= new reply since forum marked as read
an increase in insults between the religious.
The example the writer uses is of an increase in conflict between the religious and irreligious. He is talking about fundamentalists, both believers and non-believers.
And then makes the case for separation of church and state.
In the end, I'm not sure what his point is.
It lays down the line between those who would use politics and legislative fiat to impose their religious beliefs on others, and an increasingly outspoken group of non-believers who are sick and tired by being marginalized, and who see clearly how some within a theistic majority choose to use that power. We are willing to reach out to the liberal theists, but they seem to be afraid to associate with us apparently unclean heathens. There have been a few out reaches, but there have been far too few.
I don't give a damn what people believe. But organized religion's grip on power has to end, the sooner, the better for everybody, both for those who believe -- no matter what their religious sect -- and for those who do not.
I do not know a single prominent atheist who thinks that religion could be eliminated. And if believers are insulted by non-believers being outspoken, that's just too fucking bad. (They almost never fail to play the persecution card, in spite of the fact that they have an overwhelming majority.) They may as well get used to our voices because non-believers have had enough. We're not going to stop. Plus, in the USA we have a First Amendment and the history behind its adoption behind us.
I am encouraged by some of what I've seen from liberal believers, but it is not nearly enough, IMHO. More outreach is needed by both sides. There are those who are working this. But if liberal believers choose not to join in the fight, we'll just have to go on without their assistance. And we will.
If that makes me a fundamentalist atheist -- nearly always trotted out by those who do not understand our movement -- so be it. I'll wear that badge with honor. But believers will never hear me knocking on their doors in the morning with atheist leaflets. Well, maybe just a plea to get out and vote.
Sorry for the rant, my friend. But I disagree with certain characterizations. As you already know.
to associate with "unclean heathens"? I see quite the opposite. There seems to be a growth of "interfaith" coalitions that include the religious and non-relgious. We may need a new word, though, because interfaith includes the idea of faith, and that is exclusionary on it's face.
You know that I agree with you about the power that religious groups have exerted over government and public policy. But I see that beginning to wane as well.
Richard Dawkins proudly wears a t-shirt that says "Religion - Together We can Find the Cure". How you can not see that as an endorsement of the elimination of religion, I don't know.
I totally agree about outreach being needed from both sides and am saddened when I see efforts being rejected by some groups. I see the most activity among the young and in campus groups.
You are not a fundamentalist atheist, longship. Far from it. You have a strong position and you defend it, but I've never seen you say that other positions are invalid or that they suffer from some kind of disease.
That was a bit of deliberate hyperbole with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Should have included a 
My apologies.
But many mainline liberal churches do not seem to be pulling their load. Maybe it's difficult for them because by their nature they eschew political involvement. I wish there was a solution to that.
Re: Dawkins. You are mischaracterizing his position based on a T-shirt. He has spoken at length on the subject many times. Yes, he wishes a world without religion. (As do I.) However, no atheist I know of believes that to be a realistic goal. And Dawkins, above all, should understand that. He does understand it, and has said so so many times that to deny it would be perverse. He was the originator of the meme. And if religion is not a meme, nothing is.
I have written of this before here, but will include it again for others. I know you are aware of it.
The concept is as Dennett has stated it -- a topic to which Dawkins has written and spoken many times. Atheists do not want to eliminate religion. We want it to evolve into an avirulent form. One that does not kill the host.
Dawkins' T-shirt might be interpreted as that "treatment". As a biologist he is acutely aware of what it means. Others may not be and will misinterpret it. Alas, Richard sometimes says and does things that can be misinterpreted. If one wants to know what he thinks, one has to read his more introspective and well thought out writing. Some of us need editors. He's a biologist, not a journalist. (Damn it Jim! )
Always enjoy the discussion, good buddy. I hope things are going well south of the border. Send up some warmth.
get involved. But I think the more liberal/progressive congregations are coming back strong and I haven't seen any reluctance on their part to build collations with other religious groups and non-religious groups.
Your argument for avirulence has merit, imo. That may mean nurturing the good while trying the suppress the bad. Evolution involves better adaption to one's environment, so rewarding that which is good may be a critical part of the process.
And that may mean stopping the attack on the good people within religion. One could start by not calling them delusional.
It's beautiful down here, longship. I just ran my christmas lights along the rails and up some of the lines. Can't wait for dark!
Stay warm.
So you'll have settle for sandy beaches. Tough life, eh? 
A couple of my dear friends are on their way to Cozumel for the winter. I will be missing them.
Just keep the keel down and I hope your sails are always full.
I look forward to seeing you again.