I was disappointed in this segment, and somewhat angered by it.

Hemant, I’ve disagreed with you in the past about how far atheists ought to go in our depiction of ourselves. I see no reason why private freethinkers (notice the word “free”), speaking for themselves only, need to cater to anyone else’s sensibilities. However, I think you and I would agree that atheists should be extremely careful when speaking to the mainstream media, and make sure we stay on-message.

The unfortunate thing about the TV coverage of the so-called “atheist movement,” is that the reporters invariably present atheism as a threat. (For example: Here, the FFRF was finagled into proclaiming that they might cause a “fire in a forest.” While that’s, of course, only metaphorical, it doesn’t conjure up an image that we should be comfortable with.) Since we are NEVER given time to present a thoughtful, rational argument, we should respond only in a limited way to the specifics at issue.

The ONLY message in this segment should have been that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes an explicit prohibition against an establishment of religion by the government. Not “a” religion, but religion in general. A few choice comments on the thinking of the founders might have been appropriate. Responding to misleading questions was not. We’ve got to learn to refuse to answer questions like: “Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?” We should not allow the media to set the agenda.

Atheists should also be quick to point out that there is no such thing as an atheist “movement.” One can’t be a fundamentalist atheist because there are no fundamentals to atheism; the only thing we have in common is a non-belief in the supernatural. We have no churches in which to congregate and get our orders. Each of us thinks for him- or herself. There’s plenty of dialogue within the atheist “community,” but we have no formal commandments. Occasionally we join together for a cause — in this case, to keep government funds out of the hands of theocrats. But we most emphatically do not represent a movement comparable to evangelism, or any other religion. We are not trying to use the government to foster our non-belief. We are only trying to keep that non-belief protected constitutionally, as any philosophical system should be. We are not aiming for universal enlightenment in this day and age, because it’s an unreasonable wish. We are merely asserting that our elected leaders have no right to foist their supernaturalism upon us in the legislature, the courthouse, or the public classroom.

[...] After hearing about the problems of gay marriage, the Robisons asked the other guests how their church/ministry is doing. The guests talked about how their church was trying to adopt public schools. Then they started to vent: Some group was fighting in the Supreme Court last week for standing to sue the government! Apparently, these people were against Faith-Based Initiatives! Robison added that these people just didn’t want to let Christians help others… I was still eating bread trying to decide whether I should say, “Those are my friends, Dan and Annie Laurie!” Meanwhile, Jim and Joel were stifling their laughter… they heard me talking about this case during lunch. [...]