This post is actually the body of a comment I left at the Christianity Today post titled Tom Hanks: Pawn of Satan? It is a long comment and I did not want to bore those not interested.
No one wants to persecute you (at least not really, as far as I can see), all we atheists want is for the holier-than-thou to mind their own business. If, on the other hand, you are so arrogant or uneducated as to think that disagreement is persecution, well, there’s nothing I can say to you. So, let’s examine this holier-than-thou thing.
I, as a humanist want to have your leaders make public health pronouncements which are based on proven, common sense practices and not ideology. To not orchestrate campaigns which lower the science standards in this country because they conflict with your ideologies, especially at a time when we need them most. It does not make us stronger when our child mortality rate is at number 33, right between New Caledonia and Croatia, when it used to be the one of the lowest in the world.
To not automatically overreact with calls for blasphemy or heresy laws when being criticized. People poke fun at other people, their ideas and their totems. People write fiction based on almost anything. People criticize and ridicule almost every topic imaginable. That's the point of free speech. The religious do not have any special right to circumvent that and your psyches are no more fragile than the next person’s.
To not set up litmus tests for ideology, such as state laws mandating that an atheist may not run for elected office. To not set up state sponsored religions. To not undermine the separation of church and state (I know you must realize that it is in place to protect you more than to protect me, or are you really looking forward to bringing something like the internecine fighting in Northern Ireland to the US?).
To not deny basic human rights to anyone based on any arbitrary criteria. Just because you believe something does not mean you have the right to expect that everyone else has to believe in the same thing or be coerced into a behaviour which is in keeping with your belief. No, can't have.
To not influence people to risk their own death based on a promise of some half baked eternal life. Life is here and now, there is no extra at the end. That makes people’s lives very precious, since there is no extra at the end; that is the basis for good morality; that is the basis for the Golden Rule. True "Good" does not come because a sky-cop is watching you and taking notes. Good behaviour is not the same thing as not getting caught.
I criticized Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter... all the way to Obama. I have criticized the pope and I especially have no respect for the current papal office holder. I can stick a pin, a nail or anything else into any cracker I choose. I have the right do that and you all have every right to be upset, but you do not have the right or any special privilege to make ad hominem attacks, to legislate rights away or to threaten physical violence and neither do I.
To bring it back to my original post, luckily for all of us (including the health and welfare of your children and your children's children) the wider audience sees the same thing and the influence of religion and its ideas is waning more and more and faster and faster. 500 years ago I may have been put to death, 200 years ago I may have been jailed, 50 years ago I may have been shunned, today we are an active, vocal and growing group and we may actually see an end to superstition and magic. Tomorrow...
Note, to those who feel like they are being persecuted by me, no one is saying you can't be religious or can't believe in your god of choice. Just as much as we don’t want to do what you want, I understand you don’t want to do what we want. It is simply that this is not the 16th century anymore and your religions are not magically born into privilege.
There is only one place where, for me, religious rights end, and that is when religious ideology affects the health of another human being. I am specifically talking about people who do not "believe" in medicine. The state must intervene when the proven efficacy of medicine can prevent harm to people in their care. They have the right to kill themselves off if they wish, but absolutely no right to kill someone else off.
In conclusion, you and I are not really all that different in our hopes and dreams because I am an idealist too. To borrow from John Lennon, just imagine if all the money and energy spent on piety and propping up the symbols of religion were channelled directly into helping your fellow human being. Just imagine if all the wealth locked up in a place like the Vatican City were released directly to raise the standard of living of people around the world. Just imagine if people respected people for who they are not for what they believe. That is the world I want for all of us and our children.
To put it another way, and be honest with yourself, ever since the first human rubbed two sticks together to make fire a whole long pantheon of gods has existed and not one has significantly improved the world’s condition and not one has avoided bringing misery to people. Now it is time for humanists to try.
