Can the Reason Rally resonate in this most religious of democracies?
Despite the growing number of Americans who identify their religion as "none", our politics are still dominated by supercharged religious talk. But this past weekend, in a sort of coming out party, atheists and other non-believers gathered on the National Mall last Saturday for the first-ever Reason Rally. It was their way of saying, "We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!"
The Reason Rally was modeled, in part, on gay rights activism that urged people to personalize someone they'd always thought of as an "other". That strategy – recognizing your cousin, your neighbor, your classmate, your sibling isn't straight – has fueled greater acceptance of gays and lesbians, and advances in civil rights. Everyone knows an atheist, the Reason Rally reasoning goes, and knowing an atheist goes a long way to accepting atheism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/26/reason-rally-resonate-religious-democracy?newsfeed=true
= new reply since forum marked as read
Make no mistake, atheists stand strongly next to the liberal religious who undoubtedly agree with us on the excesses of the past decades. But atheists are utterly fed up; they are becoming very activated; and we are amongst the Dem's most fervent allies, in spite of our lack of religiosity, and in spite of the puffered-up rhetoric on all sides.
I really don't have much to add to that... so I'll just spew thoughts.
It is interesting to me that most Nones I've talked to share a sort of disgust with the necessity of organizing -- of, basically, New Atheism, movement atheism, the like. I think this is why it's taken so long. Our individual outrage at regressive religious influence in economy, politics & gov had to exceed our common distaste for organized action. Why, I wonder?
Unless I'm mistaken, it's because atheism isn't religion. In my case, I don't think about god or other professed miracles at all, and don't want to. I don't do theology, and it's the essence of what I mean when I refer to myself as atheist. But it took some figuring out to define this for myself. That is, it took me a while to 'come out' to use the imperfect analogy, and then it took a while to be comfortable asserting myself from that position. It never occurred to me to look for help from other people, since it was ppl's supposed disingenuous 'help' that turned me off organized belief in the 1st place. I had to sort it out alone, but it helped to know other ppl had to sort it out alone, too.
It turns out that lots of other folks have had similar experiences, and are now in positions where it seems rational to work together. In that sense, movement atheism is political: it positively asserts the separation of church and state. Outreach efforts by American Atheists and FFRF etc have also focused on 'coming out' campaigns, positively asserting 'you are not alone, we're here, get used to it'. Contrast this with organized religious efforts to win followers. I think this has helped win atheists to support a movement. Very few of us have patience for navel-gazing about why we don't believe. Even fewer have patience for (or interest in) explaining why we don't believe to believers. That movement atheism doesn't have patience either helps overcome suspicions that this is a belief-system in disguise.
The peril is what I expressed More succinctly in post #9.
Jesus! (so to speak) Join with us in spite of mere rhetorical differences. We're all on the same page.
Later, we can start throwing chairs about rhetoric. 
I tried to get into this in my response to cbayer, above, but I confess that I missed the target somewhat. My bad.
The peril is that the opposition will use these squabbles as a weapon against the whole argument that all of us should be making together. That a major party of the most politically, militarily powerful nation on the planet has been co-opted by an extremist philosophical cabal which uses their religiosity to stifle debate and uses their economic power to beat down their opposition.
Many of us see the history of this as demonstrating that they wouldn't have one without the other. An example is: why would so many Americans be voting for something which is manifestly against their best interests? I'm sure that sociologists and political scientists could study this for decades and possibly not come to a definitive answer.
I think John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience was one of my revelations to the whole process of the authoritarian personality which he claims to be a good chunk of the problem. My interpretation, along with many atheists, is that the authoritarians in the Republican party wield religion as an instrument of authority. That's why they act the way tgey do. It makes for a fucking dangerous and toxic mix.
That's why us atheists are becoming militant. We're frightened of what could happen if this isn't checked before it's too late. No wonder the rhetoric is inflamed with passion. (as is this post
)
I hope that I've clarified what I see as the core of the issue.
