The 'outspoken nature' of the atheist/agnostic/rationalist community has been in dominance since at least the middle of the 1970s in mainstream media and academia. I don't particularly care if people are religious or not; scientists or not; rationalists or not. what i can not stomach is the way that much of this debate on what is essentially a personal belief is being handled by the likes of Richard Dawkins and his followers in a sort of semi-religious frenzy and they can not see that they are perpetuating the very things they so readily criticise in religion. Dawkins went so far as to suggest that belief in a religion should disqualify a scientist from holding a publicly funded post in a debate on the BBC two years ago; I had a staff member who was Catholic and studying biology who was repeatedly bullied by one of her professors because she refused to toe the line on religion in his lectures. Yet when challenged that they are turning their beliefs into a pseudo-religion they invariably point back to this big concept of 'science' in terms that would make a God blush. The history of science is littered with frauds and deceits and dishonesty; yet the average person is encouraged to treat it in much the same way the Catholic Church expected to be treated in the middle ages.
Objections to global warming theories as presented by the IPCC and based on climategate are dismissed as nitpicking; but if the main organisation responsible for the main model on which the IPCC bases so many of its predictions is found to have perpetrated a campaign of dishonesty that not only blocks counter-arguments and evidence but 'tweaks' the evidence in its favour, how is this nitpicking? It turns out that many of the most advanced physics theories rely on the notion that only 5% of the universe is matter; the rest is either dark matter or dark energy for which we have no evidence and no justification other than that the theories don't work unless you have that 95% of unkown and unproveable (currently) dark 'stuff'. I dabble in it and study it as well as a novice is able to but I am constantly astonished that we are advised to 'take it on faith' that it is there by scientists who take a swipe at religion for undertaking much the same reasoning in their forwards and introductions.
non-religious civil libertarians are pushing for bills of rights in many countries at the moment, the one connecting feature that they are blatantly anti-religious. yet the whole modern regime and ideas of the rights of man and human rights was built in the aftermath of, and to prevent the recurrence of, the greatest religious progrom in world history- the Holocaust. yet not only is it fashionable to paint religions as being in opposition to this idea but it is also fashionable to make sure that religious freedom is not only ignored but impinged at every turn. The new Victorian(Aust) Abortion Law Reform Act not only removes religious and personal objections as reasons for refusing to refer patients for abortions but now makes it illegal to refuse to perform such procedures or prescribe such medicines. This was illegal under pre-existing legal frameworks but is now legal under the Charter of Citizen Rights.
Communists used science and the inescapable march of history to justify the imposition of their regime- regardless of how that is viewed, the fact remains that they used science and in science's name their victims died- just as the Nazis did. Of course their views of science were warped and can be dismissed as pseudo-science- just as we should dismiss the religiosity of people performing the same acts in the name of God(s). There were millions of communists who genuinely believed that they were creating a better world for the people; just as there are millions of religious people who believe the same thing of their own religion. And the vast majority of these people will do no harm in their lives and live out their lives if not exactly as Marx or God wanted then at least aspiring to the idea that their good works will make a better world. To condemn them for the actions of a tiny minority is an injustice equal to anything that is perpetrated by that minority.
Believe or not; disbelieve or not. It does not matter to me. But I am sick and tired of this culture's love affair with passionate extremists dictating not only the terms of the debate but the idea that there is no achievement in Human History that is not fundamentally flawed and worthless and evil because there is some objection to it on the grounds that it is pro-religion or anti-religion or pro-right or pro-left. We are stuck in a society that paints moderation and compromise as weak and evil and the refuge of cowards; so much so that we can no longer solve any problem that we are faced with. Perpetuating this debate in the terms of the original post is not going to convince anyone of anything; it is simply going to further delineate the debate and make it that much harder to reach a compromise that, even if it does not make everybody happy, at least satisfies the needs of the majority.