I see the role of "atheist" much in the same way as I am a "non smoker." I was subjected to cigarette smoke against my will for many years, and when I protested I met defensive and angry put-downs. Now that that worm has turned, I insist that smokers take it elsewhere and not intrude on my space. The same with bible-thumpers.

Resisting the status quo doesn't make you militant or strident. Speaking your mind and making your preferences known is just that. If religious folk see that as militant, that is THEIR problem.

I've only glanced at the article, but the lines "I now draw a sharp line, based not on what exactly they believe but on their level of dogmatism. I consider dogmatism a far greater threat than religion per se" ring true.

This paragraph, though, is as far as one seems to need to read: "Religion looms as large as an elephant in the United States, to the point that being nonreligious is about the biggest handicap a politician running for office can have, bigger than being gay, unmarried, thrice married, or black. This is upsetting, of course, and explains why atheists have become so vocal in demanding their place at the table. They prod the elephant to see whether they can get it to make some room. But the elephant also defines them, because what would be the point of atheism in the absence of religion?"

A philosophy of life without reference to the judeo-christian or other industrial religions is entirely possible - as long as you don't let them control the discussion and define the terms. Humans are superstitious - chances are there has been some form of religion in most cultures going back a very long time. For many people today a combination of ethics and science takes care of how they deal with others and provides answers to how things work. Those people are observant of nature and the world around them and think about it without reference to a supernatural god. Philosophers come in all stripes, some are religious. Most of those I know or know of, aren't. Every so often some holy-roller comes to my door and wants to bring me into their fold. On the times that I have actually engaged them in any kind of conversation, I've suggested we drop the scripture they want to use to define the conversation and instead use the writings of some of the important 20th century French philosophers.

SRS