What were they thinking? How can you win support for your cause from some group, doesn’t matter which, by insulting or trying to shame them? Sure, for a small few without any kind of backbone simple shaming will cause submission, but insults? Insults bring backlashes. A thumb in the eye does not earn support.

Take Barbara G. Walker’s assertion that anyone who claims to be a feminist must by definition support women being in total control of government and society. She lambasts all men for the failure of some and then seems to desire men to support her chauvinistic cause. Nope. I don’t think so. I support equality. I do not support a patriarchy, why would I support a matriarchy?

Let’s look at the remarks some female atheist writers bewail. In a recent article on Alternet: “Another thing one notices with the atheist movement is the fact it is predominantly upwardly middle-class, white and male. If mainstream free-thought and humanism continue to reflect the narrow cultural interests of white elites who have disposable income to go to conferences then the secular movement is destined to remain marginal and insular.” Why is this an issue? I have never seen any evidence that the atheist movement represented only one segment. I have always seen women and other segments of society being encouraged to speak out. In my opinion it is not the fault of the “white-male elite” (a very derogatory as well as inflammatory phrase) that the other segments of the atheist movement are hesitant to step up to the microphone.

The article on Alternet goes on to exclaim that there is fear-mongering going on where Islamic terrorism is concerned. They have labeled this Islamaphobia. If one examines the history and content of Islam there can be no such thing as Islamaphobia as all the “fear-mongering” issues have a very real and solid basis in fact. I have nothing good to say about Islam not because I am Islamaphobic but because there is nothing good to say about Islam. This “fine” article goes on to insult all of the “New Atheists”, like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. I am sure this will go far in garnering the support of people who admire both these men, not!

Another section makes it clear that the writer is also quite biased against the prosperity of the United States and wishes to redistribute wealth worldwide. While I have similar perspectives mine are only nation-wide.

The only real and correct thing proclaimed in the article is the fact that atheists cannot belong to the Republican party. The Republican party is owned not only by the business sector but by the religious right as well. These two segments of society work together. The corporations exploit the worker class and the religious right makes the worker class submissive enough for exploitation. Not only does it not make sense for an atheist to belong to the Republican party, it doesn’t make sense for anyone who works for a living to belong to the Republican party.