Doing battle with the religious right is part of the job description for secular activists.  We defend church-state separation, oppose efforts to inject theology into public policy, and remind conservatives that America is a pluralistic society where diversity, not Christianity, is the glue that holds us all together.

That's why it's especially frustrating to see liberals - people who should know better - attacking atheists for committing the mortal sin of, well, being open about their atheism.  Irrational prejudice, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religious views, is synonymous with ignorance.  As such, if someone is irrationally hostile and discriminatory towards atheists, they should be exposed for their ignorance.  Therefore, let me do so here:  Thom Hartmann, despite his claimed liberal credentials, demonstrates little more than ignorant prejudice in his views toward atheist activism.

Hartmann, despite his progressive views and pleasant demeanor, is obsessed with the notion that whenever atheists assert themselves publicly they are being militant, or, even worse, they are proving that "atheism is a religion."  For the latest example, see this interview, where he accused me and the AHA of being as bad as fundamentalists when we merely propose having a National Day of Reason:

Keep in mind that all we are proposing is a Day of Reason, but Hartmann seems convinced that this is evidence of atheism run amuck.  If there is any doubt about Hartmann's views being little more than an irrational bias against atheists, then consider this: Would Hartmann be so irritated if a "Day of Reason" were proposed by, say, the Union of Concerned Scientists?  Or the National Center for Science Education?

Hartmann obviously suffers from a deeply ingrained prejudice against atheists, so much so that he naturally assumes that any activism conducted by atheists must be militant, a sort of secular fundamentalism. This is too bad, because there is nothing "fundamentalist" about most of the activism being conducted nowadays by humanist and atheist organizations, which spend most of their resources trying to encourage critical thinking and familiarize the public with the notion of secular (i.e nonreligious) values.  

Hartmann would no doubt claim that he has nothing against atheists, perhaps even that many of his friends are nonbelievers (after all, he is a liberal!), but that he has a distaste for open assertion of religious views. What he doesn't realize is that society's prejudice against humanists and atheists (evidenced by his own discomfort with open atheism) is a major obstacle to achieving progressive public policy.

The AHA and other secular groups aren't trying to "convert" believers into nonbelievers, but we are encouraging people to be honest about their religious identification.  Many Americans have essentially naturalistic and nontheistic views, but don't identify accordingly (because, as Hartmann shows, society discourages open secular identification).  Until larger segments of society feel comfortable openly identifying as nonreligious (as in Europe, for example) the religious right will remain strong (and therefore so will conservatives). But when secular Americans are recognized and respected by the public and the media as a valid demographic category, a segment of society that has admirable values that shouldn't be ignored, the religious right will naturally be weaker, and so will the hard-right agenda.

Some liberals in the media - Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and others - seem to understand  how the vilification of atheists is really just a tactic of the conservative establishment.  Too bad Hartmann doesn't understand.