Jacques Berlinerblau "How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom"
Some quotations from this book:
"[Atheists] wildly overestimate their numbers. They tend to overestimate the efficacy of their activism. They underestimate how disciplined and organized their adversaries in the religious right are, too. [...]
They fail to recognize that mocking religious people in public is entirely inimical to the goals they wish to achieve.”
“Secularism is not atheism. Its roots lie with religious thinkers — St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Locke, among them. They understood secularism as a political philosophy, which, at its core, is preoccupied with, and often deeply suspicious of, any and all relations between government and religion.”
“My guess is a good chunk of so-called nonbelievers are not haters, not radical anti-theists, and their worldview is characterized by tolerance towards nonbelief, [...] That’s the type of atheist I am reaching out to, and my anecdotal sense is there are more of those than we know.”
Not at ALL certain I agree with the ''overstatement of their numbers'' statement. Every poll I've seen in the last few years shows a reduction of religious reports and an increase in ''no religion/atheist/agnostic'' reports.
This proves to me that having an opinion and writing a book about it is pretty much open to anyone.
To maintain hatred and disdain for the expression of any religious sentiment of any sort at all is not only lacking in efficacy, it borders on insanity. Many of the most brilliant geniuses down through history have been theists, and even today, approximately half of scientists believe in God.
A person’s opinion about theology is a trivial thing, and if the person is open minded that opinion tends to evolve. To cling doggedly to one opinion or the other, pro or con, and to make that narrow opinion your identity reflects irrationality IMO.
I do not respect religion. I do not respect anyone's right to believe. I merely tolerate both because it's required by the US Constitution.
There is a difference. I cannot "respect" that which is harmful and lacking in logic.
"They fail to recognize that mocking religious people in public is entirely inimical to the goals they wish to achieve.”
Not sure I agree with this. Of course, context matters, but reminds me of Lindsay Ellis' anaylsis on why mockery of Hitler works better than dramatic portrayal of Nazism. Mockery of a given ideology can't be picked up by the adherent's of said ideology and incorporated to their, say, image banks. Images of American History X are loved by (real, explicit) nazis, whereas images of Chaplin's The Great Dictator or Mel Brooks' 'Springtime for Hitler' aren’t gonna fly.
We Atheists shamed one living pope out of theocratic power and shame worked to drive out of decent society the xian KKK ....fear of muslims also is good to keep these murderous rapist Mohammedans out of USA power. ....as long as xians refuse to repudiate their bibles that brand Atheists "fools" & "reprobates" we Atheists are most welcome to shame ignorant violent dangerous believers
I simply cannot respect religion when it is childish, stupid, and completely dangerous. But mocking them makes them double down in their ignorance.
@Matias I can agree that it's the first step.