My problem with high-profile atheists, like Richard Dawkins, etc., is their obvious reluctance to mention the 'elephant in the room' i.e. the political angle. This may seem reasonable in the highly politically charged times we live in. But by steering clear of it, we're letting the major cause for the vehement hostility to atheism, especially in the U.S., off the hook. Jerry Coyne is the only one I've seen who dares to even mention it,
It must be acknowledged that religion is a main pillar of the status quo in the U.S. and a bountiful cash-cow for the mega-rich religious institutions and other vested interests, in the media, etc. Any group which threatens its primacy must expect the fierce opposition we can all see.
On a level playing field, compared with scientific knowledge, religion fiction would by now be of minority interest only. I strongly feel that by not pointing out the main reasons for religion's longevity could be seen at best as cowardly but it's also extremely counter productive. How can we possibly convince others if we aren't completely honest and point out that the tremendous power religion exerts in society is the biggest obstacle facing atheism? Religion is more worried about lost wallets than lost souls.
But, keep up your great work and hopefully you might find my comments here worth considering.
Pat Mc Ginley
