Besides, we're saying (just by our very existence) that their religions are wrong which pretty much automatically makes us their enemy.

In fact, my part of the world, Christians wanted to retain their "special rights" to discriminate against non-believers (e.g. church organizations, church founded schools employ only Christians) and mistreating homosexuals (e.g. they can refuse to provide serivces to them).
With the other added privileges, they want their domain to stay intact, and that they can lure new recruits to their cause.

I also sent a sharp letter to the Dole campaign explaining why I donated money to her opponent, to which I got the following ironic automated reply:

Thank you for contacting The Elizabeth Dole Committee. Senator Dole
appreciates hearing from people regarding issues that are important to them.
We will be sure to pass your message along to her. If you have any other
questions or concerns please feel free to contact us at anytime. Thanks
again for contacting The Elizabeth Dole Committee and may God bless you and
your family.

I also don't want to argue abortion, since we are on the same page, I was simply using your logic to point out why I'm disagreeing with you. And, no, not all women who would otherwise have an abortion given the option still do so, although I agree with you that back-alley abortions go up when abortion is banned or made harder to obtain. But, using your logic, I will argue that by increasing access to abortion, the net effect will be that the next generations will be more used to the idea and it will be less taboo. Therefore, more women who would normally be cowed into submission and forced to have their children (through not having access to clinics, being smart enough not to go back-alley, being peer-pressured into it, etc.) will end up having abortions to control their own lives. How could someone - again using your logic - not label us as anti-life? (Oh, and note, I never said that fetuses are people, but I don't think we can deny that the cells are alive, thus I said "anti-life" not "anti-human life." I was very careful to make that distinction.)

I disagree. I don't think it's the case that secularization necessarily must kill religion. People would still be free to believe as they want to believe, they simply would not be able to impose that on the government or other citizens. That's what secularization means. It's a side effect that people will probably come to see atheism as a better view of the world, thus lowering the ranks of the theists, but again that doesn't make us anti-religious simply because our idea will win over some of the theists.

Aside from the fact that I can't help feeling like we're talking past each other I still think that something which will likely result in religion disappearing (not completely but pretty close to it) is by implication anti-religious.

It doesn't have to be unfair to the religious or even intended to destroy religion, but if that's what it'll do then how could it not be called anti-religious?

Being anti-religious isn't a problem, it is the public perception that anti-religious is bad that is the problem.

OMGF:

If your logic were to hold, then those who support abortion rights can be labeled anti-life as the anti-choice people like to call us. The net effect of making abortion easier to obtain is that less women will be forced into giving birth to unwanted children, thus meaning more fetuses will die. Because that is the outcome of pushing for more choice, by your logic, I am anti-life.

Actually it isn't.

If a woman wants an abortion she will get it, legally or not (the correlation between banning abortion and abortion rates is actually negative).

The only difference is that legal abortions are a lot safer.

Those of us who want to protect women's choice in the matter are actually the true pro-lifers because it is our policies which will result in less deaths of women from unsafe abortions (while possibly lowering the abortion rate, although I suspect the negative correlation is due to higher contraceptives use in the countries that allow abortion).

Besides, a foetus isn't a person.

Maybe, but I think it's safe to start thinking about the next culture right now.

That wasn't a question particularly directed at you, just merely laying the groundwork for us to start thinking about what would happen next: what will change, what allies in the previous set of culture wars would become rivals, what will be the central issues of the new culture wars, etc...?

Interesting question. Human enhancement technology will create some conflicts but I'm not expecting them to last very long (since very few people will want to forgo the benefits available and thus the bioconservatives will lose by default). The problems with the environment I'm confident we'll solve (though not as quickly as we should have and with some damage to clean up) and I can see atheism being the ultimate civil rights movement (i.e. once we've got majority atheism we'll have a much easier time when changing morality when it needs to be changed). Democracy is slowly spreading into ever more countries.

OMGF:

I too would like to see people give up their religions, but only because they continually keep fighting wars over who has the better god and feel compelled to try and compel me to believe as they do. This is quite a different thing though from the "anti-religion" that is being talked about by Dole and her cronies. We are NOT anti-religion simply for wanting to be part of the political process or have equal rights/standing. That was what I was objecting to from the beginning.

Whilst we may be only wanting to get rid of special privileges and put everyone on a level playing field the fact is that such a thing will probably end religion (not instantly, but over several generations). There are also some of us who hold the likelihood of secularisation killing religion as a reason to favour it.

The previous civil rights fights, e.g. women's lib, racial equality, gay rights; weren't between those who were inherently opposed to each other nor could either side change into the other (reparative 'therapy' quackery notwithstanding) but in the case of equal rights for atheists that very much is the case.

There is always honesty, many of us are directly anti-religious and we do want the right to be anti-religious and to try to persuade the religious to give up their religion.

I too would like to see people give up their religions, but only because they continually keep fighting wars over who has the better god and feel compelled to try and compel me to believe as they do. This is quite a different thing though from the "anti-religion" that is being talked about by Dole and her cronies. We are NOT anti-religion simply for wanting to be part of the political process or have equal rights/standing. That was what I was objecting to from the beginning.

"We can't predict the future with certainty but it does look very unlikely that we won't win the culture war (though a wounded animal is most dangerous, or at least that's what the saying says)."

Maybe, but I think it's safe to start thinking about the next culture right now.

Also bestonnet,

"How am I meant to know?"

That wasn't a question particularly directed at you, just merely laying the groundwork for us to start thinking about what would happen next: what will change, what allies in the previous set of culture wars would become rivals, what will be the central issues of the new culture wars, etc...?

I have my own ideas, but I'd like to know what others think before voicing them...

If they are just a decade or two away from collapse into irrelevence, only a miracle (ex. the rise of another Constantine) can save them - thus this culture war is all but won.

We can't predict the future with certainty but it does look very unlikely that we won't win the culture war (though a wounded animal is most dangerous, or at least that's what the saying says).

Christopher:

My question is this: what will the next culture war be when the religious radicals are gone (or at least reduced to impotence)?

How am I meant to know?

OMGF:

Of course they do. So, do we let them frame the argument (oh no, not the dreaded framing) and vilify us, or do we stand up for ourselves and tell it like it is? If we simply agree that we are anti-religious, then why should they not feel threatened?

There is always honesty, many of us are directly anti-religious and we do want the right to be anti-religious and to try to persuade the religious to give up their religion.

Besides, the Overton window does need to be moved towards the anti-religious position.

To whom it may concern in the Elizabeth Dole campaign,

My name is Shannon M. Singleton and I am an organizer for a local atheist group in Phoenix, AZ and I wanted to inform you that I took offense to your press release regarding the proposed actions of Kay Hagan, Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in North Carolina. In your press release, you stated:

“Kay Hagan does not represent the values of this state; she is a Trojan Horse for a long list of wacky left-wing outside groups bent on policies that would horrify most North Carolinians if they knew about it,” [Communications Director Dan] McLagan said. “This latest revelation of support from anti-religion activists will not sit well with the 90% of state residents who identify with a specific religious faith.”

Excuse me? The Secular Coalition of America is a group "bent on policies that would horrify most North Carolinians"??? You specifically (and correctly) state that the purpose of the Secular Coalition is:

"the national lobby for atheists, humanists, freethinkers and other nontheistic Americans with the unique mission of protecting their civil rights.” (Secular Coalition For America, Press Release, 1/16/08)

And you are right... the coalition is there specifically to protect our civil rights!! Can you imagine the backlash you would receive if you were chastising Mrs Hagan for associating with the 10% section of the population who refer to themselves as Jews? Or African Americans? You would be run out of town with such bigotted commentary such as that!

But alas we still live in a country where the last unprotected minority are those sad, few non-believers who want nothing more than fair treatment in this great nation. However as the days go by, more and more of us are willing to stand up and speak out to let people like you know that we are not going to take this anymore.

For your actions, I have made a donation to Kay Hagan's campaign in the hopes of unseating you from your position as representative of your state in this country that stands for freedom and equality. I have also notified the 430 members in my group of the situation and have asked them to do the same (if they so desire).

I hope that next time you will not disregard the impact that you can have by dismissing a proud, patriotic group of Americans simply because they do not believe in the same god as you do.

Thank you for your time,
--
-Shannon M. Singleton-
Organizer - The Phoenix Atheists Meetup Group
http://atheists.meetup.com/157

So I wanted to thank you for informing me of this, I hope to make quite an impact!!

As to your other point, yes, in the sense that I think that religion is wrong and delusional and dangerous, I'm anti-religious, just as I'd be considered anti-anything else that is wrong, delusional, and dangerous. But, I'm not anti-religious in the sense implied here. I'm not looking to disenfranchise anyone, nor force them to disbelieve in god. In fact, if believers could stop trying to run my life and foist their beliefs on me (which is a side-effect of their special privilege in most cases) I could care less if they believe in some sky fairy.

"Pretty much it (though we haven't won the war on Christmas yet).

They're outnumbered by the non-religious (who are growing much faster than they are), the nominally religious are starting to hate them and it's starting to look like atheists will have the influence within the democratic party in a couple of decades they have within the republican party now. They have good reason to be afraid (as they'll end up irrelevant in a couple of decades)."

If they are just a decade or two away from collapse into irrelevence, only a miracle (ex. the rise of another Constantine) can save them - thus this culture war is all but won.

My question is this: what will the next culture war be when the religious radicals are gone (or at least reduced to impotence)?