A thoughtful counterpoint article to the Guardian opinion piece on Faith, reviewed this week on NewsTrust (http://beta.newstrust.net/webx?14@@.f086240). The author makes some good points, though quite opinionated, about the "preposterous outcry that atheists are “evangelical” and that they have gone too far in their criticism of religion." Good evidence is presented to back up these points, and the overall argument is reasonable, though a bit high-pitched. Very informative read on a key issue.

This is excellent journalism. Paul Kurtz answers many of the false allegations of religious believers regarding atheists. He has exposed the fallacy that our ethical values are derived from religion, and that by denying god, a person is immoral.

In response to recent criticism by various religious and societal factions of secular humanist books by Richard Dawkins (among others) that are finding a large audience, Paul Kurtz of the Council for Secular Humanism writes an eloquent editorial in the coucil's magazine "Free Inquiry". This article provides a well written, if lengthy, defense of secularism's place at the table of rational thought - a table that frequently has few present. For anyone interested in the topic, regardless of their point of view, this is a must read.

This editorial argues in a persuasive way that not only is it not wrong for secular humanists to be outspoken, it is indeed valuable. While some might view it as an attack on religion, it is civil in tone and contributes to the ongoing debate in a constructive manner. I found the last section on "The Iraqi Bloodbath," a little curious. While I think that it too is reasoned, it seems to depart from the flow of the editorial.

This is a bookend to the story "Faith" in The Guardian (NewsTrust story page linked). This piece, as measured on Journalistic qualities is more transparent and more respectful of expressed opinions of opposing view. It is, however, as strongly biased and divisive as the other, more rabid piece. It ignores the politics of Ba'athism (Sunni domination) over the majority Shia population of Iraq and lays the problems solely at the feet of religion. These two stories show the propensity to divisiveness.

Comment about article in Free Inquiry the Secular Humanist Bulletin. I believe this is good journalism because it inspires me to broaden my perspective about the conflict between religion and atheism to include the ideas of secularism. I have a different idea about the idea of a God. I believe "God" is an abstraction. That is "God" is an idea like "good". To say God is or is not a real person is a non-question. For those who say they believe in God to ascribe a personification to God is to go against the very biblical proscription against graven images. If you accept the idea that "God" is a way of accepting an orientation towards a solid moral and spiritual existence. Dawkins' arguments about the certainty of scientific ... More »

The title initially put me off as it seems to fall into the pattern of encouraging the extremist appellations given to atheists (ie "evangelical athiests") and creating a false picture that equates atheists with religious extremists. As a subjective EDITORIAL piece (that does not pretend to be objective or "news") - it is a very strong piece. His premise is that "the public has been bombarded by pro-religious propaganda from time immemorial" and that "until now it has been virtually impossible to get a fair hearing for critical comment... it was considered impolite, in bad taste, and it threatened to raise doubts about God’s existence or hegemony". So any comment from an atheist is viewed as an ATTACK on God. Any response to ... More »

This really becomes a very long whine, does it not? It is an immature complaint about things not being fair and "everybody picks on me" and "they always get their way."

Good read, moving from the seriously inane to the seriously insane. I was surprised that he went from abrasive evangelicals (both atheists and religionists) to the new gang of four and impeachable offenses in Iraq, but on second thought it was a good point.

I thought it was an excellent article until the last section, "The Iraqi Bloodbath". It seemed totally out of context compared to what had been discussed up to that point. Kind of Michael Moorish where the author felt like he just couldn't pass up an opportunity to comment on the Iraq debacle. I'm not disagreeing with his position it's just that the deviation from the well thought out coherence of the article up to that point was somewhat discredited. One more thing. Why isn't humanism just as legitimate a religion as all the others?

This is an opinion piece, but a well considered opinion piece.