Read "The Problem with Atheism" here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1702,The-Problem-with-Atheism,Sam-Harris

I'm glad that this was brought to my attention, because I think Harris makes some excellent points. I do think that the word "atheism" carries with it some serious negative connotations. There are two definitions for the word "godless" on Encarta. The first definition states, "not believing in or worshipping any god," while the second definition states, "having an evil or immoral nature." Obviously, there are people who believe that atheists are wicked creatures who prey on the lowly, virtuous Christians. Sam Harris recognizes that, and proposes that the non-believers steer away from the atheist label which has alienated many. I too, feel that we tend to be irresponsible with labels in society, which can lead to misunderstanding, ignorance and bigotry. We find it much easier to judge rather than truly examine whatever it is that we do not understand and/or fear. We're all guilty of it at some point, but are we missing something important because of it? Before we draw our conclusions about someone or something, we should take the time to educate ourselves. Why do so many people demonize atheists? Have they been victimized by atheists at some point? Or is it just easier to judge rather than understand? I would predict the latter hypothesis to be more probable. Nevertheless, this stigma exists.

Harris does not feel it is necessary to identify himself as an atheist. He concludes that atheism is not a "thing" but rather a philosophy, much like those who believe in racial equality, and who we would not refer to as "non-racists." However, I feel it is inevitable that if we should have to argue our philosophy at some point, which we most certainly will, our lack of a belief in God will once again give rise to the atheist label, whether we say the word or not. I can't tell you how many times I've encountered a religious person, who, while discussing our thoughts on spirituality, asserted, "so, you're an atheist" before I had even finished talking. In addition, such judgments are nearly impossible to avoid when rejecting the dogma of a religion conflicting with what one deems to be an issue in society. The word "atheist" flies out of the mouth of the defendant like the searing flames of a dragon, but we are not burned – we're frustrated. No one will listen.

Because of this reason, I am a bit pessimistic about successfully liberating the world from religion. Too many people are invested. Their talons are in deep, and their wings have been clipped. I will, however, entertain a hypothetical world in which the number of Americans who claim some form of religion is reduced from 80% to 49%... a little less than half of the U.S. population. 149 million vs. 240 million… It's a much better scenario, but still somewhat bleak considering our fluctuating numbers at the polls every 4-8 years for the Presidency. And speaking of politics – as religion seems to play a more active role in right-wing politics, although not totally absent on the left, one must assume that in a country of 151 million non-religious citizens, the odds of a large portion of that population being elected into the judicial, legislative or executive branch are greatly increased, and the polarization of the dominant powers may be altered. In this situation, I would hope for a more productive, reasonable administration, advancing scientific research, passing/implementing environmental protection acts, federally regulating CO2 emissions, and improving our diplomatic relations with other nations. In this hypothetical 51/49 scenario, little can be predicted, but it is still worth contemplating. With our current proclaimed religious nut of a president, all seems stagnant and rotting. And why is he in power? Because enough Americans were lured into voting for him under his "I am a moral, religious man" guise. What we actually need is a leader who does not hinder the possibility of curing diseased individuals who could benefit from stem-cell research under the rancid "all life is sacred" argument. We need a leader who will protect what rare undisturbed Earth remains, instead of gutting it for oil that may lie underneath to line his pockets and fuel our behemoth SUVs. We need a leader who will seriously address the issue of global warming, and who will show concern for future generations that will certainly suffer due to our negligence. We need a leader who won't require a bloated defense budget, and who will divert a large portion of it to things like public education, scientific research, and space programs. We need a leader who will advance our country, not one who will march us back to the dark ages. We need a truly moral leader – not one who simply calls himself a Christian. It has become very obvious over the last seven years, that it is not enough.

Like John Lennon, many of us hope that the United States and even the entire world will eventually come around to a more productive, reasonable, scientific way of thinking that excludes organized religion, but unfortunately, it may just be a pipe-dream. For ages, people have been treated as sub-humans for various reasons, most often due to their sex, skin color and religious beliefs. There are still many places in the world where this mentality persists, but fortunately, it has been greatly reduced in the United States. Why has this change come about in the last 50 years or so? I would imagine that the reason is that gender and racial inequality negatively affected a large portion of the population in a number of ways, notably the discriminatory acts of violence. It is one thing for those unaffected by bigotry to step up and fight for the rights of their fellow human beings, but often times change does not come about unless enough people feel the effects themselves. In this case, approximately half of the U.S. population, or perhaps even more felt the damaging effects, evoking a revolutionary way of thinking.

So, how can the non-religious community striving for change reach a large enough population today? If the negative effects of religion are not felt or understood by the religious community, what motivation is there for them to tear away their foundation in life? To make the negative effects tangible, we must find a way to educate the religious population without causing such upset that they do not listen at all. I do not think this can be done in the manner that Christian missionaries attempt to spread the word of Jesus to others. Just as we non-believers loathe this method when it arrives at our door, we cannot expect the religious to open their ears and their minds to our message. Instead, there has to be an infiltration of reasonable thinking in every walk of life. We must properly educate our students from their earliest preschool years all the way through college. Education is the ultimate path to freedom, as Carl Sagan explained in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World," noting Frederick Douglass' self-emancipation through literacy, eventually becoming one of the most influential African American abolitionists.

It is often noted by Christians that there have been serious atrocities committed by atheists such as Stalin and Hitler, but there is no evidence that these acts were committed as a result of their non-beliefs. We must be able to distinguish between causation and coincidence. Does atheism cause people to be homicidal maniacs? The obvious answer is "no." Every now and then, will one run across a homicidal maniac who is an atheist? Of course, but it cannot be argued that atheism equates to unruly, violent behavior. The religious community may be dictated by fear of a damning God, but it is fairly obvious that anarchy is not running rampant in the atheist community. We are not all driven to do good through fear of punishment. We are not children hoping to avoid a spanking. We are in fact, all grown up. As it turns out, human values are not dictated by the belief in a spiteful God. Is that really so difficult to grasp?

It is easy to point the finger at widely known homicidal figures in history, but what about all those lesser known individuals who have committed heinous acts of violence in the name of God? I urge the reader to consider the inhumane acts committed right here in the United States by Christians in the name of God. Slavery persisted in the United States from the time we arrived on the shores until the end of the Civil War in 1865 -- for over 200 years. Although slavery had been eradicated, racism continued to run rampant in the North and South for another hundred years with the Ku Klux Klan, until the Civil Rights Movement, when women were also granted their inalienable freedoms. But why did it take so long? The bible was and is believed to be the word, and served as an excuse to allow out-dated bigotry to persist into the 20^th century. Even today, it continues to be used by many to justify their pursuits of intolerance and hate. Most recently, the issue of gay rights has been at the forefront, and once again, we find people quoting passages from the bible allegedly stating that homosexuality is a sin against God. The big guy in the sky seems a very intolerant fellow indeed, with the arrogance of a monarch and a penchant for cruel and unusual punishment

Unfortunately we may be stuck with him… at least for now there is still the "hiss" in "atheist," which Harris hopes we can shake. But there is a sliver lining -- It seems as though the number of atheists is on the rise, or perhaps more people are coming out of the atheist closet. I hope it is a sign of things to come. The challenge of creating a free-thinking, rational, skeptical nation is perhaps one of the last great endeavors we will be faced with in the United States. Vive la revolution.