Yes, one more posting on ARationalBeing's There Is No God (And You Know It)(10/6). First, I do defend ARationalBeing for posting a blog atheism, something we would not normally hear about. That said, atheism isn't so important in politics most of the time. Now, I promise I've got something new to say. After hundreds of posts sparring over the issues of atheism, agnosticism and the non/existence of G/god(s), it's important to recognize our common ground. I think it also answers the question so many asked -- why was this on D. Kos, much less in the Recommended List? Despite the colloquy, it's still clear we (atheists, agnostics, theists, etc.) agree on an awful lot.
While beliefs about the fundamental nature/origin of the universe as we know it are bound to be deeply felt, these are pretty arcane points. But the relevance -- political relevance -- is this: ARationalBeing's post is not just about allowing atheists to assert themselves (I am a lifelong atheist -- more on that later). It also suggests an important question: how we all (everyone on the blog) reassert a common view distinct from conservative/rightist evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity?
Were we to run for office, our opponents might well call the DKos liberal Catholics, Deists, Unitarian Universalists, Christian spiritualists and others "CINOs" (Christians in Name Only) -- poseurs. The non-Christian religious might be tolerated, but only tolerated. Agnostics would be viewed as wholly suspect, and us atheists would basically qualify as a wacko cult. Bigotry. That's what we're all up against on the national stage to one degree or another.
Another comment I saw a bit on ARationalBeing's post: "I am a... but I don't have a desire to attend church." Also "I have faith, but not religion." These ideas don't play too well on the national stage either. In recent years, the country has been told to revere not only religion but religiosity. Public Displays of Religion are in vogue once again in politics. And anyone who's not comfortable with PDRs better either fake it or get ready for their political opponent to make some hay. But again, that's bigotry, which we Americans like to say we've overcome -- so why should we tolerate intolerance?
Although I am a lifelong atheist (and a secular humanist), I realize I am part of a predominantly Christian culture (maybe "culture derived from Christianity" is more accurate). I know my beliefs and traditions come in significant part from Christianity. My family has always celebrated Christmas, for example. Secular humanism, at least in a western sense, has its earliest roots in religious humanism. I am thinking in particular of the medieval Catholic Church's extensive writings about people's duty to help other people. While that sounds almost like humanitarianism, it is the focus on the obvious interdependency of humans that draws me (as it did my mother) to the idea of humanism in addition to atheism. I very much agree with the philosophy, just not the teleology behind it that posits G/god(s). But enough about teleology, back to politics.
My family joined Jesse Jackson's campaign in 1988 (after nearly doing that in 1984) and went to the Democratic National Convention as Jackson delegates because we were attracted to Rev. Jackson's message (and his credibility as a candidate at the time), obviously not because he was a preacher. We all had a clear sense that we shared a vision of social justice, so the religious differences between us all just didn't matter. But that was the 1980s, when theocrats were still near the fringe. At the time Jackson supporters didn't need to declare themselves a coalition of the religious and the non-religious, but today we may need that coalition, especially if our candidate isn't clearly "right-thinking," and therefore of dubious morality in the view of the theocrats and the mushy middle that tolerates this bigotry.
A "libertarian coalition" might help both to strengthen the political clout of moderate/liberal/progressive religious groups vs. the well-organized and well-financed religious right and give some voice to the non-religious, whose numbers are not insignificant.
We can all get pissed at each other about what's fact/logic and what's not. But then we can let it go. What should set us all apart from "the other side" (why we all like to read DKos) is that we can disagree about something like the non/?/existence of supernatural beings and still see that coming together to oppose religious bigotry and arrogant moralism is an easy decision.