QUOTE
Of the moral systems that protect individuals, one is concerned with preventing harm to the person and the other with reciprocity and fairness. Less familiar are the three systems that promote behaviors developed for strengthening the group. These are loyalty to the in-group, respect for authority and hierarchy, and a sense of purity or sanctity.
UNQUOTE
Dr. Haidt, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/science/18mora.html?8dpc

Part of the problem that atheists run into is their very "beleif" structure is weaker than theists because they do not have this respect for an 'ultimate authority' or existing hierarchy, nor do they have a sense of purity or sanctity because there isn't one imposed on them by a religious beleif structure.

Judas--You and people like you, are the reason non believers don't believe. You instill more fear in me than any terrorist anywhere. It is exactly that kind of bizzar belief, that drives people to commit bizzar acts.

I think the attitude presented in this article perpetuates what I, as an atheist, don't want to see, and that's political activism motivated by a particular position regarding religion, or in this case, lack thereof. Atheism has no more place in politics than religion does.

The entire rationale for secularism is neutrality towards religious positions. The author comments that people equate secularism with non-belief, but by calling for atheist politics, perpetuates that perception. As an atheist I would like to feel represented in government, but that doesn't mean I feel entitled to laws that favor my position with respect to religion. I simply want my position respected.

As long as we keep viewing politics through the lens of believer versus non-believer we will never achieve a representative government that's fair to all, believer and non-believer alike. The only truly important stance our elected officials must be held to is a complete understanding and embrace of secularism, as neutrality, not as a euphemism for non-belief. I passionately hate that politicians pander to religion, and to do so I must also accept that I shouldn't be pandered to as an atheist. I should be represented as someone fully entitled to equal and equitable treatment under the law. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As a true believing atheist I point out that the very nature of those like myself is that we are exceptionally wary of organizations and movements in general. It is hard for me to imagine any atheist organization that would attract me. So far, most of those I have read are kooks, like Madeline Murray. The only conclusion I can recommend for your search for meaning in this is to avoid categorizing us. Some of us are deeply conservative in some ways, extremely radical in others. And many simply don't want to argue about it. It is an interesting subject though.
Nels Jonnes

I would like to second the author's motion that there are plenty of secularist believers in this country and I am one of them. If I had to classify myself (which I don't like to do), I would say that faith wise, I am closest to evangelical believers. However, I am a total supporter of separation of church and state. And many in my non denominational church feel the same way.
I have many religious reasons for being secularist, namely the admonition of Jesus that His Kingdom is not of this world, and that faith has to be a complete act of free will and should never be imposed. But I also have a practical perspective on this. I am originally from the middle east, where christians are the minority religion, and where muslims are growing less and less tolerant of any and all minority religions. I know what it is like to just want to be left alone and to worry about the tyranny of the majority.

Its important to understand the need of religious persons to congregate. Religious belief is founded on the principle "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes Truth". Congregating once a week repeats the lies over and over and over again, in a contained intellectual vaccuum. They close themselves off from reality when they enter a church, synagogue, temple, or mosque.

Atheism isn't about Truth, its about Reality. Its experienced as a part of the world outside of an enclosed place of worship. Understanding isn't gained through regimented conditioning and verbal repetition, but through personal experience and derived insight.

The reason there is no monolithic atheist/agnostic organization is that we don't particularly feel compelled to impose our individual insights on each other. We achieve understanding and insight at our own pace, to the extent of our own capabilities. There's not a lot of conformity among our beliefs, and there's still plenty of room for life's mysteries.

I am a Unitarian Universalist and we have 2 churches in our town. There are atheists in both congregations - so the idea that atheists do not believe in anything or congregate is not true. Most of them believe in social justice, in peace, in equality and in fairness. They do vote! Atheism does not mean they have no belief - it just means they don't believe in a GOD.
By the way, Judas - these people are living fulfilled lives and they are socially conscious. What they do is because caring for others is the right thing to do - not because of a belief that if they don't they won't go to heaven, or because God told them to. It is because their conscious tells them that this must be done. I even sleep with one of those atheists every night and he was raised UU. I have noticed no smoke, no fires of hell from his orfices. His eyes are always in his head and he is one of the most caring, generous guys you would ever meet. He thinks of others before himself and would never fail to lend a hand. Isn't that what Jesus taught?

I am an atheist and I believe that the "lack of congregation" of those like me is a strength. We do not need to gather to strengthen our unbelief, recite creeds of unbelief, or convince each other that really, truly we are right. If I felt the need for political representation *as an atheist*, I suppose this decentralization would be a problem, but I do not and I suspect many other atheists do not either. I vote for politicians that I believe will take action on issues I care about, regardless of their personal beliefs. If those politicians tell themselves stories about a magical afterlife for which they have no proof - good for them. We all comfort ourselves in the face of our mortality in different ways. I tell myself that I am passing on bits of me to my nearest and dearest and these will carry on after I am gone. There is no more or less proof of this than there is of Krishna or Christ. Like everyone, I hate being told that I must believe what others believe, and the obvioust flipside of this is that I don't tell others not to believe what they do believe. Thus, atheist political action makes little or no sense to me, aside perhaps from pushing back against religious political activism, though atheists should well be joined by believing and non-believing citizens of all types in this endeavor.

Jacques Berlinerblau wrote: "Nonbelief is in a state of complete political disrepair. It lacks everything from effective and recognizable leadership to grass roots infrastructure."

This assumes it has a political agenda or politics to be repaired. Non-believers have never been an organized political group nor do they need to be, in America, where the constitution protects their rights and freedom to not believe. If that ever changed, and non-belief were outlawed, you might see some politics being organized by non-believers, but in America today there is no need based on non-belief as a issue.

Jacques Berlinerblau wrote: "In terms of size (i.e., votes) it is dwarfed by the ranks of believing secularists (not to mention believing non-secularists)."

Very true. But you start out with this notion that non-believers have a political agenda. I think that is a very flawed assumption. It lumps the politics of all non-believers into a single political viewpoint where there is no single viewpoint. Non-believers are just as varied in their politics as believers, from far left to far right. There are even non-believers who consider religion to be essential for the stability of society and so favor such things as prayer in school and some are even against abortion on moral rather than religious grounds. These are rare viewpoints within the non-beleiving community but goes to show that non-believers are not the single minded group of people you stereotype them to be. And this diversity, which is echoed by the larger body of America, is why non-believers will never become a single political force.

Excellent post, Dr. Berlinerblau. As a representative of that group equivalent to that "aging, unsightly matriarch", I am continually frustrated in the political realm; my only choices are which "believing secularists" to choose from.

Atheists will remain America's most untrusted minority as long as our profile is written by others. Perhaps a "MoveOn" for atheists is one answer. However, it is difficult to discuss in the public realm, as our central tenet (there is no god nor gods) threatens what many perceive as their existential foundation.