But anyway, I feel like we got this off on a minor detail. I didn't mean to make this a tangent.

The analogy of the atheist being called on to speak I think does not equate, unless you add conditions, such as - the hijackers had been extremely influenced by the tenets of atheism, and were actively supported by other atheists who wanted to violently propagate atheism. Then I would indeed expect questioning about it.

But I am coming at this as one who feels that we would all be better off with more open questioning and critique of beliefs and positions, and that people should at times be moved out of their comfort zones in this regard.

However, Adam, I think you have somewhat exagerated the power of the religious right. They don't control all branches of government, or the media, or anything else in anything near total control.

As far as the government - well, they certainly control the presidency, and they have a majority in both houses of Congress. (The Republican party is now, by default, composed wholly of the radical religious right; all the moderates and fiscal conservatives have been forced out. Even John McCain is kowtowing to the fringe by giving the commencement speech at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University this year.) As far as the Supreme Court, with the recent resignation of O'Connor and appointments of Roberts and Alito... well, maybe the religious right doesn't fully control that branch, but draw your own conclusions.

I don't think the religious right directly controls the media (except for Fox News), but on the other hand, they have become so influential that media organizations are now too afraid to air views that disagree with them. Coincidentally, this is the topic of my latest post.

If the major religion in this country was atheism, congress would follow their whims.

All the more reason for us to get busy organizing!

Archi; but there is no reason we have to ignore this. Yes, we have to choose our battles, but we have the capacity to solve this. The battle in Afghanistan is, frankly, in Afghanistan, not here. We can do little about that, even if it happens again. We can request our government pur pressure, but that's all. However, here in our own country, where we should be more concerned, we can do alot against religious bigotry. If we HAD to choose, I'd pick the battles in the US and leave the Middle East alone.

I will revise my opinion of my previous post to the extent that this young woman was possibly in danger by being singled out. What was the baseline probability of her being attacked without the professor singling her out? Was she singled out already? Is it possible that the professor’s singling her out, and asking her to give some educational statements, etc., actually reduced her chances of being attacked? Until you or I have answers to those questions, as well as questions that would need to be answered to address several of the other points raised above, and until we have the professor’s side of the story, I think we should not be too quick to judge. Yes the prof overstepped boundaries and made an error in judgement. It was a risky thing to do, because we can’t be sure whether his suggestion improved matters or made them worse.

Was it persecution? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But again, I’m sorry, this just does not fit my idea of what the word persecution means. It doesn't quite reach the threshold where I say "That's persecution." Maybe minor persecution. This is not to trivilaize it, just to put it into perspective, or put it on a scale. If she had been attacked, okay, that’s persecution. If people had verbally abused her, that’s persecution. If the prof would have let his evaluation of the student be influenced in any negative way had she refuse his request for her to talk, that’s persecution. To my knowledge, none of those things happened. Ultimately, though, this is (or was) up to the young woman to pursue a complaint and for some kind of impartial body, with all the facts and both sides of the story, to render a judgment.

Andrea, in regards to the recent apostasy case in Afghanistan (Mr. Abdul Rahman), by standing up for his beliefs in the way that he did, may have contributed, with his one small step, to improved religious/ideological freedom for all people living in Afghanistan, whatever religion, or non-religion they may hold. Currently in Afghanistan, if you leave Islam, regardless of what ideology you change to, you must be executed. If the state doesn't do it, a mob of your neighbours would be more than eager to oblige. Mr. Rahman's bravery benefits anyone who wishes to exercise freedom of conscience and switch away from Islam. I should add that this man was not necessarily going out of his way to be a martyr. His own family turned him in to the authorities and they found evidence such as his Bible, plus the fact that he worked for a Christian organization in Pakistan years earlier, so he was not exactly in a position where he could deny the fact that he'd left Islam. Upon being arrested and detained, he basically had these options: Act crazy and get off on insanity (and possibly spend the rest of his life in a mental institution in Afghanistan--and that is not pleasant); pretend to repent and claim to return to Islam (and maintain this act for the rest of his life, without slipping up); or else hold to his beliefs and hope for some kind of intervention. Afghanistan has a long way to go, but this case was a wake-up call for some of our leaders, so perhaps now there will be international pressure to make modifications to the transitional Afghan constitution.

Blackwizard,

Indeed we need to deal with all forms of persecution, big or small and everything in between, but we need to pick our battles. One consideration in making moral decisions is deciding which problems should be tackled. Because of time and resource limitations, basic facts of life, it is not possible to deal with every problem. Therefore one must prioritize. One must have some threshold where one says "We have time and capacity to solve A, but not B."

However, Adam, I think you have somewhat exagerated the power of the religious right. They don't control all branches of government, or the media, or anything else in anything near total control. If the major religion in this country was atheism, congress would follow their whims. They have little loyalty except to their jobs. And the religious right also isn't very large. All they are is a small, rich, loud group of people, so Congressmen show them SOME favoritism for votes (just like democrats show some to the environmental left, and republicans to businessmen) and the CEOs and the media give them some special treatment because they want their cash. I don't think the focus should be on any group AFFECTED by the right; just the right itself. We need to work on getting people in that mindset out of it, and getting the moderate christians to stop playing both sides and to call out the right for being the prejudice and dangerous people they often are.

And I have to agree that the role-playing is pretty one-sided. Even if you are supposed to be the lone christian in a group, it still helps to know that hey, there's a whole society of over 1 billion people on your side, and big brother, and heaven, etc. I think people should try role-playing as atheists; try to imagine that you don't have a guardian angel, or guardian diety, and that you are very much alone in this, then deal with persecution.