This is a provocative article. It challenges implicit assumptions in our western societies: belief in an Absolute while using political power to control and repress. We need to take distance and examine why we belief in myths that are irrational and dangerous and have brought suffering and death to humanity. Think inquisition, crusades, colonization, persecution of scientists, banning of books, destruction of libraries and ancient temples, etc. Think the War on Iraq against “Absolute Evil.” Argie Tejada Segor, Miami Florida

The author writes, "Religious doctrines that venture forth onto society's battlefield of ideas should not be entitled to armor that is thicker than that of any other combatant." I agree completely. For example, it's the job of religious educators as well as secular humanist educators to point out, and resist, the patriarchal and oppressive cultures that are documented in various ancient texts. One criticism leveled against religion is that it is triumphalist, and frames its outreach in the language of war. But secular humanism is just as triumphalist. For just one example, the common evolution catchphrase is "survival of the fittest." So, we figure "I'm here, I must be the fittest." Let's reframe evolution as "the suffering unto ... More »

Today, commentary from within the Council of Secular Humanism discusses the tactics for spreading the ideas of secular humanism. My personal style is to avoid bashing anyone, as I don't like to be bashed myself. But the author raises valid points about religious ideas being given preferential treatment in the realm of all ideas for far to long, while discussions of atheism and secular humanist philosophy have mostly been relegated to the ivory tower. In the mean time the churches have railed away at straw men they had carefully erected to make secular humanism appear evil (so they bashed first). I don't think the tone of this article serves the secular humanist community well, but it probably wasn't written with the intent that ... More »

The author persuasively argues that religion should be as eligible for criticism as any other ideology or system of beliefs and that secular humanists shouldn't hold back. However, throughout he appears to equate criticism with attack and ridicule -- an argument that I don't find as persuasive.

Since the purpose of this publication is "To promote secular humanist principles to the public, media, and policy-makers" it isn't surprising that the ediorial takes a distinct slant. That being said, the read is still worth the time because it offers some provoking statements that may generate dialogue.

I happen to agree with the point of the story. While religionists in the past have kept their faith in the background most secular humanists have respected their beliefs even though they consider them superstitious ignorance but kept this in the background as well. What mattered was cooperation in the public sphere for the public good. How we came to the determination of what this public good is was irrelevant. This is no longer the case. By injecting religious belief into governance religionists have abandoned any obligation on my part to refrain from criticism. Off the subject. Is there some way opinion pieces could be reviewed using different criteria than news stories whose purpose is dispersal of information?

There are excellent spokespersons for religious perspectives. They are easy to talk with and there is no need or cause to bash. There are also religious extremists who never stop bashing secular humanists so it is only fair play to strike back in kind. As Mr. Tabash points out, there are also many, many people who have not developed any thought out point of view, following the traditions they have from family, and they do not look at points too gently presented. You need to get their attention to convince them of anything.