Tuesday, April 28, 2009



This is a modified version of a comment I left on Pharyngula, to this post:

I'm no doubt echoing a viewpoint that has been expressed at this and similar posts before, but I'm just fine with the NCSE publicly saying that science and religion are compatible NOMA blah blah blah, and the movement at large simultaneously continuing the assault from PZ, Coyne, Harris, etc. Both approaches are making progress. You don't win political games by converting people to a new philosophy. That's why political organizations that don't have directly to do with religion - like the NCSE - are, quite appropriately, not directly making religion an issue. If muddying the waters to make it look like we aren't eroding the role of religion in public life is a way of appearing less threatening to the average voter, so much the better.

To take a more openly militant line would make NCSE much less effective than they have been. So if the Reverend Barry Lynn is an effective leader of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, then I don't care if he's an atheist, and I don't care if they mouth some pleasing platitudes when they're defending the Constitution, and why should you?

Let's not be like the GOP and become exclusionary by insisting that all our organizations' public faces are scrubbed in an ideological clean room, and let's not fall prey to the notorious atheist tendency to be splitters, and harder to keep together than herded cats. If someone is getting results, that's what matters.

1 comment:

Dan said...

What about NOAG?