“A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.”

Atheism has no tenets or practices. It makes no supernatural and no moral claims about reality, the cosmos or human nature. Strong atheism does make the claim that there are no gods, but most atheists are not strong atheists. The general position of atheism is just a lack of belief in a god or gods, which is quite different from a belief that they do not exist.

Now it is the case that many atheists do have opinions about moral issues, or the origins of life etc. (maybe you are thinking of humanism, or naturalism), but the position of atheism itself does not presuppose any of them.

It is true that Hitchens makes his case with strong language, but there’s nothing in his writings to compare with Falwell’s worst (feminists and gays to blame for 9/11…). Even so, we should evaluate arguments by their content rather than their tone.

When was the last time any other religion tried to get itself installed in courthouses and science classrooms? You’ll see push back at the religion that is powerful enough to try it, none of the others are. Even then, are these laws you’re saying the government is seeking written to apply *specifically* against Christianity? Or just religion in general?

2) It is not an issue of one worldview being allowed in government and others not, the principle in government is secularism, not atheism. Secularism says that no point of view on religious issues (whether Christian, Muslim, atheist etc.) should be favoured in government

I beg to differ, Henry, but you’re wrong on both counts. Atheism as it’s practiced today has certainly become a religion, and an especially fundamentalist one at that. Look at anything Hitchens and the like have written lately. It’s no different in tone from anything said by Jerry Falwell or Moqtada al Sadr. It’s all bitter anger rather than rational thought. Anyone who disagrees is cast out of the membership of the faithful.

I’ll stand by my earlier point that the Christian faith in particular is subject to an exclusionism in the public forums and in government. When was the last time you saw anyone in the US government seek laws against Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons or (gasp!) islam?

Palin’s concept of creationism is so limited, though. A true creationist must acknowledge the equal claims of all variations on this theme, including

* Norse creationism: The first man and woman emerged from the armpits of Ymir (a sweating frost giant)

* Babylonian creationism: Freshwater and saltwater oceans merged; the world followed in due course.

* Adamsian creationism: The universe was sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkleseizure

* Spaghetti creationism: The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe after drinking heavily

I could go on at some length. I always find it so disappointing when creationists confine themselves unncessarily.

2) It is not an issue of one worldview being allowed in government and others not, the principle in government is secularism, not atheism. Secularism says that no point of view on religious issues (whether Christian, Muslim, atheist etc.) should be favoured in government, and it was introduced (in the US) in large part to protect some Christian groups from discrimination by other Christian groups.

If you cannot convince other people in society of some point of view without recourse to articles of faith that those other people may not believe in, then maybe you don’t have such good reasons for advocating that point of view.

Yup, she’s consistent all right. Consistently wrong and bigoted. Of course people of faith have the right to live their lives according to their own spiritual beliefs. But that right stops at the infringement of the rights of others. A woman’s right to control her body. A gay person’s right to marry the one they love. A public school student’s right to an accurate scientific education. I believe that politicians of faith are (or should be) perfectly capable of drawing a distinction between acting according to their own religious doctrine and enforcing that doctrine on those who do not share it.

Our faith (atheist, Christian, pagan) necessarily colors everything we do. Why should one view (i.e., atheist) be allowed, but not others? Palin is consistent, if nothing else.