The point the priest was trying to make was that no matter how long someone lives for, we should thank god for that life. Translating this into Atheist speak simply means we should acknowledge and , depending on what they have done; celebrate, what someone has done in life.

Of course this all breaks down when the god you are thanking had the power to prevent someone's premature death but did not, as happened here. Some people, like the priest, would even say that such a death and the associated suffering is part of god's plan.

I have always like the term Homophobia to describe more than just a prejudice that extends to a fear because some people really are scared of Gay and Lesbian people especially straight men being scared of Gay men. Part of the fear and the attendant prejudice comes from a subconscious or sometimes conscious imagining of what Gay men do together and then imagining doing the same thing themselves. This produces an associated 'ick' response. I don't have a problem with this until such a response is extended to action to infringe upon or limit the rights of Gay and Lesbian people be it the parent who renders homeless their son or daughter, the mob that is violent or the church and government that denies Gays and Lesbians the right to get married.

This is the classic "power plus prejudice" paradigm.

With Islamophobia there are similar fears based on them taking over the world, country or whatever but these fears are based far more on ignorance than a reaction to what's going on in bedrooms and are thus more difficult to understand and much easier to viscerally react to in the form of fear.

However, I think both of these phobias and their associated prejudices are well enough understood for the subject of this and the previous blog postings to really be word games concerning how things are labelled.

My recent post The Moral Obligation of Christians

It must have been a message from god telling you that he doesn't exist!
My recent post The Moral Obligation of Christians

I am from the UK and it has taken most of my lifetime (I am 46) for the UK government, of every party, to change people's attitudes toward drink driving from it being something good, manly even where you would laugh at the concept of a designated driver to what it is now: seen as wrong and irresponsible. It has taken this long to convince people that behavior which results in killing people is not good.

The reason it worked (and they are now trying the same thing with urban speeding) was not through education or punishment but because over time it was sanctioned by the very people whose behavior was trying to be changed. The same has to happen with Atheism. I don't mean the hard core Christians because, like hard core drinkers they will not change (and the similarities to addiction do not stop there). I mean the fence sitters who will hopefully not just take the position of being an Atheist but will give permission for those who, while still fence sitting, are a little more towards the extreme.

Once these inroads start to be made then maybe we will see more change from within the non-extreme religious community that may continue deeper towards those that are more extreme.

This can only happen when the non-Atheists give each other permission to do so.
My recent post The Moral Obligation of Christians

"Slade"?...???

"As I grew up and got more into music..."

...Phew! (I'm a Brit, I know about them!)
My recent post The Moral Obligation of Christians

Again, excuse my ignorance here but I assumed the tradition was to be thankful of reality based phenomena. In the example and indeed picture associated with the posting should not thanks be given to the person who prepared the meal? to the people around the table for all they have contributed to you? It would be a little more diffuse to give thanks for wider, but real things like getting a promotion, doing well at school, winning a lottery etc and maybe when it is harder to find another person to thank for something, then people default to god to give thanks to. Personally, I am not thankful for anything for which I cannot give thanks to myself or another person and I try to make it my business to give such thanks when I recognize that it is deserved.

Thanks you for your comment!
My recent post The Moral Obligation of Christians

Anti-harassment policies are like school bullying policies: those that don't have them often don't so because they pretend that bullying is not a problem in their school and conclude that they do not need such a policy. Bullying takes place in all schools and sexual harassment always happens in large organizations where men are in the majority. It also happens in smaller organizations and even where men are not in the majority but the atheist movement, to the extent that it is an organization, is male dominated and therefore requires anti-harassment policies.

This should not be a problem in the same way that policies against stealing should not be. The only difference being that an individual organization will not declare such a policy because it is the law of the land.

I remember when I was about ten years old and walking into a village grocery shop where the shopkeeper had placed signs reading "Do not steal. OK?" along the shelves with candy on. I was quite affronted by this as I took it as an accusation, or at the very least an assumption that I would steal, or had stolen and was therefore guilty by association with those that had.

For some people the same thing applies to anti-harassment policies. There should be so debate over whether harassment is wrong but for some, the existence of the policy is an implied accusation they would do it. The irony here, of course, is that such harassment has been occurring and I expect the perpetrators won't care whether there are anti-harassment policies or not because they would not pay any attention to them anyway.
My recent post A Cure for Autism

Schools would defend the suspension of two fighting students, even if one is clearly a victim defending themselves, by saying that it should not have got this far in the first place. To take the example of a victim of bullying defending themselves, the school would say that they should have reported this bullying before it had escalated so far so it could be dealt with there and then.

The corollary in the blogging world would be for the blogger to constantly monitor all of the comments on their blog or to act on minor reported infractions; both clearly impractical.

Taking your example of same-sex marriage, there are plenty of secular reasons that people object to it ranging from a gut reaction of "Ugh! Icky!" to less emotional, but equally invalid arguments concerning parenting and children. The welfare of kids is always invoked by someone wanting to get your agreement because everyone agrees that their welfare is paramount (cute, innocent and all that) regardless of whether the issue at hand (same sex marriage in this example) has any effect on them.

Would it be too much of an assumption to say that most Atheists vote democrat in general elections?