These women tend to be traditional women to begin with unlike skeptics and likely have men as the primary “breadwinners” in their households. Therefore the money issue does not affect them the same. Religious groups and crafting may be seen as “required” to them.

That is- if you consider misogyny douche-y;

Really? Really?

Here’s a few choice comments from the religious leaders:

“Most of these feminists are radical, frustrated lesbians, many of them, and man-haters, and failures in their relationships with men, and who have declared war on the male gender. The Biblical condemnation of feminism has to do with its radical philosophy and goals. That’s the bottom line.” – Rev. Jerry Falwell

“The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.” – Rev. Pat Robertson

Don’t get me wrong, I found Hitchens Vanity Fair article about why women aren’t funny, to be a bunch of sexist nonsense.
However, these religious leaders are responsible for untold horrors around the world. Don’t get me started about the Catholic Church, the Islamic governments in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Anti Palestinian Israelis and the Anti Israeli Palestinians. When it comes to being douche-y these people are in a totally different league!

Maybe women are overlooked in the skeptic community because we’ve been sold this cocky “boys club” Bill Maher version of anti-religion while he snidely laughs (along with everything else he doesn’t agree with) at an age old system of explaining that which was unanswerable in a chaotic, disease-ridden, violent time. Religion may have been the cause of much suffering but has communism, capitalism, humanism been that gentle and lenient? Wherever you have people involved you will find corruption, injustice and brutality. Think what you will, but in an ever-increasingly consumerist world, maintenance of the soul is becoming a quickly evaporating activity.

Atheists however are an easy scapegoat without question in this country. (10 states actually include faith based questions on their civil service exams to bar agnostics and the like from holding public office) Have you been privy to some caliber of e-mails being sent around warning of this “atheist takeover” and always closing with “THIS NATION IS UNDER GOD, SPEAK ENGLISH OR GET OUT!!! DUHHHH. LOLZ!”? No matter how advanced our society gets, the barbarians seem to be always at the door. This country worships the God we trust on our money and, sadly, that’s about it.

A lot of what they work on is how to frame discussions about how morality doesn’t depend on a supernatural/religous worldview.

I’ll leave it at that – the website has plenty of info. Oh, and they are attempting to keep the name “Bright” free of association with the adjective “bright” – _not_ trying to imply that Brights are more intelligent than those who practice a religion. I don’t know that I agree it was the best choice of name, but that ship has sailed.

I happen to think it’s very important for non-theists to talk about their lack of belief, science, why you don’t need “god” to live a moral life, etc. So much of public policy (in the U.S. and elsewhere) is based on superstition and the dogma of one particular faith. If we are to maintain any separation between church and state, those of us who do not believe in god (or who do but don’t want it influencing politics) must speak out and advocate for reality-based policies.

I was actually just reading an essay by Dawkins, in which he pokes holes in the creationists’ “god of the gaps” theory and a couple other tactics they use when pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. It’s important to understand how to refute their arguments if we are to gain any victories on that front, for example.