Sure, I don't particularly care what some religious cleric thinks of me. But I'd like to point out that, on the whole, atheists are looked down upon and seen as being deficient in some way.
Because I am a university mathematics professor, I am shielded from much of this; many (if not most) of my friends are themselves atheists.
I'd also like to point out that 93 percent of the National Academy of Science members(the elite scientists in the United States) are either atheist or agnostic.
More below the fold
So, I admit that I was a bit amused when my attention was called to this:
Here is the text of the key passage:
"It is a diminshment of what it is to be human, in the sense I believe humanity is directed, [because?] made by god, I think if you leave that out, you're not fully human"
Got that? Either embrace superstition, or fall short of being human. :-)
For some reason, this reminds me of this cartoon:
On a somewhat related topic, there has been a buzz on the science blogs about how accommodating scientists should be when it comes to saying stuff like "there is no conflict between religious beliefs and science", etc.
You'll see a discussion of that here (one example: evolutionary theory seems to imply that human evolution was NOT inevitable; this seems to directly contradict the belief that there is some benevolent deity that deliberately created humans)
I'd like to recommend this essay on accommodation:
Evolution makes a mockery of the Biblical account, exacerbates the problem of evil, kills the argument from design, and reduces the status of human beings. Very clever people constrained only by their imaginations have concocted arguments in reply to these points. They have yet to come up with anything remotely convincing, however, and we should not be surprised that so many people see an obvious conflict.
It is flatly wrong to claim that it is only Biblical literalists who have a problem with evolution, or that the vast majority of religious denominations have made their peace with it. Biblical literalists are thin on the ground at the ID conferences I have attended. Many of them loathe the literalists for having made anti-evolutionism seem so benighted. I simply know too many people who are deeply skeptical of evolution but have no use for Christian fundamentalism or evangelicalism. [...]
Accommodation and outreach is fine as a short-term political strategy, but it’s a loser in the long-term. If the idea is that we’ll keep putting Ken Miller and Francis Collins out there, people will be persuaded to accept more liberal sorts of religion, and then this problem will simply go away, then I think we are following a very bad idea indeed. The only long term solution is to create a society where traditional forms of religion are far more marginalized than they currently are.
What does this have to with politics?
This video shows what a hold that superstition has on the mindset of the mainstream public; people (on the whole) simply aren't going to accept a leader that doesn't at least give a passing nod to the current myths and superstitions. Hence I am more than willing to swallow my tongue when President Obama gives a nod to prayer day, reaches out to a minister, etc.
At the same time, I will continue to support outspoken atheistic scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne and will continue to speak out against letting superstition guide policy decisions.
I will continue to point out that it is scientific advances that are driving up longevity and driving down disease; NONE of it is due to some meddling deity.
One note If you are one of those who uses religion as a way to increase your own mental and emotional health, I am NOT talking about you. Heck, I find that meditation calms my mind and yoga relaxes my back. :-)