If you don't know Lawrence Krauss, he's a physicist who, shall we say strongly, believes in a the separation between science and religion, and religion and government. If you've watched anything about cosmology on the science channel or PBS you've probably seen him.
When I see interviews with him and he starts talking about religion, I sometimes cringe as I imagine religious people praying for their deity to strike down the infidel lest he get them to actually think about their faith. Well yesterday he published a real nice article in the New Yorker entitled
All Scientists Should be Militant Atheists
Here are some excerpts from the article:
... imagine an Islamic-fundamentalist county clerk who would not let unmarried men and women enter the courthouse together, or grant marriage licenses to unveiled women. For Rand Paul, what separates these cases from Kim Davis’s? The biggest difference, I suspect, is that Senator Paul agrees with Kim Davis’s religious views but disagrees with those of the hypothetical Islamic fundamentalist.
I find this to be the strongest argument in the Kim Davis circus. In fact, almost every time we see christian fundamentalists screaming that THEY are the ones being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, whether it's biblical monuments on courthouse property or Christmas trees on city or county property, it always boils down to, I want my true religion to hold a special status in society, but nobody elses.
My crazy fundamentalist friend does not consider Catholics, christian. In fact, he really dislikes Catholics and I have no doubt that if he were a county clerk he would deny all kinds of licences to Catholics.
... The Kim Davis controversy exists because, as a culture, we have elevated respect for religious sensibilities to an inappropriate level that makes society less free, not more. Religious liberty should mean that no set of religious ideals are treated differently from other ideals....
in science, of course, the very word “sacred” is profane. No ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass. The notion that some idea or concept is beyond question or attack is anathema to the entire scientific undertaking. This commitment to open questioning is deeply tied to the fact that science is an atheistic enterprise. “My practice as a scientist is atheistic,” the biologist J.B.S. Haldane wrote, in 1934. “That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career.”
...
Astronomers have no problem ridiculing the claims of astrologists, even though a significant fraction of the public believes these claims. Doctors have no problem condemning the actions of anti-vaccine activists who endanger children. And yet, for reasons of decorum, many scientists worry that ridiculing certain religious claims alienates the public from science. When they do so, they are being condescending at best and hypocritical at worst....
Ultimately, when we hesitate to openly question beliefs because we don’t want to risk offense, questioning itself becomes taboo. It is here that the imperative for scientists to speak out seems to me to be most urgent. As a result of speaking out on issues of science and religion, I have heard from many young people about the shame and ostracism they experience after merely questioning their family’s faith. Sometimes, they find themselves denied rights and privileges because their actions confront the faith of others. Scientists need to be prepared to demonstrate by example that questioning perceived truth, especially “sacred truth,” is an essential part of living in a free country.
...
Whenever scientific claims are presented as unquestionable, they undermine science. Similarly, when religious actions or claims about sanctity can be made with impunity in our society, we undermine the very basis of modern secular democracy.
If you watched that absurd display yesterday when they released Davis, you probably noticed that most of the people in the crowd were somewhat elderly. The potentially good thing about this is that when you shine a light on absurdity, many young people who have not yet lost the ability to reason, may see the threat that religious fundamentalism poses to their future and their very freedom.