It's been pointed out more than once and by many people that an atheist has no chance of being elected President of the United States any time soon. As a demonstration of just how different America is from Europe, there is a very realistic chance than an atheist could become Britain's next Prime Minister: David Miliband. What would be unthinkable in America seems to be treated as unimportant by most in Britain. It doesn't appear as though many think that being an atheist or a theist is an important question when it comes to politics — and that's as it should be.

At least, that's as it should be in an ideal world, but our world is far from ideal. Because of the extent to which religious privilege continues to pervade politics and culture, there are ways in which an atheist politician can differ substantively from a theist politician — just as female politicians can differ from males and black politicians can differ from whites. The parallel here is that minorities are less likely to accede to, much less expand, traditional privileges enjoyed by majorities. Maybe that's one reason why it's so hard for them to get elected: they can't be trusted to uphold the status quo. Read more...

As I have noted more than once, people who defend the Pledge of Allegiance — either generally or the inclusion of "under God" specifically — tend to do so in a way that only ends up providing good reasons to disagree with them. I’m not sure if this is because they are ignorant of the issues or simply don’t care and hope that their readers are the ignorant ones. Either way, though, it suggests that one of the best ways to argue against retaining "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is to encourage apologists to write and talk as much as possible. Read more...

A common argument used by conservative Christians against evolutionary theory is the idea that it reduces humanity to mere physical beings and morality to "survival of the fittest." They don't often mention Social Darwinism by name, yet these same conservative Christians often support politics similar Social Darwinism in their effects, if not their intent. How can Christians be so horrified by the alleged moral and social consequences of "Darwinism" while supporting Social Darwinism?

 

Read Article: Social Darwinism: Darwinism is an Atheist Lie, Except in Politics

There are significant disagreements over the nature and process of scientific research which involve disputes between atheists and theists. There is a strong movement, for example, to undermine the methodological naturalism which constitutes a primary basis by which scientific investigation proceeds. Some Christians see this methodology as antithetical to their theistic beliefs and a barrier to the introduction of those beliefs into school science classes.

 

Read Article: Philosophy of Science: Scientific Investigation, Research, Methodology