Science puts religion in the fiction part of the book-shelf. So what are you believing in, is certainly not realism.
As we see in other parts of the world, where it is good to sacrifice your life for a misguided belief.
My personal opinion about religion it should be banned world wide. But that will not happen because some people put farytales in front of realism.

579
That is absurd, you can't seriously be arguing a ban on religion. What is the difference between the various Inquisitions and religious atrocities and a religious ban?

Will the religious be the new heretics?

Be careful what you wish for, you may not like the outcome.

I agree that there should be a strict separation of church and State, but it won't make an iota of difference. Secularism presupposes a religious cauldron. I doubt atheism will be more than one of the myriad minorities competing for attention. Atheism is just another small sect, like Scientology, and has nothing to offer in terms of real emancipation (which is why people will continue to turn to religion), idealistic or actual--indeed considerably less than that offered by Christianity, who's followers have a set of ethics, the next world to look forward to, and a way to rationalise their behaviour in this one.
I'd have more respect for the New Atheists if you "did" have a communist agenda, which would suggest political engagement and a concern for justice and human potential. Pushing atheism for its own sake, with no larger agenda or vision for reformed humanity makes you no different to the Tea Party.
Sadly this push (like Braxton Hicks contractions) will come to naught. Certainly church should be divorced from state and our schools should be purged of overt religious bias, but this is a mere technicality, as attested to by the United States, which has been secular for centuries yet remains one of the most religious society's on Earth.
Beyond that, as usual David Nichols gets carried away with himself. I'm glad he makes the distinction "atheists 'and' freethinkers" at least because the two, in my experience, are rarely synonymous.
Bear in mind too that radical Muslims are not trying to proselytise; they see themselves rather as in a war against the "great Satan"; what could they mean?

Well Squeers I am sure the Tea Party is shaking in their boots at that comparison...for God and Country and all that.

David,
Your approach will either be, as Squeers opined, largely insignificant (a mere thorn in the lion's paw) or, at least potentially dangerous if you inadvertently incite calls to ban religion. I suspect the former, only in that the world has moved forward to embrace a broader perspective of freedom and as such the nutters on both sides are largely ignored.

Not only are you attempting to define atheism beyond it's essentials but you will will no doubt harness the usual anti-secularists who seek a more dictatorial approach in forcing a particular belief system on it's people. We have all seen what happens in those circumstances.

Poirot – you say that every society evolves morality. That is just another way of saying that societies, for their convenience, make up something that they call morality. I see that you put ‘right conduct’ in quote marks and that would seem to indicate that you actually agree with me that in an atheistic universe there is no actual right and wrong, only preferences that we have that we choose to call right and wrong.

Of course groups of people in a society who have the same preferences may band together to force their preferences upon the rest of the society – whether by social pressure or by law - but that does not magically make their preferences into morality.

In an atheistic universe there is no morality, just the preferences of individuals and groups of individuals. There is no reason why anyone should take any notice of the preferences of another – accept of course that the other(s) may be stronger and be able to force the dissenter to acquiesce. But that is not morality.

Pelican – I would say the same as above to you too. You say things like “atheists should be rejoicing at the prospect of a more broader and egalitarian approach to human rights” but you give no justification for why anyone, let alone atheists, should do anything you suggest. You seem to think that you have somehow determined some objective, non-relativistic moral principles in an atheistic universe and that these should be aimed for. But you haven’t – you need to face it that these are just your preferences and no one needs to take the slightest notice of your preferences.

absurd, what is absurd is the behavior of the head's of these organizations, and yet it doesn't matter.
What choice do children have, when their religion is chosen for them before they are born.
The biggest con the world has ever seen is religion.
And someone is clearly taking sides when they say scientology is a fake.
I am glad someone can spot a scam when they see one.
And who really follows their religious teachings.
Religion is a crutch, to sanitize realism of life.
It's not for real.