Are we simply fighting an endless sequence of minor skirmishes that both sides claim to have won or do we actually have an agenda. Is this battle we cannot win going to get us anywhere or is it just some intellectual jiggery pokery to make a few skilled debaters fell good about themself?

First of all, I don't agree that this is a battle we can't possibly win. It seems as if religion is overwhelmingly dominant, that's true, but it's never faced open and sustained opposition before. There's no telling how much room there is for atheism to grow, if we have forceful and passionate advocates making the case for it. See my post from 2006, "Is Atheism Unnatural?", and more recently, "A Crack in the Wall".

Second, I think these skirmishes do serve a purpose. By making the case for atheism in public, we spread the message that religious belief is not the only possible choice, that nonbelief is an acceptable and defensible alternative. That alone does a great deal of good. There are many frustrated freethinkers out there who don't realize that other people feel the same way as they do, and by making them aware that they're not alone, we can encourage them to speak out and voice their own convictions in turn. It's a beneficial positive feedback cycle.

However, I don't think that this is all we have to offer. If we're going to provide a positive and desirable alternative to religion, I absolutely agree that we have to go beyond mere criticism and build a true secular community. And I think that's already happening. Insofar as we have a "strategy" for advancing atheism, I think that's what it is.

Do you have an objection to people putting up religious symbols of their own in public places, such as public parks? What about asking the government to do so, as an extension of their freedom of expression?

Randall, you may want to reconsider your position here. When we allow the majority to choose which religion should be officially favored, often it's not just atheists who suffer ill effects. From a post of mine in 2006, "It's Your First Amendment Too":

For example, take the 1890 case State ex rel. Weiss vs. District Board. In this decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that teacher-led Bible readings in public schools, as had previously been the policy of the Edgerton school district, were unconstitutional. Were the plaintiffs atheists? No - they were Roman Catholics, upset that the Bible version being read to their children was the King James Bible, which they considered to be incorrect, incomplete and full of errors, as opposed to the authorized Catholic translation.

Similarly, in the 2000 case Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a policy of student-selected, school-endorsed sectarian prayer at high school football games in the town of Santa Fe, Texas. Again, were the plaintiffs atheists? No: they were Mormon and Catholic families whose children were being harassed and bullied by the right-wing Baptist majority in the schools - not just by other students, but even by school administrators.

There are good reasons why we have separation of church and state in this country, and it's not just to protect atheists. Do you want your children attending public schools where a Protestant majority chooses which Bibles will be read, which prayers will be said, or which versions of the Ten Commandments will be posted?

Randall,

Doesn't the freedom of expression, as long as it is equally applied to everyone, cover religious displays?

Yes, and everyone has the right to privately display their religious symbols all they want.

As long as the government lets any organized religion, or non-religion, display symbols, there is no preferential treatment.

Incorrect. Giving space to the religious over the non-religious is preferential treatment of religion over non-religion. We can't be truly free to worship our chosen religion unless we have the option of not worshipping.

The government exists to protect freedom, and this includes the right to practice religion as long as it is not infringing upon the freedoms of others.

Exactly, and the only way to do that is for the government to remain truly neutral on religion or non-religion, to stay out of it. That doesn't include allowing religion to set up shop on public lands.

I hardly think that seeing a Nativity scene in a public place could be considered "forcing religion" upon others.

And you would be incorrect from a government standpoint. This would be an endorsement of Xianity and as such would violate my first amendment rights as well as yours even though you would want a nativity scene.

Does anyone else here have a more considered reply?

Doesn't the freedom of expression, as long as it is equally applied to everyone, cover religious displays? As long as the government lets any organized religion, or non-religion, display symbols, there is no preferential treatment. The government exists to protect freedom, and this includes the right to practice religion as long as it is not infringing upon the freedoms of others. I hardly think that seeing a Nativity scene in a public place could be considered "forcing religion" upon others. Is there a disjunct in our points of views?

Martin: what do you expect? There are only two ways to win such a war; to force others to believe what you believe, or to realize that such a war need not exist and to declare a truce. No fight over beliefs is ever won unless one of the sides is annihilated, and that hardly qualifies as a victory. Both sides throughout history have employed the first strategy; both sides should be focusing, in the modern world, on the second.

I am an atheist, and have fairly strong views on the overly respectful attitude that religious belief is afforded in our society. I also object to religions being given charity status which, most people don't seem to realise, is costing me tax dollars (it's actually pounds in my case, but hey...). What concerns me though is that it is not obvious that we are going to bring about the social and political revolution necessary for religion to be considered a quaint but obscure belief system by marching into war with culture warriors.

Is anyone looking at the bigger picture here? Instead of repeatedly grinding every minute morsel of meaning out of the holy book and trumping the religious with rhetoric and logic, do we actually have an objective. Are we simply fighting an endless sequence of minor skirmishes that both sides claim to have won or do we actually have an agenda. Is this battle we cannot win going to get us anywhere or is it just some intellectual jiggery pokery to make a few skilled debaters fell good about themself?

Do you have an objection to people putting up religious symbols of their own in public places, such as public parks? What about asking the government to do so, as an extension of their freedom of expression?

The government must remain neutral on the topic of freedom or else they violate all of our rights. It's that simple. If someone comes and asks to put up a religious display in a public park, the only response must be no. The public park is there for all the public, not just those who are of a certain religion or even just those who are theistic.

Say the government, in response to a petition, decides to display the Ten Commandments in a government building. Why is this considered "endorsing religion" rather than "respecting the wishes of a subset of the population"?

See above. Also, it is considered endorsement because the government is essentially giving preferential treatment to that subset and their religious leanings. In effect, the government is saying that this religion is respected while others and non-religions are not respected.

Do you have an objection to people putting up religious symbols of their own in public places, such as public parks? What about asking the government to do so, as an extension of their freedom of expression?

Say the government, in response to a petition, decides to display the Ten Commandments in a government building. Why is this considered "endorsing religion" rather than "respecting the wishes of a subset of the population"?

"Please do your part to talk to others of your faith to oppose those who would use their faith as a bludgeon against others."

When I meet other Catholics who do so, I will certainly remonstrate with them. This has not happened yet.

As to religious symbols, it would not be OK for the government to put up religious symbols, even if they tried to be all-inclusive. The separation of church and state is there for a reason, and government can only truly respect all people's rights be being neutral on the topic of religion. Without the freedom to disbelieve, we aren't truly free. An endorsement by the government of religion over irreligion goes against this and is a violation of all of our rights. Yes, even yours.

I would be offended in the common-sense region of my mind when I saw a gold deck of tarot cards sitting on the steps of a town hall. I would see it as incredibly pointless at best. I don't feel the government should be concerned with the placing all manner of superstitious nick-nacks, however inclusive. I think most people would (should) agree as well, atheist or not.