I'm more prone to agree with Richard Dawkins. We should show open contempt for religion as far as it attempts to interfere with proven scientific realities. Any politician who participates in such legislation should be challenged on every level.

If politicians wish to believe in the absurd, they should have to do so in private. Just like the politician would have to do who still believes that a teddy or blanky, or magic underwear will keep them safe, or an actual belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.

We should challenge any politician on every level if he or she claims to believe that fairy tales are actually true while simultaneously challenging hard proven, evidence-based realities of actual science. This is not acceptable and reasonable Americans should not tolerate it.

"We should show open contempt for religion"

Do that and you are guaranteed to fail and if you do then you will deserve to fail. Hostility is a rather poor way to win friends or influence enemies. It is merely a sign of an ignorant and childish political strategy to believe that you can win elections by being arrogant, bullying and abusive to your opponents.

I'm confused. Should it be private or should you question them? We can't have it both ways, can we?

@ Kelly the Kid. --- If you can't figure out how to talk with someone about their religion without being contemptuous of them, as VanGelder apparently cannot or chooses not to, then you really should not be arguing religion at all.

Kelly, What you missed is that the time to question them is when their religion is no longer just a private affair and begins to interfere with their legislative behavior. As long as they follow the sentiments that JFK made so clear in his speech that Frothy made fun of, anyone in a position of political power in the US (or anywhere, for that matter) must not let the dogma of their personal religion interfere with their public duties. E.g., when someone like Santorum tries to legislate against contraception because his religion forbids it, then you question it. As long as he keeps it to himself, then it's his problem.

Chris is his own exceptional, brilliant and articulate person. Bill Moyers certainly has my respect but I wouldn't necessarily want to link them in that manner. Interesting idea but ...

Also, the fact that Chris' show is a weekend special is something I truly appreciate and enjoy. For one thing, there are few shows of that ilk on the weekend. He fills a very necessary niche in that respect. I would hate to spread him thin over the week(though he does a spectacular job when guest hosting). Besides which, Rachel Maddow provides that degree of intelligent discourse throughout the week. Perhaps in time, as Chris' show evolves, but for now, this is to my mind is the best possible arrangement.

I thought it was an honest and candid statement. Given the history of scientific knowledge, I think they are wise to say what they did. A scientific fact is something which is current and may, depending on developments in the field, be subsequently found not to be the fact we thought it to be.

The same is true with an examination of what the Bible says. Should we blame scientists for misrepresenting it the same way we criticize Cchristians? Each is it's own field, but the process of learning remains the same, I think.

Richard Dawkins wasn't a guest.......

Science is also responsible for much evil in the world, such as the atom bomb, global warming, industrialization, and contaminated air, food & water for many around the globe.

Kelly, your religion is showing. Don't blame science for deciding to destroy two civilian populations with atomic bombs and several others with "conventional"
weapons, don't blame science for developing weapons of mass destruction, and it is absolutely ridiculous to blame science for global warming and the contaminated environment. These evils were visited on us by nonscientists who had the reins of power in their grubby little hands.

Scientists were the ones that started screaming back in the 50's about the problems of global warming, pollution, etc. You religionists are the ones who have been in denial of the problems and have been depending on your supernatural protector to save you from the follies of your own doing.

Actually, Unitarian Universalist churches fill the need for a community/social structure for athiests very well. While not all UUs are athiests, it is a welcoming "religious" home for deep thinkers of all stripes. A recent activity during a service at my UU church revealed that well over half the congregation identified as athiest/humanist/freethinker. We are a smart and compassionate, tight-knit community of people who are committed to walking the walk when it comes to social justice, respecting and supporting each others' personal spiritual journeys, and being there in community in times of need and in times of celebration. We need more non-believers who feel disconnected to come together in communities like this in order for our collective voice to be heard and to put an end to the notion that atheisim = ostracism. You really should check us out.

I was a member of LRY hanging out with congregants of the Unitarian church up until I was in my thirties. Actually Liz, I am referring mostly to the one over at the Unitarian church in Wedgewood across from the library (on 35th NE if I recall correctly).

It seems to me that the UU folks can fill the community/social structure role that Liz states, offering a big tent for large numbers of people who can't relate to more traditional churches. I'd like to hear the perceptions of agnostic or atheists about UU or similar spiritual organizations filling that role.

I have found the UU congregations are highly idiosyncratic, so if one UU church doesn't seem at all right try a few others before giving up on them. One complaint is that by virtue of their openness, it is difficult to feel a sense of common church identity, and spiritual rigor. I am not a Unitarian, but in their defense to that particular complaint I would say that the sense of commonality in churches with tighter doctrinal constraints is for the most part an illusion. A comforting illusion, but I personally don't regard comfort as something that religion is for.

All organization is the enemy of goodness. That's why I gave up organized religion. Social organizations depend upon consensus for an orderly arrangement to bolster a cause. That seems, to me, antithetical to true atheism. Maybe I'm wrong.

Is organized activism the enemy of goodness? Was the organization of large numbers of protesters in Gandhi's and Martin Luther King's resistance to oppression the "enemy of goodness"?

If you want to say, rigid organization, I am with you, but superorganisms like bees, Zuccotti park, or Gandhi's decentralized movement have an organization to them too. At the risk of mis anticipating the theme of Hayes' book, superorganism type organisation represent a way of engaging society in this twilight world of the elites.

Perhaps rigid organization is a more accurate way to say it, but I'm not entirely certain. Organizations always begin less rigid than the way they end up if individuals go along with something they disapprove of for the sake of peace and order amongst the many. So far, Occupy has resisted the kind of co-opting which the tea party caved in to for the sake of expediency. Anytime a person or group of persons come along and say 'this is how it ought to be if we are to be effective at changing the status quo' all bets are off. Certainly those temptations have been faced by the Occupy movement, mostly from select media personalities; thus far, they have resisted. Thank God :p

"Everyone and everything is, and exists as Spirit"

Saying things doesn't make them so.

Teaching the controversy is not the way to go on every topic, actually.

I would hope that for once, we could avoid the religious perspective.

I appreciated the fact that the panel was purely atheistic. The show did a nice job of demonstrating how diverse atheists are on matters of focus and message.

Yes, that was fine, but really it was not that diverse. Atheism is really a poor term isn't it? It's anti something. When people in polls self identify with a religion, what does that mean? Are they saying they feel a cultural proximity due to their background with the activities around a particular religion? Because for even regular church goers, that is what it functionally is- a king of club where you put on funny hats and say weird things as a kind of initiation rite. Before we go any farther, understand I make this uncomplimentary characterization as a devout Christian of my fellow parishioners. We often make this self criticism.

Anyway, in its kind of round about way of defining what it was against, the panelists lampooned various absurd ideas, in particular focusing on the fundamentatlist notion of a personal relationship with an old guy in the sky who knows all about you, and is intimately involved in every aspect of your life.

But really this is about being against nontheistic religions like Buddhism as well. It's nothing personal- it is against what motivated Frederick Douglas, Gandhi and Martin Luther King. It's against any normative moral views based on religion.

There is an enormous number of things to talk about and you have just two hours. What kind of a discussion do you want to have?

There was a focus on atheism and its relation to politics. Ok fine. If one is against moral systems laid on the foundation of a religious metaphysics, are we saying that there will be another moral system based on some metaphysics, or other non religious ontological view.

Ok- where is a coherent moral system whose adherents regularly meet, who form coherent social groups and occasionally mobilize in significant numbers to take political action?

The very beginning of the show pointed to this irony of lack of common identity. People don't put atheist or agnostic in their list for self identity, because it is like defining yourself by what you are not. You could have an atheism show that would fall into a trap- spending all of your time talking about religion because you are saying that is what you don't believe in.

To be progressive, are we against closely aligning with any moral system with associated organised groups that consider some behaviors evil? Are we saying in the rejection of religion we are against any such substitute that fills that social role?

It is completely fair to push the discussion of particular religions to the side. Where I get uneasy is staying away from any consideration of substitutions for what religions are for, and what functions they have filled. If answering science questions such as where we came from and whether we are entitled to rape the earth is all religions have done, then perhaps nothing more than more empiricism and more science is required in our politics.

Seems to me the panelists set for themselves a low bar.

I think social secularization would be healthy for our country's policies and laws. It would certainly help increase Revenues.

I am appalled at the current religion-cloaked, chauvinistic, and misogynistic intent of some to discriminate against women in our society and our laws. Obviously callousness and empathy are human traits unrelated to religion or good governance.

With adequate funding and provision of social support services, expanded education, decreased excessive funding for war machinery/industry, I think a nation could better extend service with the use of public funds through gov't than those relegated through religious charity and its Public subsidies of tax exemption, public grants, funding to schools, hospitals, etc.

As the preacher noted, the most "religious" states provide the least to those in need. And they wildly discriminate against those not approved by their churches, or those who do not share their ethnicity or race. The religious give to their churches. The "blue" states pay more taxes than they receive in support while the "red" states take more in return than they contribute.

The "higher call to service" also exists in the public sector of employment. Just as in religious organizations, some exhibit greater dedication to the idea of service than others.

I also think that sharing is a natural human behavior, and that the notion of "giving" is encouraged through family or institutional indoctrination. Social responsibility can be enhanced through secular or non-secular institutions. I don't donate money, I donate my time and energy to effect the non-profit work. Are "in-kind" and labor donations included in the surveys?

Who looks to gov't to fill spirit? Gov't is a management tool and vehicle for facilitating social order as per guiding documents. Spirit is personal. Isn't that the whole reason underlying the wisdom of the separation of state and church?

Are you certain progressives are thinking one-dimensionally about the religious, or has it just boiled down to this widely accepted conclusion after all these years and the overt displays of aggressive power in politics enacted by the religious? The laws are social attacks with measurable costs and damages to only one gender of citizen.

The belligerents in the current fiasco are not the irreligious. Congress continues to ignore important business such as income/job creation, institutionalized injustice, extreme downward mobility, and lack of representation for the wider populace.

In Congress it appears to be the unholy alliance of Business and Religion. At the state level, citizens are actively losing the protection of the law and their civil rights, their homes, possessions, health care, education, income stability, etc.

As a progressive, the policies, appropriations, or laws I support would work to provide and assure greater benefit than damage to anyone or anything else. That is my understanding of the common good.

I appreciate your comments here. They're thought-provoking.

Without going into details, my personal belief is in moral systems based on rich literature. I feel close spiritual and political affinity with theists and nontheists who share those values and have that grounding in rich narrative.

Those who point out to me that my religion is just literature receive a blank look. Yes exactly. But I take issue with the word "just".

Providing rich behavioral schemas for normative thought and action are essential for moral systems. To reinforce, encourage and perpetuate understanding of a particular moral system, those who cleave to the moral system meet regularly and discuss how it relates to their personal lives. This activity does not require a religion. Are progressives saying that the activity I describe is inherently bad for society? On the contrary, I think it is an effective way of changing people's hearts.

There is no question these systems and associated institutions have always been perverted and corrupted for other ends. It seems to me that there is no immunity gained from those forces of corruption simply by inventing new narratives that are more closely aligned with current science.

That's not to say I am against people who believe in social secularization who want to create a non religion based substitute moral system complete with a social component. It was Jacoby (again) who raised the point that this secularization need not mean absence of spirituality. So I am completely for that and good luck to those engaging in such an endeavor.

I am pointing out that any such future institution and system will be just as corruptible and guilty of the same excesses and hypocrisy you listed as associated with religion. Erase religion and you will be back in the same boat.

One view is that politicians are either sincere in their professions of faith, or that they do so as a necessary political chore. No progressive should be standing up professing spiritual beliefs they do not hold. Sincerely though, I think the faith that Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Obama professed was genuine, and that they were intelligent enough men to understand that their religion does not require them to be culturally, scientifically, emotionally, or intellectually bigoted.

Quite the opposite.

Unlike the pastor who converted to atheism, the irony is that the transformative figure of our time- Obama- went the other direction. Some might claim that the religious view I alluded to at the beginning of this note are not especially mainstream. Well, if you think religion is only for what Dawkins says it is for, then either you believe Obama is lying about his faith or he checks his brains at the door when he says he values consideration of the truth of stories of people being swallowed by whales, a great flood killing all life on earth, virgin birth, people walking on water, and so on and so forth.

The three meanings to the term secular I listed above were essentially: 1) blind to religion. 2) neutral to religion 3) hostile to religion. From both sides, the extremists habitually lead and subvert the debate by conflating all meanings as #3. Its not what the Turks believe nor what Obama advocates. The example he points to is that a devout Jew, Christian and Muslim holds the story of Abraham in high esteem, yet every one of them, upon seeing a man about to kill his son would at the very least contact the authorities and expect them to take his son away from him.

It goes to reconciling personal beliefs with common action. Though we may believe in the truth of what Abraham saw, we must take action if we do not see what Abraham sees. That is a principle and meaning of secularism that we ought to all be able to agree to. One extremists like to imagine is hostile to religion, but in fact is nothing of the kind.

"He knows in his heart that the world will only move forward, if everyone grows up"

How does arrogance and smug condescension help the world to "grow up?

How do vicious personal attacks and ad homs make the world a better place?

How does advocating torture, as Sam Harris does, or taking children away from their parents, as Dawkins advocates, or calling for war against Islam, as Hitchens did, make us more kind and peaceful towards others?

Please let me know how that is supposed to work.

Chris Hayes made it very clear that he is a Catholic and not an atheist. And I am so tired of listening to discussion programs where it is assumed that everyone believes in God. Aren't you believers secure enough to let non-believers have a measly 2 hours to discuss their opinions?

I'm sorry you felt this way about Sundays show. Did you not read the title of it? It was about Atheists not Christians. I'm glad there are more of us not afraid of saying that we are "free thinkers". There was I time when I didn't admit it because I was afraid of what others might think of me. Now I don't care. It's what I believe and may not be what defines me, but it is a part of who I am. So... Thank you Chris, the panel, and the rest of the free thinkers in the world.

It's unfortunate that there isn't more diverse discussion in media as a general rule. It's easy to forget that we are not all religious because there's so much focus on the subject and its practitioners in the last few decades.

There are many of us who are not religious. We don't talk about it because it is an inconsequential aspect of our lives unless we're talking with religious people. We don't habitually gather in large groups. We don't raise funds for one predominant institution. In my case, I don't advertise my agnosticism because it doesn't matter to anyone else. It is my personal thinking. I don't hide it. I don't fraternize with religious people much. It just doesn't come up. People know me by how I behave and what I say.

I defend the right of people to be religious if they want as long as they don't hurt, or try to force their religion on, others. I'm very disturbed by the "crusader" mentality of some people, churches, groups, and political personalities these days. I don't think it's healthy for our society as a whole. I don't want to live under laws based in religious dogma.

As a citizen, I am duty bound to reject religious involvement in governance.

Well, where is the dividing line?

William Jennings Bryan was a pillar of the liberal wing of the democratic party at the turn of the century standing against the imperialist/millitarist tendencies of Teddy Roosevelt. He also championed trust busting.

You may also recall his name because he argued the side of fundamentalists in the Scopes trial.

He used religious rhetoric for liberal causes, including income inequality. Here for example is a statement on his position taken from "Cross of Gold" speech at the democratic convention. The position may sound familiar:

There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them. You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard; we reply that the great cities rest upon our broad and fertile prairies.

Bryan would make laws based on religious dogma, and he sought to motivate people politically by appealing to the moral sensibilities and specific doctrines and language forming a deep moral foundation for his position. He mobilized large numbers of people as did MLK because he spoke to their moral system.

MLK also desired creating laws based on religious dogma.

The difference is that we must find a common justification for the laws independent of appeals to particular religious positions we do not all share. Isn't that really a more fair minded way of putting what you are getting at?

Late response because I just saw the show tonight ...

I agree slightly: a token theist would have been nice -- maybe would have made a better discussion. But I'm not offended (though I'm a Christian).

I liked the show more than I thought I would. Dawkins confirmed again that he's an obnoxious prick, oh well. But I really liked Chris's insistence on the importance of the fact that we all rely heavily on authority for our understanding of the world -- it's so true & implies a lot about why Dawkins is wrong in advocating mockery of those he disagrees with.

In response to another commenter: Chris made it clear he's an atheist who grew up Catholic.

I'd rather hang around atheists like this panel than hang around with most Christians I know, that's for sure.

It seems to me the format of this site creates distortions. This particular discussion as well as many many others on UP! is not topical, and does not deserve to to be buried. It scrolls of the top of the page into inexistence.

I share your feeling about being around atheisists versus being around Christians, but where I live, there is no easy correlation between whether a person takes a poetic view of reality versus a dogmatically literalistic one. You get both sorts among the a-"religious" versus the "religious". I make a distinction between those who embrace the religious experience versus those a-"religious" and "religious" who shun it. There is something similarly rapturous about what a physicist feels when grasping the beautiful simplicity and power of an equation and what the monk feels when coming to an understanding of a profound truth about humanity in the writings of a long dead scholar. Besides these experiences, it has to do with a persistent stance towards self and the world. A willingness to embrace insights that contradict your preconceptions, and determination to pursue and confront the facts a situation especially when they don't swing your way.

The literalists both among the "religious" and the a-"religious" are doggedly determined to erect towers of narcissism, with buttresses of dogma to defend their self-obsessive sociopathic behaviors and self congratulatory bigotry about the superiority of their world view.

I don't have much objection to not having a "theist" on the panel, but I didn't see much depth to the conversation. There could have been some and I would like to see some more stabs at this sort of discussion. If more was said along some of the lines of inquiry that Jacoby initiated, much more progress could have been made. An entire block could have been devoted to the stupidity of making an equivalency between secularism and atheism that the extremists on both end of the spectrum encourage.

Harumph. Up! gets 2 points for trying, but really this could have been much better.