Very good point. The evangelicals have co-opted the term "Christian," and few mainstream Christians will speak against them, just as few Muslims will take a stand against Islamic extremists. Aside from God belief, American atheists and agnostics probably have more in common with mainstream believers than evangelicals do. Many evangelicals would like to encode Christian beliefs (their own, of course) as the law, apparently not realizing that without American separation of church and state, a radical idea in 1776, their particular sect might well be illegal. They like to cite Massachusetts Puritans as founding fathers, but they should know that a Baptist, a Quaker, or a Catholic might well have been flogged through the streets of Puritan Boston. Mainstream believers, I think, prefer democracy to theocracy.

The affectation of neutrality is a real danger because it does confer legitimacy on extreme or wacky positions. Manipulation of the media's desires to appear neutral helps to create a sort of manufactured controversy where no real controversy exists. It also fuels anti-intellectualism when semi-literate zealots get equal time with eminent scholars.

I once asked a world lit class to try to put their religion on the back burner long enough to read Genesis with fresh eyes. One student said, "You can't ask us to do that. We might be offended." I answered, "Prepare to be offended."

People are indoctrinated in childhood; here in the Bible Belt, many people base not only their faith but their social lives and the education of their children on the church. They watch Christian TV, listen to Christian radio, get all their news from Christian broadcasts, etc. It would never occur to them that their beliefs might be false.

Many people I know ask the same question as in the original post. I say that if a believer can set aside whether or not his or her beliefs are true for the sake of argument, maybe he or she could set that question aside when considering social issues. It's a bit of a twist on Pascal's Wager. What if you're wrong about ___________ (fill in the blank)? What if your "truth" comes from man instead of God? How many people have been imprisoned, tortured, killed, etc. because they didn't believe your particular "truth"? Can you set your "truth" aside when it threatens a group of people? Can you value people--even those of another faith, philosophy, gender, or sexual orientation--above the thirst for blood demanded by an old book?

I think it was Voltaire who said that "a man must put a high price on his conjectures to burn another man alive." It's all conjecture. But the shattered lives and the death camps and the corpses are real.

Why would Texas buy more books than New York or California?

Of course, the public smackdown would include videotape of the alleged incident? So the downsmackers wouldn't be sued for their last shekel? How does anyone demonstrate that a sexual harasser is aware of doing it? I'm 100% against sexual harassment, but it's awfully hard to prove, and it probably should be proven before the naming of names begins.

"Adjunct professor" is a fancy name for "part-time teacher," otherwise known as slave labor. Adjuncts are often very poorly paid and not offered benefits. They are not eligible for tenure, and in a right to work state such as Texas, have no job protection at all. It's a sad comment on academia that colleges and universities all over the country exploit adjuncts, but it's cheaper than hiring people for tenure track positions.

I'm no worshiper of heroes, but I am glad we have some atheist "headliners," particularly Richard Dawkins because he is always, informed, clear, courteous and firm in his public debates. His books are clear and informative; they help me to understand complex science so that when I am questioned about atheism vs. religion, I can respond with solid information. I can't think of any areas in which I disagree with Dawkins--of course, I know nothing of his politics or other attidudes. Sam Harris's "End of Faith" was a terrific book, as was Hitchens' "God is Not Great." Harris and Hitchens, though, I have some quibbles with. Hitch supported the Iraq war and hated Bill Clinton. As far as I am concerned, the Iraq war is unjustified and criminal. Clinton had his problems, but our other choice was four more years of Bush 41. Penn Jillette, IIRC, is a libertarian, which I think is downright dangerous.

I admire all of these men, as I admire Dan Dennett, Ellen Johnson, Barry Lynn, PZ Meyers, the late Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and many other well known atheists. But admiration is not worship. I wish I had Hitch's acerbic, spot on wit, Dawkins' tenured bully pulpit, and O'Hair's guts. But it would be silly to worship a human being--unless we're talking about Shakira.

For myself, I teach at a small state college in the deep south. Nearly all of the administrators, faculty, staff, and students there are Baptist fanatics, with a few Pentecostals here and there. Hardly any accept the theory of evolution, and I seriously think that their religion prevents them from thinking critically about most issues. I do my bit, mostly by being honest about my own lack of faith, and I find that students are often curious about it because I am the only atheist they know. I take part in debates and panel discussions, despite the fact that our college president is the most fanatical Baptist of them all. I expect most of us do what we can where we are. Still, we need the headliners to stand up publicly to the religious right and the media bullies at Fox. I reach 25 or 30 students at a time; Dawkins reaches millions.

I seem to remember reading that "nones" (those who did not state a religious affiliation in the last census) are about 16% of the population, so it's unlikely that actual atheists will find many groups that accurately reflect our values, and those we do find will be too small to have much political influence. However, the LGBT community is probably about 15% of the population, the feminist movement larger than that, and other mostly progressive groups would add to the total. Each group has signature issues. Wouldn't it be possible for these three groups to agree on, say, abortion rights? Gay rights? Separation of church and state? The problem we all face is the rise of fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity, which has co-opted the term "Christian" and now seems to think it speaks for all Christians. Few politicians are likely to take any position that can be construed as anti-Christian--and the fundamentalist/evangelical True Believers have gotten very good in the last 2,000 years at playing the persecution card. Major progressive groups could agree on major issues, I think; after all, the True Believers are about control, and progressives are about choice. So why not?

The split started in the late 19th century. Some churches moved to a symbolic reading of the Bible because science made a literal reading untenable. There was a huge backlash, and voila: fundamentalism.

I don't remember any adults even using the word Christian when I was young. The spread of evangelicalism allowed evangelicals and fundamentalism to usurp the word, and its leaders seem to think they speak for all Christians.

I disagree with other atheists in some areas, but the only one that matters for atheists is god belief. I don't have any.