter how mild is not permitted, either by the taking down of signs or by deterrence through fear, while signs saying “God Hates Fags” are permitted. If the criticism is not permitted, then neither should be the target of that criticism.
– the science textbook becomes the first chapter of the bible, and everything summarized as “God said it, and I believe it. I will reject any evidence contrary to that, no matter how valid or well supported.
– abstinence only sex education is the norm.
scares the now rather odorous contents of my colon into the back of my pants and the contents of my stomach out through an involuntary protein spill.
Now I know a lot of religious people wouldn’t support most of that. The problem is, there aren’t many who would fight against it. So it’s the shrill assholes like myself who grew up with that shit who speak out against it, criticize it, and do what we can to make sure that it isn’t a reality, if at all possible.
Regarding her statement that
“But those of us interested in advancing a human-centred vision of the future would do better focusing on important things like wealth creation, liberty, scientific advancement and creating great art. With these things comes enlightenment.”
Then allow me to point out. The primary obstacle to liberty, such as reproductive rights, has been religion. Consider the recent bit when a bill went through, permitting religious employers to decide that their health coverage would not cover things such as abortions, but permitted employees of those employers to go to the company itself to obtain coverage. What did the employers say? No, we won’t have it. If we say no, there is no way they’ll get it. We’ll scream religious persecution if you do not give us what we want. How much further should I go? Preventing and opposing equal rights in the United States? That one alone could fill up an encyclopedia with examples of how religion was used to support inequality.
The primary obstacle to scientific development, will always be religion. Be it through wanting to keep its followers intentionally ignorant, or by trying to extend that ignorance to others through the take over of education boards and attempts to pass bills pushing “creation science” into the science classroom. And the only great art to come from religion was done so at the expense of free expression.
While I do agree that anybody wishing to enlighten others would have to work on those things, making sure that the biggest obstacle to all of them is weakened, by means of removing its influence from government, and from the education boards, is going to make it easier. And religious people will be fighting, kicking, and screaming all the way out.
Regarding the statement
“atheists are not being persecuted for denying the existence of God”
Pardon me? Have you seen the buckle of the bible belt? Has she heard of how many people have been disowned by their families? Has she heard of how many people have lost their jobs only because they told somebody they were an atheist? Does she know of how many children will tell the children of atheists “You’re going to hell”? I know of people who’ve gone through each of these, and quite frankly, about the only reason you don’t see that much is for the same reason you don’t see many signs of oppression of gay people prior to Stonewall (although, I will point out it was illegal, something that I know some christians would have no problems with outlawing again, just as they’d have no problem without making atheism illegal). They were silent. Now, we’re, for the most part, silent. Most remain silent because having the nerve to say that you aren’t “sane” enough to believe that the ills of the world began when a talking snake got the first woman to eat some fruit, who then convinced the only other living person at the time is considered offensive to some people.
Honestly, if the author was anything resembling a reporter, she would’ve contemplated asking those who are involved, are presenting, and being presented as reasons to come, things such as “What is the purpose behind it?” “Can you cite any examples of the things you provide as reasons for the rally?” Basic stuff like that.
Posted as a comment response to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathalie-rothschild/why-the-reason-rally-isnt_b_1320748.html